by Judith Curry
A rather astonishing conclusion drawn from reading the fine print of the IPCC AR6 WG1 Report.
Well, I’ve been reading the fine print of the IPCC AR6 WG1 Report. The authors are to be congratulated for preparing a document that is vastly more intellectually sophisticated than its recent predecessors. Topics like ‘deep uncertainty,’ model ‘fitness-for-purpose’ (common topics at Climate Etc.) actually get significant mention in the AR6. Further, natural internal variability receives a lot of attention, volcanoes a fair amount of attention (solar not so much).
If we harken back to the IPCC AR4 (2007), global climate models ruled, as exemplified by this quote:
“There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above.”
The IPCC AR4 determined its likely range of climate sensitivity values almost exclusively from climate model simulations. And its 21st century projections were determined directly from climate model simulations driven solely by emissions scenarios.
Some hints of concern about what the global climate models are producing were provided in the AR5. With regards to climate sensitivity, the AR5 included this statement in a footnote to the SPM:
“No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”
More specifically, observationally-based estimates of ECS were substantially lower than the climate model values.
Perhaps more significantly, figure 11.25 in the AR5 included a subjective red-hatched area determined from ‘expert judgment’ that the climate models were running too hot. It is noted that the projections beyond 2035 were not similarly adjusted.
IPCC AR6 – global warming
The IPCC AR6 takes what was begun in the AR5 much further.
With regards to equilibrium climate sensitivity, the AR6 breaks with the long-standing range of 1.5-4.5C and narrows the ‘likely’ range to 2.5-4.0 C. Here is how that range compares with previous estimates and also the CMIP6 models (as analyzed by Mark Zelinka):
The AR6 analysis of ECS was influenced heavily by Sherwood et al. (2020). I agree with dropping the top value down from 4.5 to 4.0C. However, I do not agree with their rationale for raising the lower value from 1.5 to 2.5C. Without going into detail on my concerns here, I note that Nic Lewis is working on an analysis of this. But the main significance of AR6’s narrower range is the lack of influence of the CMIP6 ECS values.
A substantial number of the CMIP6 models are running way too hot, which has been noted in many publications. In its projections of 21st century global mean surface temperatures, the AR6 provides ‘constrained’ projections (including climate models with reasonable values of climate sensitivity that reasonably simulate the 20th century). Figure 4.11 from the AR6 shows the magnitude of the constraints. For SSP5-8.5, the magnitude of the constrained relative to the unconstrained CMI6 is 20%.
For the first time, CMIP6 includes actual scenarios of volcanic activity and solar variability. CMIP6 includes a background level of volcanic activity (no major eruptions) and an actual projection of 21st century solar variability from Matthes (2017) (discussed previously here), although few models are up to the task of credibly handling solar indirect effects. The AR6 only considers these baseline solar and volcano scenarios; the other volcanic scenarios (shown in Figure 1, Box 4.1 of the AR6) and the Maunder minimum scenario from Matthes (2017) are surely more plausible than SSP5-8.5 and hence should have been included in the projections.
The AR6 also acknowledges the importance of natural internal variability, in many of the Chapters. CMIP6 included Single Model Initial Condition Large Ensembles (SMILEs; section 6.1.3). However, there are substantial disparities between the large-scale circulation variability in observations versus most models (IPCC AR6 Chapter 3) – decadal variability that is too strong and multi-decadal and centennial variability that is too weak. A few of the models seem to do a pretty good job, notably GFDL.
Here are the ensemble forecasts for SSP2-4.5, including the projections from the individual models, the ‘constrained’ versus ‘unconstrained’ 90% range, and the AR6 best estimate (note this image was pulled from a CarbonBrief article). The AR6 best estimate is near the lower end of the entire range; this bias doesn’t allow much scope for natural variability (particularly of the multi-decadal variety) at the lower end of the model range to truly illustrate a realistic time range as to when we might pass the 1.5 and 2C ‘danger’ thresholds.
To minimize some of the problems related to constraining the projections, there is an emphasis on assessing impacts at different levels of global warming, e.g. 2, 4 degrees C.
Regional projections
The IPCC AR6 report provides a substantial emphasis on regional climate change (Chapters 10, 12). The focus is on a distillation of diverse sources of information and multiple lines of evidence, and indirectly acknowledges that global climate models aren’t of much use for regional projections.
Climate emulators
Since the Special Report on 1.5 degrees, the IPCC has increasingly emphasized the use of climate emulators, which are highly simplified climate models (see this CarbonBrief article for an explainer) that are tuned to the results of the global general circulation model based Earth System Models. These models are very convenient for policy analysis, enabling pretty much anyone to run many different scenarios.
And there’s no reason why this general framework couldn’t be expanded to include future scenarios of warming/cooling related to volcanoes and solar, and also multi-decadal internal variability. This framework could be very useful for regional climate projections.
However, climate emulators are not physics-based models.
Are global climate models the best tools?
Text from an essay I am writing:
In the 1990’s, the perceived policy urgency required a quick confirmation of dangerous human-caused climate change. GCMs were invested with this authority by policy makers desiring a technocratic basis for their proposed policies. Shackley et al. However, both the scientific and policy challenges of climate change are much more complex than was envisioned in the 1990’s. The end result is that the climate modeling enterprise has attempted a broad range of applications driven by needs of policy makers, using models that are not fit for purpose.
Complex computer simulations have come to dominate the field of climate science and its related fields, at the expense of utilizing traditional knowledge sources of theoretical analysis and challenging theory with observations. In an article aptly titled ‘The perils of computing too much and thinking too little,’ LINK atmospheric scientist Kerry Emanuel raised the concern that inattention to theory is producing climate researchers who use these vast resources ineffectively, and that the opportunity for true breakthroughs in understanding and prediction is being diminished.
Complexity of model representation has become a central normative principle in evaluating climate models and their policy utility. However, not only are GCMs resource-intensive and intractable to interpret, they are also pervaded by over parameterization and inadequate attention to uncertainty.
The numerous problems with GCMs, and concerns that these problems will not be addressed in the near future given the current development path of these models, suggest that alternative model frameworks should be explored. We need a plurality of climate models that are developed and utilized in different ways for different purposes. For many issues of decision support, the GCM centric approach may not be the best approach. However, a major challenge is that nearly all of the resources are being spent on GCMs and IPCC production runs, with little time and funds left over for model innovations.
The policy-driven imperative of climate prediction has resulted in the accumulation of power and authority around GCMs (Shackley), based on the promise of using GCMs to set emissions reduction targets and for regional predictions of climate change. However, the IPCC is increasingly relying on much simpler models for setting emissions targets. The hope for useful regional predictions of climate change using GCMs is unlikely to be realized based on the current path of model development.
With regards to fitness for purpose of global/regional climate models for climate adaptation decision making, an excellent summary is provided by a team of scientists from the Earth Institute and Red Cross Climate Center of Columbia University:
“Climate model projections are able to capture many aspects of the climate system and so can be relied upon to guide mitigation plans and broad adaptation strategies, but the use of these models to guide local, practical adaptation actions is unwarranted. Climate models are unable to represent future conditions at the degree of spatial, temporal, and probabilistic precision with which projections are often provided which gives a false impression of confidence to users of climate change information.” (Nissan et al.)
GCMs clearly have an important role to play particularly in scientific research. However, driven by the urgent needs of policy makers, the advancement of climate science is arguably being slowed by the focus of resources on this one path of climate modeling. The numerous problems with GCMs, and concerns that these problems will not be addressed in the near future given the current development path, suggest that alternative frameworks should be explored . This is particularly important for the science-policy interface.
JC reflections
In the AR5, the emphasis was on the Earth Systems Models, and their ever growing complexity in terms of adding more chemistry and some ice sheet dynamics.
In AR6, these complex climate models are revealed for what they are: very complicated and computationally intensive toys, whose main results are dependent on fast thermodynamic feedback processes (water vapor, lapse rate, clouds) that are determined by subgrid-scale parameterizations and and the inevitable model tuning.
With the very large range of climate sensitivity values provided by the CMIP6 models, we are arguably in a period of negative learning. And this is in spite of the IPCC AR6 substantially reducing the range of ECS from the long-standing 1.5-4.5C to 2.5 to 4C (reminder: I am not buying this reduction on the low end, more on this soon).
So what are we left with?
- Global climate models (ESMs) remain an important tool for understanding how the climate system works. However, we have reached the point of diminishing returns on this unless there is more emphasis on improving the simulation of modes of internal climate variability and advancing the treatment of solar indirect effects.
- We should abandon ECS as a policy-relevant metric and work on better understanding and evaluation of TCR and TCRE from historical data.
- In context of #1, I question whether the CMIP6 ESMs have much use in attribution studies.
- ESMs have lost their utility for policy applications. Policy applications are far more usefully achieved with climate emulator models. However, the use of climate emulators distances policy making from a basis in physics. This is particularly relevant for the legal status in various climate lawsuits of 21st century climate projections and the ESMs in various climate lawsuits.
While this is hidden in the Summary for Policy Makers, it is pretty significant:
“A.1.3 The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–2019 is 0.8°C to 1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C. It is likely that well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0°C to 2.0°C, other human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0°C to 0.8°C, natural drivers changed global surface temperature by –0.1°C to 0.1°C, and internal variability changed it by –0.2°C to 0.2°C. It is very likely that well-mixed GHGs were the main driver of tropospheric warming since 1979, and extremely likely that human-caused stratospheric ozone depletion was the main driver of cooling of the lower stratosphere between 1979 and the mid-1990s.”
Compare this to the statements in the AR5 SPM:
“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.”
Overall, the AR6 WG1 report is much better than the AR5, although I remain unimpressed by their increased confidence in a narrower range of ECS.
The bottom line is that the AR6 has broken the hegemony of the global climate models. The large amount of funding supporting these models towards policy objectives just became more difficult to justify.
The projections show no sign of temperatures declining in the foreseeable future. The probability that earthlings will be able to adapt to those changes appears to be unlikely, does it not?
Rather than wasting resources in a futile attempt to correct or cope with that probability, why not concentrate on the choices to opt-out before our food webs are cooked out of existence?
On the contrary, modest continued warming will be net beneficial, as per Tol’s IAM. Moreover the only reason all the projections show warming is that the models have no provision for cooling. Nature, on the other hand does and quite a few climate scientists now predict cooling.
Name these scientist who predicted cooling.
Sorry I do not pay attention to names. I just track the reasoning. It is a fairly common prediction these days because of the solar activity.
Well, first of all who says that a temperature decline in the foreseeable future would be a good thing? The notion that our food webs will be cooked out of existence is risible. The Norse (e.g. Eric the Red) grew barley in Greenland during the medieval warm period – they’ve found residues related to brewing beer which requires malting barley (also mead). Southern Greenland was described as lush at that time. Barley best grows in clmates with mild, dry winters. As far as adaptation is concerned, consider the Netherlands. Over time the area of the Netherlands has increased in size by 40%.
Ideologues do not like facts and logic. They are so inconvenient. When reality strikes, then they conveniently run to the shelter of those who can save their butts from their own irrationality. “Climate change” leader, Germany, just increased coal imports from the U.S. by almost 300% over last year because their “green” foolishness is beginning to cost them dearly. https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/pdf/t7p01p1.pdf?
Empirical evidence indicates that global warming is likely to be beneficial for all impact sectors except sea level rise, for which the negative impacts will be very small.
Furthermore, Earth is near the beginning of a long icehouse period (i.e. period with ice at the poles) [1]. The coldest of the periods occur on about a 300 Ma cycle with less cold icehouse periods on about 150 Ma cycle [1,2]. The current icehouse began around 40 Ma ago [1] and is likely to last about 60 Ma.
Previous deep icehouse periods began about 650 Ma and 330 Ma ago. These periods are caused by periodic increases in cosmic ray flux from the Milky Way Galaxy. [2]
[1] Scotese, C.R.; Song, H.; Mills, B.J.W.; van der Meer, D.G. Phanerozoic paleotemperatures: The earth’s changing climate during the last 540 million years – Supplementary Materials. 2021. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1654vkl6b_Fy-2R_VdvcUpg4IZP4r4rqP
[2] Shaviv, N.J. The Milky Way Galaxy’s Spiral Arms and Ice-Age Epochs and the Cosmic Ray Connection. http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages
Increasing temperatures and CO2 concentrations are beneficial for ecosystems and agriculture [1-4].
1. Haverd, V.; Smith, B.; Canadell, J.G.; Cuntz, M.; Mikaloff-Fletcher, S.; Farquhar, G.; Woodgate, W.; Briggs, P.R.; Trudinger, C.M. Higher than expected CO2 fertilization inferred from leaf to global observations. Global Change Biology 2020, 26, 2390-2402. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/gcb.14950
2. Piao, S.; Wang, X.; Park, T.; Chen, C.; Lian, X.; He, Y.; Bjerke, J.W.; Chen, A.; Ciais, P.; Tømmervik, H., et al. Characteristics, drivers and feedbacks of global greening. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 2020, 1, 14-27. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-019-0001-x
3. Zhu, Z.; Piao, S.; Myneni, R.B.; Huang, M.; Zeng, Z.; Canadell, J.G.; Ciais, P.; Sitch, S.; Friedlingstein, P.; Arneth, A., et al. Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nature Climate Change 2016, 6, 791-795. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3004
4. Dayaratna, K.D.; McKitrick, R.; Michaels, P.J. Climate sensitivity, agricultural productivity and the social cost of carbon in FUND. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-020-00263-w
“When Antarctica was green” (50 Ma ago)
‘When the Sahara was green’ (~12 ka to 5 ka ago)
Ken Gregory posted an article on WUWT in May this year”
Social Cost (Benefit) of Carbon Dioxide from FUND with Corrected Temperatures, Energy and CO2 Fertilization
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/29/social-cost-benefit-of-carbon-dioxide-from-fund-with-corrected-temperatures-energy-and-co2-fertilization/
Summary by quoted by Paul Homewood here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/09/social-cost-of-carbon/
“Climate policies such as carbon taxes are set by governments using social cost of carbon (SCC) values calculated by economic computer programs called integrated assessment models (IAM). FUND is the most complex of the IAMs which links emissions scenarios and models of economics, climate and impacts for 16 world regions. Unfortunately, the climate component of FUND that determines temperature is flawed as it assumes that the deep oceans are instantly in temperature equilibrium with the atmosphere, without any time delay, when the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is 1.5 °C or less. The FUND model runs too warm compared to climate models.
The ESC can only be estimated using the energy balance method that compares the climate forcings to historical temperature records. The paper Lewis & Curry 2018 presents estimates of ECS with uncertainty analysis. The analysis was deficient in that the natural climate change was not considered and no correction was applied to remove the urban heat island effect from the temperature record. Making these adjustments, the likely range of ECS based on energy balance calculations using actual historical temperatures is 0.76 – 1.39 °C with a best estimate of 1.04 °C.
The energy impact components for space heating and cooling expenditures of FUND are very flawed. The change of expenditures with temperatures does not correspond to expenditure data published for the USA states. A paper by Peter Lang and me shows that a 3 °C temperature rise would decrease energy expenditures in the USA by 0.07% of gross domestic product (GDP) but FUND projects an increase of expenditures of 0.80% of GDP with non-temperature drivers held constant. A study by Dayaratna, McKitrick and Michaels (D, M & M 2020) of the CO2 fertilization effect and the FUND agricultural component shows that the FUND CO2 fertilization effect should be increased by 30%.
I have created a modified version of FUND which incorporates a 2-box ocean climate model that is tuned to closely match the temperature profile of climate models. I have replaced the flawed space heating and cooling components with new components to match the empirical heating and cooling USA data and increased the FUND CO2 fertilization effect by 30%. The social net benefit of CO2 emissions is calculated using the ECS probability distribution. The results show the net benefits of CO2 emissions are 11.74 and 8.41 US$/tCO2 at 3% and 5% discount rate, respectively.
Agriculture dominates the SCC values which are greater than 100% of the net benefits of CO2 emissions. The mainstream media is fixated on storms and sea level rise which are insignificant. The data show that climate change with the CO2 fertilization effect is quite beneficial, so policies costing trillions of dollars to reduce CO2 emissions are misguided.
See the report here https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Social%20Cost%20of%20CO2-June11.pdf .”
Global average temperatures have been rising for 20,000 years.
Also for the past 325 years
(people living in the 1690s
would have loved today’s climate)
Also for the past 45 years
(I doubt if many people would have noticed that warming if not for hysterical leftists bellowing about a climate crisis).
It seems that every human who has ever lived on this planet managed to survive and prosper with global warming.
Anecdotes show that humans did not like the cooler periods within that long term global warming trend.
Do you believe that humans will suddenly stop enjoying global warming
… even though satellite data show actual warming is mainly in the colder areas of the planet, at times of the year (the colder months), and times of the day (at night), when warming is GOOD NEWS !
Why is it that FUTURE global warming is always imagined to be rapid and dangerous
… while past global warming has always been mild and pleasant?
Is it not possible that the future climate will be better than today, or can the future climate only get worse?
The projections only show
that you can’t trust projections.
“The probability that earthlings will be able to adapt to those changes appears to be unlikely, does it not?” No. Seems simple to adapt to 0.01 deg a year of temp rise.
Mary Brown: Actually the temperature rise is now in excess of 0.02 C/year, or about 0.20-0.25 C/decade, which is an extraordinary rate of temperature increase, rarely seen on planet Earth. It is far from clear that plants and animals can adapt to this rate.
Some 50% of warming in the past 40 years is natural. Mary is quite right. And David is quintessentially the hidebound ideologue who can’t see the wood for the trees but likes to think he is clever.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Some 50% of warming in the past 40 years is natural.
What’s the evidence for that?
What’s the forcing?
re: David Appell
“Some 50% of warming in the past 40 years is natural.”
“What’s the evidence for that?”
“What’s the forcing?”
Dubal and Vahrenholt could not seem to find much evidence at all that GHG were a driving force recently. And the early 20th century warming..what was the forcing for that? Nobody knows, just like a lot of things in climate.
“Evidence” is not necessary to support the null hypothesis…natural warming.
David Appell:
“Actually the temperature rise is now in excess of 0.02 C/year, or about 0.20-0.25 C/decade, which is an extraordinary rate of temperature increase, rarely seen on planet Earth.”
I checked and it seems that we are currently in a 7 year cooling trend and warming since satellites launched (1979) about 0.13 per decade..and that inadvertently cherry picks the bottom of cooling trend. About 0.6 deg since end of WWII, a mere .008 per year since we started with big-time CO2 emissions.
Current warming about the same duration and amount as from 1910-1943. Not only does this seem rather common on planet earth, it happened naturally just 100 years ago.
Only way to keep up 0.20C/decade rate seems to be frequent and significant adjustments to the historical data. That’s going to be tough to keep up, although Hadcrut just added another 0.20 last December.
This is a bit off topic, but any thoughts on the Nobel Prize for Physics to Klaus Hasselmann?
Not forgetting 1/4 to Syukuro Manabe:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/10/the-2021-nobel-prize-in-physics/
Why is the 1967 paper so important? Manabe and Wetherald were the first to include all the main physical processes relevant to the problem, using a model that was no more complicated than necessary to achieve this. This led to much more realistic simulations and enabled the results to be explained in terms of processes which could be observed in the real world. Indeed, the paper is exemplary in the clarity and simplicity of the explanation of the results.
I agree re Manabe! He is also the lead author of this: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/4/8/1520-0442_1991_004_0785_troaco_2_0_co_2.xml . In this paper the reason of “Land is warming faster then oceans” under every forced warming was investigated and solved: The limited evaporation over land. Many years thereafter one could read the wrong explanation: thermal inertia. Also from climate scientists. ;)
The CMIP6 are out of touch. Yet they are being propped up by money and the old guard. From their lofty perch of status they have lost touch with reality and the very people who are supposed to benefit here. What do we know? There are those that will attempt to drag these failures along and hope nobody notices and that they can shout down all those that truly can see.
I wouldn’t count on that hope that nobody will notice.
Natural gas prices have risen five-fold this year in Europe, consumer and industrial energy bills will skyrocket over the next few months entirely thanks to climate activists. Even European governments are admitting the problem is due to the failure of renewables to produce coupled with restrictions on supply and storage demanded by climate activists based on promises they would be unnecessary.
The energy shortage is global. In China factories went dark for weeks (or fired up generators) and even traffic lights are dark. New York, which shut down its “unnecessary” nuclear power plant this year, already faced shortage-induced blackouts this year in the summer heat. With winter coming, New Yorkers face the prospect of exorbitant power bills and the possibility they won’t have access at any price.
CMIP6 are doing exactly what they were intended to do:
Over predict future global warming to support claims of a coming climate crisis.
You seem to think the computer games are intended for accurate projections. ha ha The scientists have had about 40 years to refine the models, yet their accuracy, on average, is worse than ever !
That’s exactly correct. Weather forecast models are routinely adjusted for their biases with statistical post-processing. If you did the same with climate models, the warming forecasts would be cut roughly in half. The hot bias is well known but never fixed and CMIP6 simply doubles-down on this flawed approach.
For a more disinterested view of state of the art GCM’s we can turn to a Giorgio Parisi, a new Nobel laureate with ample credentials in the science of complexity ,no skin in the modeling game, and little reason to love the climate modelers who took half thois years physics prize money.
We shold value his opinion becaus his work on spin glasses, like de Gennes on 3-D percolation theory,has advanced neural networks and machine learning and so contributed to the advancement of modelling in general.
Asked if the prize split was meant to focus public attention on climate change, Parisi said:
“I think it’s urgent; it’s clear that for the future generations we have to act now in a very fast way.”
Before the usual suspects that protest spin glass reseachers know nothing about sun spots or underwater volcanoes, readers should note that those ,and other, cliche’s in the contrarian playbook were first published 100 years ago this week.
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/10/five-score-and-zero-years-ago.html
Russell
Thanks for the article.
You are tony heller and I claim my £10
Tonyb
Tony . you evidently know even less about me than spin glasses. By way of apology for your error you may send the tenner to Pseuds @ Private Eye, to subsidize Lord Gnomes investigative journalism.
Russell
PE have been rather more successful in their spoofs than you are. Would you rather have the £10?
It is somewhat scaring that they are now 60 years old!
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/private-eye-60-ian-hislop-adam-macqueen-spoofs-scoops-book/
Don’t know if they have spoofed the IPCC but they would have plenty of material to work on
Tonyb
Good morning Tony (UTC),
“Don’t know if they have spoofed the IPCC but they would have plenty of material to work on”
Now you’re starting to sound just like “Steve Goddard”!
I hereby claim my 10 once GBP note. Please pop it in a plain brown envelope addressed to:
Snow White
Great White Con Ivory Towers
Santa’s Secret Summer Swimming Pool
Nr. North Pole
NP9 0AA
TIA
If the models so clearly predict a warming of over 2 degrees in the near future, why are we investing so much money in further research into computational predictions? Why don’t we put more money into preparing for these higher temperatures? We should raise dikes, convert agriculture to resistant plants, promote education in poorer countries and improve medical care. Creating economic foundations for the poorer population so that the population explosion is slowed down, etc.
Thank you for ending on an “etc.” that like the “Etc.” in the title of Judy’s blog, seems to be shorthand for anything but mitigating radiative forcing in the here and now.
Russell?
Is that you?
The playful physicist who’s long been a constructive critic of overheated climate conclusions of all kinds.
And book reviewer at Amazon?
Though that must have been 10 not 5 years ago.
Your comments are welcome though they almost guarantee failure in trying to galvanize broad action on global warming given the long time scales, enduring uncertainties, geographic spread, and lack of quick fixes.
[Revkin shorthand for anything but mitigating radiative forcing in the here and now.]
Do you have anything else constructive to add as your views are welcome .
You ask “Why don’t we put more money into preparing for these higher temperatures?” Some people are trying to do that, but a lot of us simply do not believe the models.
David Wojick wrote:
You ask “Why don’t we put more money into preparing for these higher temperatures?” Some people are trying to do that, but a lot of us simply do not believe the models.
The models have been right for decades. You don’t believe them because of your ideology, not because of science. You aren’t in rational territory at this point.
—
“We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful [14 of 17 projections] in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.”
“Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections,” Hausfather et al, Geo Res Lett 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085378
figure:
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1202271427807678464?lang=en
=======================
Exxon’s 1982 climate model:
https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/xom1.png
Exxon’s projections, made in the late 1970s for both CO2 and temperature, are today spot-on:
https://www.sciencealert.com/exxon-expertly-predicted-this-week-s-nightmare-co2-milestone-almost-40-years-ago
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/ad8f11375841adc34eacf4d5006e392af25fc481/0_0_4642_5476/master/4642.jpg?width=700&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=9372a1598623c39149bd2eb99a74cfdc
David Appell | October 10, 2021 at 11:06 pm |
The models have been right for decades.
Just ask Zeke who makes them.
Oh,…wait……
angech commented:
The models have been right for decades.
Just ask Zeke who makes them.
Zeke is not a climate modeler.
Since the 1970’s, higher temperatures have mainly been
in colder areas, mainly during the colder months
and mainly at night. Think of warmer winter nights
in Siberia. How do people “prepare” for that?
They should plan a big party to celebrate.
More CO2 in the air greening the planet.
How does one “prepare” for that?
Another party to celebrate?
Sea level might increase 9 to 12 inches
in the next century, just like in the past
century. How do people “prepare: for that?
I guess they buy a mansion six feet
above sea level, like the Obama’s did,
and never worry again.
marty wrote:
IWhy don’t we put more money into preparing for these higher temperatures? We should raise dikes, convert agriculture to resistant plants, promote education in poorer countries and improve medical care.
Ask the Republicans. They refuse to do anything at all about it.
For the last 40yrs, global temperature has increased at a linear rate of ~1.8C/century. Over the same time period, forcing from WMGHG’s has also increased linearly at a rate of ~3.5Wm^-2/century. It seems that ΔT/ΔF has reached an asymptote of ~0.5C/Wm^-2, which multiplied by the doubling forcing of 3.7Wm^-2, gives an apparent ECS of 1.9C.
I believe the actual ECS is close to this number. Over the last 40yrs the impact of volcanoes, TSI, and ENSO on the temperature trend is small. I can’t imagine other non-WMGHG anthropogenic forcings being of much consequence either. And where the ΔT/ΔF ratio has reached an asymptote, this indicates that the radiative imbalance has remained constant in recent decades, so this is ECS not TCR.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/10/09/the-global-warming-signal/
https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/aggi.html
AJ
Humans have been adding CO2 to the atmosphere
mainly in the past 120 years. You ignore the first 80
years, and want to look ONLY at the last 40 years.
What happened in the last 40 years from
roughly 1981 to 2021?
Well. let’s see —
a warming trend started in roughly 1975,
and your choice of years captures almost all
of that warming trend.
Never mind the prior 80 years !
You want to focus on that warming
period. Why is that?
Do you believe all data
before 1981 are worthless?
I doubt it.
It appears that you are data mining.
And that’s not good science.
thecliffclavenoffinance wrote:
Well. let’s see —
a warming trend started in roughly 1975,
and your choice of years captures almost all
of that warming trend.
Never mind the prior 80 years !
Climatic forcings varied greatly over the last 80 years, so you can’t consider them as a whole and calculate a single trend.
That’s the problem with calculating trends — they assume a constant setting, constant forcings. There never are. That’s why you need climate models, not simple statistical tools, to determine future climate (and then can only get projections, not predictions).
The author seems to believe
that climate models are tools.
Meaning scientific tools.
Because they are used by scientists?
They ARE tools.
But they are only propaganda tools.
That is obvious from a basic understanding
of computers, and tools.
The prediction of a coming climate crisis started before the climate computer games. The first scientist I know of who predicted a coming global warming crisis was oceanographer Roger Revelle, and some associates, in 1957.
The computer games came after those predictions (which to Revelle’s credit, were made quietly, with uncertainty).
People who believe in a coming climate crisis know they will appear more credible if they have a computer model projecting the same future climate.
So they program their computers to make the projections that support their beliefs.
And it doesn’t matter to them if every computer game over predicts global warming.
They have made the same over-predictions for about 40 years. No improvement in accuracy versus observations in 40 years — and maybe CMIP6 models will over predict (on average) even more than CMIP5 models did.
Accurate projections are OBVIOUSLY not a goal.
One model, the Russian INM, over predicts warming less than every other model. You’d think that model would get a lot of attention. But it does not. It gets binned together with all other models, all of which over predict warming even more than INM does.
If the scientists wanted their computer games to make reasonably accurate projections, they’d divide the projections by two, as a fudge factor. The resulting projections would at least give the illusion of accuracy.
But they don’t do that. Because accuracy is not a goal. The goal is scary climate projections to support the never ending claim that a climate crisis is coming … someday … over the rainbow.
Climate computer games are nothing more than complex propaganda tools used to support the belief in a coming climate crisis. That belief was not created with facts, data and logic, so it can not be refuted with facts, data and logic.
In that regard, climate change is just like a conventional religion.
We’ve lived with actual global warming for the past 45 years.
It has been mild and harmless.
During every one of those 45 years, the climate alarmists
were predicting rapid, dangerous global warming …
that never shows up.
The coming climate change crisis is nothing more than a long series of failed predictions, repeated every year, starting about 64 years ago.
Reality is that ACTUAL global warming has been mild and very pleasant.
Climate computer games are not tools — they do not help produce anything of value.
Climate models are tools, just not very good ones.
A “computer model” (or just “model”) is a computer program which simulates (“models”) real processes for the purpose of predicting their progression.
Other sorts of models also exist, such as mathematical models, and physical scale models. All of them are attempts to approximately simulate, and thereby predict, reality.
The utility and skillfulness of models is dependent on:
🗹 1(a). how well the processes which they model are understood,
🗹 1(b). how faithfully those processes are simulated in the computer code, and
🗹 2. whether the results can be repeatedly tested so that the models can be refined.
If you can check all those boxes, you can build a useful computer model.
If you can check either 1 or 2, then you still have a fighting chance of building something useful, but it will be challenging.
Specialized models, which try to model reasonably well-understood processes, like PGR and radiation transport, can be useful, because the processes they model are manageably simple and well-understood.
Weather forecasting models are also useful, even though the processes they model are very complex, and not very well understood, because the models’ short-term predictions are repeatedly tested, allowing the models to be validated and refined. They can’t check box 1(a) but at least they do check box 2.
But more ambitious models, like GCMs, which attempt to simulate the combined effects of many poorly-understood processes, over time periods which are far too long to allow repeated testing and refinement, are of dubious utility. They can’t check any of the boxes.
Note: “hindcasting” doesn’t count, because…
How well do you think weather models would predict the weather if their predictions were so far into the future that they could not be tested? Well, that’s exactly the situation with GCMs.
(Worst of all are so-called “semi-empirical models,” which aren’t actually models at all.)
Four decades is a very convenient period for maximizing the appearance of warming, because the late 1970s was the end of a long cooling period:
https://sealevel.info/fig1x_1999_highres_fig6_from_paper4_with_1934_1979_1998_circled_2300x1150_annot1.png
(Of course, most of that cooling has been erased by subsequent adjustments.)
I don’t think we should look back forty years before that for the effect of CO2, but twenty years, yes. It is reasonable to not look for the effect of CO2 level changes prior to about 1960, because there wasn’t a very strong monotonic trend in CO2 levels much before that, as you can see in this log-scale graph:
https://sealevel.info/co2.html?co2scale=2
The climate alarmists claim added CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.
If that is true, there is no reason to ignore
CO2 growth in the past 100 years.
CO2 data from 1958 are all from one accurate source.
For CO2 levels before 1958, is there evidence
they are so inaccurate that they should be ignored?
Dave
That 1940 to 1975 “cooling”, reported in the mid-1970s by NCAR as -0.5 to -0.6 degres C., has been “adjusted away” by goobermint bureaucrat scientists … and is now almost completely “gone”. Never happened. People in the 1970s couldn’t read thermometers correctly, I suppose.
Hansen et al, 1981:
https://climate-dynamics.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/hansen81a.pdf
“The most sophisticated models suggest a mean warming of 2° to 3 .5°C for doubling of the C02 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm . The major difficulty in accepting the theory has been the absence of observed warming coincident with the historic C02 increase. In fact, the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere decreased by about 0.5°C between 1940 and 1970, a time of rapid C02 build up. In addition, recent claims that climate models over-estimate the impact of radiative perturbations by an order of magnitude, have raised the issue of whether the greenhouse effect is well understood. “
Pre Manabe – Gilbert Plass (1956)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x
The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change.
This work was sponsored by the U.S. Office of Naval Research.
The latest calculations of the influence of CO2 on the infrared flux show that if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere doubles the average temperature rises 3.6 C and if it falls to half of its present value the average temperature falls 3.8 C. The pressure broadening and overlapping of the spectral lines is taken into account in this calculation. The shielding effect due to H2O does not appear to be large. Thus reasonable changes in CO2 amounts can cause appreciable climatic variations.
thecliffclavenoffinance, when you’re trying to isolate the effect of changes in one factor among many, it helps to choose a period in which the factor of interest has changed a lot. In the case of CO2, that means about the last sixty years:
https://sealevel.info/co2.html?co2scale=2
It also helps to choose a period in which the other factors have had minimal effect. So, for example, when trying to identify the effect of CO2 on temperatures, you should choose an analysis period which both begins and ends in roughly ENSO neutral conditions.
I attempted to estimate climate sensitivity that way, and I got results much lower than most GCMs assume:
https://sealevel.info/sensitivity.html
thecliffclavenoffinance, As for the “claim [that] added CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years,” that’s wrong, too, but it’s also a bit complicated.
It’s all about the Benjamins. Promoters of “decarbonization” scams like to use very long estimates for CO2’s atmospheric lifetime, because that lets them inflate their “social cost of carbon” estimates, to justify spending more money on their scams.
The effective “first half-life” of CO2 added to the atmosphere is about 30 – 35 years, making the effective atmospheric lifetime about fifty years.
https://sealevel.info/CO2_Residence_Times/
However, if CO2 emissions were to cease, there would be a very “long tail” on the “decay curve.” That is, the “2nd half-life” would be longer than the 1st, and the 3rd longer than the 2nd, because a falling CO2 level would cause the other carbon reservoirs to take up CO2 at diminishing rates, and eventually in some cases even to release it.
Integrating that “long tail” is the basis for the long atmospheric lifetime estimates you sometimes hear. What they don’t mention is that decay of the long tail would occur only when CO2 levels are below 340 ppmv, so CO2 would be indisputably beneficial.
Actually, additional CO2 is clearly beneficial even at 400-600 ppmv, but a lot people dispute that. (They’re wrong.)
https://sealevel.info/negative_social_cost_of_carbon.html
But nobody of consequence disputes the fact that additional CO2 is beneficial when the starting level is below 340 ppmv. Even the “350 dot org” nuts don’t claim that added CO2 is harmful when levels are that low.
The long tail represents modeled predictions of carbon theoretically released into the atmosphere from oceans and biosphere / soil in the distant future, when atmospheric CO2 levels are very low (well below 350 ppmv). But when CO2 levels are very low, the climate threat will be COOLING, and browning from CO2 starvation, rather than greening from CO2 fertilization.
https://sealevel.info/rice_C3_and_setaria_viridis_C4_vs_CO2_level2.png
Even if you accept IPCC’s dubious claim that the NEXT 0.5° or 1° of warming will be harmful, there’s no denying that the LAST 1°C of warming, and the ≈20% agricultural yield improvement from higher CO2 levels, were very, very beneficial.
https://sealevel.info/Famine-death-rate-since-1860s-revised-annot1.png
When CO2 level is already low, release of CO2 from soil/biosphere/oceans will slow the decline in CO2 level, which will be a very good thing. Yet climate activists wants you to think it’s bad, so that they can inflate the so-called “social cost of carbon.” That’s poppycock.
Integrating the “long tail” of the CO2 decay curve when calculating a “social cost of carbon” is just plain wrong. It inflates a supposed “cost” by adding to it what is indisputably a benefit.
CO2 levels were rising from 1940 to 1975.
The global average temperature was not.
Those people who want to demonize CO2
prefer o look at 1975 to 2020, and ignore
1940 to 1975, which is data mining, to me.
It’s unfortunate that significant cooling
from 1940 to 1975 has been “revised away”
to near zero. They were inconvenient data !
There are many variables that
could cause global warming, so there
is no way to know the exact effects
of CO2.
There has been cooling
as CO2 rises (1940 to 1975),
and warming with only a tiny
increase of CO2 (1910 to 1940).
The CO2 / temperature correlation
significantly changed three times
in the past 110 years (1910 to 2020).
Seems like CO2
is the “climate controller”,
except when it’s not
the climate controller !
AJ
“For the last 40yrs, global temperature has increased at a linear rate of ~1.8C/century”
Using Berkeley Earth GMST data, over the last 50yrs GMST has increased at a linear rate of 1.98 °C/century.
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_summary.txt
During the past 50 years (1970–2020), CO2 concentrations increased from 327.3 ppm to 414.3 ppm, an increase of 26.6%. The increase was at an accelerating (binomial) rate.
During the same period GMST increased by 0.99 °C, an increase of 7.1%. The rate of increase was linear.
If CO2 concentrations continue to increase at the same accelerating rates as over the past 50 years, GMST would increase by ~1.6 °C by 2100, and by ~2 °C by 2020.
However, it is highly likely that fossil fuels will be largely replaced by nuclear power over the remainder of this century. Therefore, the temperature increase will be substantially less than 1.6 °C by 2100 – perhaps around 0.8 to 1.0 °C.
Correction:
“If CO2 concentrations continue to increase at the same accelerating rates as over the past 50 years, GMST would increase by ~1.6 °C from 2020 to 2100, and by ~2 °C from 2020 to 2120.”
The temp rise over that period seems more like 1.3 deg/century. That’s what satellites measure and model reanalysis shows. To get 1.8 deg, you need a lot of historical revision, which of course, is readily available.
AJ wrote: For the last 40yrs, global temperature has increased at a linear rate of ~1.8C/century.
Except the rate of global warming is accelerating, so using a linear rate no longer suffices.
Warming rates (linear) of mean global surface temperature according to NOAA:
last 50 years: 0.18 C/decade
last 40 years: 0.18 C/decade
last 30 years: 0.21 C/decade
last 20 years: 0.20 C/decade
last 15 years: 0.28 C/decade
last 10 years: 0.33 C/decade
Error bars grow with each, of course, but the trend, with its error bar, is still upward.
No acceleration of global warming from 2003 to mid-2015, a 12+ year period with a large rise of CO2, yet a very small change in the average temperature. If CO2 was really the “climate controller”, that observation would have been unlikely.
Excellent article, Judith, thanks.
But the real high-level message is not easy to extract from the lower-level explanations. For example, when you say “However, a major challenge is that nearly all of the resources are being spent on GCMs and IPCC production runs, with little time and funds left over for model innovations.” it isn’t clear that “model innovation” doesn’t mean getting more into the existing models, it means scrapping the models altogether and creating new, completely different, models. The models’ structure is upside-down. No climate model structured bottom-up, as they all are (except Marcia Wyatt’s model), is fit for purpose. We need a new family of climate models structured top-down.
Climate models are unable to represent future conditions at the degree of spatial, temporal, and probabilistic precision with which projections are often provided which gives a false impression of confidence to users of climate change information.” (Nissan et al.)
I believe the above sums it up very well.
Indeed there is a global epidemic of nations, states, counties and cities planning adaptation to extreme scenarios generated by downscaling GCMs.
You first need confidence that probability will work well with periodic functions! Which is not likely.
Re the hegemony of the global climate models has been broken, the unrealistically hot CMIP models did that.
You write: ” Further, natural internal variability receives a lot of attention, volcanoes a fair amount of attention (solar not so much).”
But sun is a “big” climate driver, as described by Hansen:
James Hansen and colleagues see the sun as a climate driver, that since 4 to 5 years works “against” green house gases. In his blog of January 2018
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2018/20180118_Temperature2017.pdf
he writes commonly with Gavin Schmidt and others:
“However, the solar variability is not negligible in comparison with the energy imbalance that drives global temperature change. Therefore, because of the combination of the strong 2016 El Niño and the phase of the solar cycle, it is plausible, if not likely, that the next 10 years of global temperature change will leave an impression of a ‘global warming hiatus’.”
And we have got this hiatus, as he shows in this blog:
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/Emails/June2021.pdf
in Figure 5.
“distillation of diverse sources of information and multiple lines of evidence” is an oxymoron. There is no magic process of distillation that makes disagreement go away. Except the IPCC process of ignoring contrary evidence. The AR6 hockey stick is an elegant example of a ridiculous conclusion.
I’ve been trying without success to post a version of this comment which includes the tweetstorm to Berkeley Earth. I keep getting an “Invalid security token” errors. So this is a truncated version…
Even @BerkeleyEarth data show climate sensitivity is much lower than IPCC estimates — but they won’t admit it. (Right @hausfath? Right @RARohde? Right @RichardAMuller?)
This is their tweet, to which I added the pink & green annotation:
https://sealevel.info/twitter_BerkeleyEarth_1265595986942058497_screenshot05.png
Comparing temperature and CO2 trends gives a practical estimate of climate sensitivity, which is roughly midway between TCR (which assumes a much quicker CO2 rise than reality) and ECS (which assumes an equally unrealistic hundreds of years of unchanging CO2 level). So, if we also have an estimate of the ratio of ECS/TCR (which we do), we can calculate estimates for both ECS and TCR from that “practical estimate of climate sensitivity.” That’s what I did.
Here’s the unrolled “conversation” (if you can call it that, since Berkeley Earth never replied):
● https://threader.app/conversation/1265589834548215808/JT0sfjnKs3
● https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/24/crowd-sourcing-a-crucible/#comment-3194707
Can someone explain to me how climate models can be falsified if natural internal variability isn’t well understood? If observations differ from model projections, one could explain the difference with natural internal variability.
Indeed this is done all the time. Call it the ignorance defence. Kuhn pointed out over fifty years ago that anomalies to the entrenched paradigm are explained away as something unimportant to be explained later. There is a lot of this with the AGW paradigm.
Steinar
In 2004 Phil jones wrote a paper on the period 1730 to 1740 in England. It covered what was one of the warmest decade until the 1990’s, which came to a crashing halt in one of England’s coldest ever winters in 1740 .
He wrote that it demonstrated that natural variability was far greater than he had previously realised. Remember he was chief at the university of east Anglia and previously had worked under Hubert lamb.
As such he was very used to researching climate in many countries through many centuries.
So unless the full scale of natural variability is recognised then we can not calculate What the likely ranges of the climate can encompass.
It has been both warmer than today and colder than today so natural variability has by no means been exceeded
Tonyb
Keep in mind that ECS is an “other things being equal” abstraction, not a prediction. Rather like how far one can throw a potato chip in a vacuum, which is quite far. On the Earth not so much. A positive ECS, even a large one, does not rule out cooling as CO2 doubles. This is also true of transient response.
Here are some quotes from my paper at
https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
” Abstract
This paper begins by reviewing the relationship between CO2 and Millennial temperature cycles. CO2 levels follow temperature changes. CO2 is the dependent variable and there is no calculable consistent relationship between the two. The uncertainties and wide range of out-comes of model calculations of climate radiative forcing arise from the improbable basic assumption that anthropogenic CO2 is the major controller of global temperatures. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between the phases of cyclic processes of varying wavelengths and amplitudes. At all scales, including the scale of the solar planetary system, sub-sets of oscillating systems develop synchronous behaviors which then produce changing patterns of periodicities in time and space in the emergent data. Solar activity as represented by the Oulu cosmic ray count is here correlated with the Hadsst3 temperatures and is the main driver of global temperatures at Millennial scales. The Millennial pattern is projected forwards to 2037. Earth has just passed the peak of a Millennial cycle and will generally cool until 2680 – 2700. At the same time, and not merely coincidentally, the earth has now reached a new population peak which brought with it an associated covid pandemic, and global poverty and income disparity increases which threaten the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. During the last major influenza epidemic world population was 1.9 billion. It is now 7.8 billion+/. The establishment science “consensus” that a modelled future increase in CO2 levels and not this actual fourfold population increase is the main threat to human civilization is clearly untenable. The cost of the proposed rapid transition to non- fossil fuels would create an unnecessary, enormously expensive. obstacle in the way of the effort to attain a modern ecologically viable sustainable global economy. We must adapt to the most likely future changes and build back smarter when losses occur. ”
……………………………..
Most importantly the models make the fundamental error of ignoring the very probable long- term decline in solar activity and temperature following the Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point and activity peak which was reached in 1990/91 as shown in Figure 5. The correlative UAH 6.0 satellite TLT anomaly at the MTTP at 2003/12 was + 0.26C. The temperature anomaly at 2021/9 was + 0.25 C. (34) This satellite data set shows that there has been no net global warming for the last 17 years. As shown above, these Renewable Energy Targets in turn are based on model forecast outcomes which now appear highly improbable. Science, Vol 373,issue 6554 July2021 in”Climate panel confronts implausibly hot models” (35) says “Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the modelmakers themselves, believe are implausibly fast. In advance of the U.N. report, scientists have scrambled to understand what went wrong and how to turn the models…… into useful guidance for policymakers. “It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this,” says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”
The global temperature cooling trends from 2003/4 – 2704 are likely to be broadly similar to those seen from 996 – 1700+/- in Figure 2. From time to time the jet stream will swing more sharply North – South. Local weather in the Northern Hemisphere in particular will be generally more variable with, in summers occasional more northerly extreme heat waves droughts and floods and in winter more southerly unusually cold snaps and late spring frosts”
The whole Net Zero campaign is based on the establishment consensus model forecasts. These should be openly challenged at COP 16
What is so sad about all this discussion is no one here seems to understand that the fundamental principles of causation require that every time you ask why you have to get at least one action cause and one or more conditional causes. When you ask why of those causes the same rule applies, so reality is an every expanding set of causes that reaches infinity very quickly. By ignoring this simple truth these so called scientists can play games with numbers and observations all they want and they will never figure out what’s going on. Try it! Ask: “Why is global temperature changing? Write down all the 20 + causes you and I know of and then ask why again of each one of those causes. Repeat until you go crazy and then you will understand the futility of modeling climate change.
Δ(heat+work) = energy in – energy out
So it’s basically clouds, ice, dust, vegetation, greenhouse gases and aerosols.
You forgot to include:
1) Earth’s orbital and orientation variations
2) Changes in ocean circulation: ENSO and others
3) Solar Irradiance and activity
4) Land use changes
(cities growing = albedo changes from
more cement, brick and asphalt)
5) Changes in water vapor
6) Random variations of a complex, non-linear system
7) Unknown causes of climate change
Energy in accounts for solar variability. I don’t think orbital variability makes a difference in terms of total energy in. At any rate – change there is slow at the scale we are interested in.
Energy out changes with albedo and planetary heat content.
You left out convection, ocean & atmosphere if circulations and oscillations, precipitation, land use (urbanization) and many more.
At the top of the atmosphere it is all electromagnetic energy. The change in heat and work in the system is equal to energy in less energy out by the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Δ(heat+work) = energy in – energy out
You are considering why heat and work changes and not how. One is complex the other boils down to simple but fundamental physical properties.
Energy in and energy out is the basic science
and at too high of a level to be useful.
The important measurements are
the temperature at certain locations,
a certain distance from the surface,
that unfortunately include …
too many infilled, guessed numbers,
adjustments to measured data,
later revisions to adjusted data,
an averaging process …
plus about 4.5 billion years
with no real time measurements.
The result is far from perfect accuracy
and no clue what a “normal” or optimum
average temperature is …
and the problem that not one person
lives in the average temperature.
Meaning that if the climate
ever causes problems, the problems will
be from changes in local climates, which may,
or may no,t affect the global average temperature.
Since the planet is always cooling or warming,
the energy in versus energy out
is never in balance. Nor does such a
high level equation answer the question
of whether people have been affected
negatively or positively by the climate
change in their lifetimes.
Our planet has been warming for the past
20,000. ( I’ll skip over the Holocene Optimum,
not sure if it was warmer than today.)
In my opinion, all of the warming
in the past 20,000 years was good news
for animals, humans and plants
on this planet.
The key question is whether a little more
global warming in the future
will continue to be good news.
I can’t see how another +1 degree C.
of warming in the next 50 to 100 years
would be bad news at all.
Satellites provide relatively precise global scale data. Including on cloud and surface albedo.
The major known factors that determine planet average (mean) surface temperature are:
1. The solar flux at the Top of the Atmosphere (TOA).
2. The planet average surface Albedo “a”.
3. The Greenhouse Gases density (look Venus’ case).
The New factors I have added to the list are:
4. Φ – the solar irradiation accepting factor (dimensionless). It is a part of the Φ(1 – a) coupled term.
5. N rotations /day – is the planet rotational spin, or the frequency of the planetary diurnal cycle.
6. cp cal/gr.oC – is the planet average surface specific heat.
Both N and cp constitute another planetary surface coupled term, the (N*cp) product.
I have shown in many cases, in my site, when comparing planet mean surface temperatures, that there is a New discovered phenomenon the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon
It states:
Planet mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products sixteenth root.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Robert I. Ellison and others on satellites
Satellites provide relatively precise global scale data. Including on cloud and surface albedo.
Spencer on satellites
The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change.
Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing,
probably due to natural cloud variations. That these internal radiative forcings exist and likely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag regression analysis of satellite and coupled climate model data, interpreted with a simple forcing-feedback model. While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find that, with traditional methods,
it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations
On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from
Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance
Roy W. Spencer * and William D. Braswell
The imbalance is positive – energy in > energy out – if oceans are warming. After that – looking at energy out at TOA reveals reasons for change that encompass all feedbacks. Average error bars for CERES measurements are of the order of 0.2 W/m2.
“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together”
Ed Berry’s paper was not considered. https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/preprint3/
If we only caused 25% of the increase of CO2 it is unlikely we caused over 50% of the warming.
It’s very hard to measure the large amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere in the past 120 years from burning fossil fuels,
which was accompanied by a roughly +100ppm increase of atmospheric CO2,
and then claim that +100 ppm increase was NOT mainly due to burning fossil fuels.
I believe Dr. Berry is one of very few scientists who believe most of the +100 ppm CO2 increase was natural. His followers say the same thing, but never explain exactly where that +100 ppm came from.
While I have respect for people who have earned a Ph.D., it is my opinion that Dr. Berry does not know what he is talking about. And that is quite common in climate science, although usually with wild guess predictions of climate doom.
Natural emissions (and absorption) are estimated to be roughly 20 times human emissions. This is the carbon cycle that sustains all life on Earth.
As a result of this huge CO2 flux our emitted molecules are mostly gone in just a few years. What causes the increase is a function of all this exchange activity, none of which is measured, so it is very hard to pinpoint causality.
Our emissions may (or may not) have caused the increase but in no case do they compose it. This is what Berry is looking at.
As I understand him, Berry has calculated the ratio of the mass of our remaining emitted molecules to the mass of the increase. He then argues that this is the fractional causality. That I do not agree is irrelevant to understanding his argument. His numbers seem likely to be correct but I have not checked them, just read them.
Quite a few people argue that the increase is partially or wholly natural. The most common form is that it is due to the warming ocean. My view is we do not know because we have no idea how the myriad natural sinks and sources are varying over time.
Of course. There is no reason this interglacial is different.
https://royalsociety.org/-/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/fig3-large.jpg
I’m no expert on this but wasn’t CO2 around 280ppm for thousands of years and has exploded up 50% since we started burning fossil fuels? Pretty obvious connection.
{Still can’t post a long comment. I guess I’ll have to post this in parts…}
1/4》 David A, Ed Berry is wrong.
Ed (and a few others, like Murry Salby and Hermann Harde) contend that adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not significantly affect the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Read that sentence again. If it sounds ridiculous, that’s because it is ridiculous.
They would have you believe that the anthropogenic CO2 just vanishes from the atmosphere, or somehow doesn’t count, and Salby, at least, thinks that the atmospheric CO2 level is increasing by an average of more than 2 ppmv per year simply because global mean temperatures are now about 1°C warmer than they were during the Little Ice Age.
Mankind didn’t cause only 25% of the increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind has caused about 175% of the increase in CO2 since precise atmospheric CO2 concentration measurements began, in 1958.
That’s not a typo. We’ve added about 175 ppmv of CO2 to the atmosphere, yet the CO2 concentration rose by only about 100 ppmv.
Do you know what happened to the other 75?
2/4》 Do you know what happened to the other 75? Here’s a clue:
At Mauna Loa, the seasonal swing in CO2 concentration is ≈8.4 ppmv, peak-to-peak:
https://sealevel.info/co2_trend_mlo_2020-09_seasonal_cycle.png
At higher N latitudes seasonal swing is larger. At extreme S latitudes, seasonal cycle is reversed (but much weaker), as you can see in this graph:
https://sealevel.info/mauna_loa_vs_cape_grim_co2.jpg
If you know why that is so then you have a clue about the answer to the question I asked: “Do you know what happened to the other 75?”
BTW, here’s a map showing the locations of Mauna Loa and Cape Grim:
https://sealevel.info/map_showing_locations_of_mauna_loa_and_cape_grim.png
2/4》 Do you know what happened to the other 75? Here’s a clue:
At Mauna Loa, the seasonal swing in CO2 concentration is ≈8.4 ppmv, peak-to-peak:
https://sealevel.info/co2_trend_mlo_2020-09_seasonal_cycle.png
At higher N latitudes seasonal swing is larger. At extreme S latitudes, seasonal cycle is reversed (but much weaker), as you can see in this graph:
https://sealevel.info/mauna_loa_vs_cape_grim_co2.jpg
If you know why that is so then you have a clue about the answer to the question I asked: “Do you know what happened to the other 75?”
Someone mentioned the carbon cycle earlier in the comments.
That cycle can not explain a +100 ppm CO2 increase in only 100 years. It does not even explain a +100 ppm CO2 increase in 10,000 years.
3/4》 Measurements show that since 1958 (at least), total natural CO2 removals have exceeded total natural CO2 emissions, every single year. That means nature is removing CO2 from the atmosphere, not adding it. So nature obviously cannot be responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Ed Berry’s paper and his PSI article are a mess. He published it in one of those pay-to-publish journals:
https://tinyurl.com/5dwvmyfw
I wrote to them and asked if they would accept a Letter to the Editor about it, and their answer was that they would do so only if I paid them.
4/4》 Mankind is currently adding about 5 ppmv of CO2 (about 10½ PgC) to the atmosphere each year, but the atmospheric CO2 level is only rising at a rate of about 2.5 ppmv per year. The difference is the rate at which natural negative feedbacks (mainly terrestrial greening and absorption by the oceans) remove CO2 from the air: currently about 2.5 ppmv per year. When Ed Berry claims nature is raising the atmospheric CO2 level it makes me wonder whether he is incapable of subtracting 2.5 from 5.
The solubility of gases like CO2 (or CH4) in water does decrease as the water gets warmer (per the temperature dependence of Henry’s law), so as the oceans warm they would outgas CO2, if nothing else changed. The capacity of the water to hold dissolved CO2 decreases by about 3% per 1°C by which the water warms.
So, when the oceans are absorbing CO2, as is currently the case in most places other than the tropics, if the water warms then the oceans absorb CO2 slightly more slowly. But only slightly.
The rate at which the ocean absorbs CO2 from the air is proportional to CO2’s partial pressure in the air. That’s intuitively obvious when you remember that the concentration of CO2 in the air determines the rate at which CO2 molecules collide with and are absorbed by the surface of the ocean, and by falling raindrops. So the measly 3% per °C, by which CO2 solubility in water decreases as the water warms, is dwarfed by the 48% by which solubility increased as atmospheric CO2 concentration rose by 48% (from 280 ppmv to 414 ppmv), and as atmospheric CO2 level continues to rise, the rate at which the oceans remove CO2 from the air will continue to accelerate.
Sorry about the duplicate part “2/4”. I was having trouble getting this blog to take my comments, and I was repeatedly reposting with various experimental changes, to try to identify the cause. The second version of my “2/4” comment happened because I didn’t realize the other one had worked.
In case anyone else is getting “invalid security token” errors when trying to post comments here, I’ve learned some things about what triggers them.
I first thought that the problem was the length of my comments, or the number of links, or the HTML markup I used. But then it happened on a short comment with only one link (“3/4”), and no markup, so those weren’t what triggered it.
I thought it might be because I was using Chrome, with hundreds of tabs open, and several extensions / add-ins loaded. But the same thing happened in Brave and in Edge, with no extensions loaded. (I got a different error in Opera; I don’t know why, and didn’t pursue it.)
II tried using a different account (my Twitter account, instead of my WordPress account), and I also tried logging out and using no account (just filling in my name, email address & web site), but the problem still occurred.
Finally, I shortened the one long URL in my “3/4” comment using tinyurl.com, and that worked around the problem. It seems that the “invalid security token” error was triggered by something in the long URL. Using a “link shortener” like tinyurl or bit.ly hides the long/complex URL syntax from WordPress, and thus avoids the error.
This is the link (to Ed Berry’s paper) which did not trigger the error:
https://tinyurl.com/5dwvmyfw
To see the long version of the link, which did trigger the error, click that link and see what it redirects to.
So Dave, or anyone else. Question- Scenario A from Hansen,1988 used CO2 of 414 for year 2020. That was quite accurate. My guess is that far more CO2 was added than Hansen assumed but also, far more was removed by natural processes. He was wrong twice which offset to the correct value? Any thoughts or comments on this or how he came up with the Scenarios? Thx
Mary Brown wrote, “…Scenario A from Hansen,1988 used CO2 of 414 for year 2020. That was quite accurate. My guess is that far more CO2 was added than Hansen assumed but also, far more was removed by natural processes. He was wrong twice which offset to the correct value? Any thoughts or comments on this or how he came up with the Scenarios?…”
Where did you find that 414 figure, Mary? AFAIK, Hansen et al (pdf) did not actually reveal the GHG levels that they had projected in their three scenarios, only English prose describing them. (I can’t imagine why the AGU let them get away with that!) If you’ve found the actual GHG concentration figures which they projected, I would be very grateful to you for sharing them with me! (Click my name for contact info.)
You are surely right that “far more CO2 was added than Hansen assumed but also, far more was removed by natural processes.” But that’s not all they were wrong about. In fact, it’s hard to find anything of consequence in Hansen et al 1988 which was right!
The paper is riddled with errors and contradictions. For example, consider these two descriptions of “Scenario A,” which are both quoted from the paper:
p.3: “Scenario A assumes that growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely; the assumed annual growth averages about 1.5% of current emissions, so the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially.”
p.21: “…in scenario A CO2 increases as observed by Keeling for the interval 1958-1981 [Keeling et al., 1982] and subsequently with 1.5% yr⁻¹ growth of the annual increment.”
Do you see the inconsistency? They equated “emissions” (p.3) with “the annual increment” (the increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere each year). In other words, it appears that they did not realize that natural processes would remove ANY CO2 from the atmosphere, let alone that those processes would remove CO2 at an accelerating rate.
Alternately, it is possible that they realized natural processes remove CO2, but assumed those processes remove a fixed percentage of human emissions. (That’s also complete nonsense.)
In reality, all the important natural processes which remove CO2 from the atmosphere (biological uptake / “greening,” dissolution into the water, and rock weathering) do so at rates which increase approximately linearly with increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Under their “scenario A,” according to their p.3 description, emissions would have increased by 1.5% per year, totaling 47% in 26 years. In fact, CO2 emissions increased even faster than that. CO2 emissions increased by an average of 1.97% per year, totaling 66% in 26 years. Yet temperatures increased only about one-third to one-fourth as much as their “scenario A” prediction.
AFAIK, their Scenario A did not explicitly predict 414 ppmv CO2 for 2020. However, it is possible to arrive at about that number from their p.21 prose, by assuming that they assumed a +1.5 ppmv/year “annual increment” in 1985 and a +1.5% annual increase in that rate. But that comes from working backward from the result, and I don’t know what figures they actually used.
Another astonishing error in their paper was that on p.3 they wrote that an annual 1.5% (i.e., exponential) increase in GHGs causes an exponential “net greenhouse forcing.”
Even in 1988 it was common knowledge that increases in atmospheric concentration of CO2 (the most important of the GHGs they discussed) causes a logarithmically decreasing forcing, and has a logarithmically diminishing effect on temperature. So an exponential increase in CO2 level causes a less-than-exponential increase in forcing, asymptotically approaching linear. Yet, apparently none of those eight authors recognized that that absurd claim was wrong.
And the hits just keep on coming…
They also included an exponential increase in CFCs in their “business as usual” Scenario A. That is indefensible, because the Montreal Protocol had already been agreed upon in 1987, and the Vienna Convention way back in 1985. It is impossible to imagine that Hansen, his seven co-authors, the peer-reviewers, and the JGR editors, were all ignorant of those already-existing treaties.
So there can be no excuse for nevertheless projecting exponential increases in CFCs, in any of their scenarios. They obviously knew CFC emissions would be decreasing, not increasing. Yet they dishonestly promoted a “scenario” as “business as usual,” which they knew was actually impossible.
daveburton wrote:
You are surely right that “far more CO2 was added than Hansen assumed but also, far more was removed by natural processes.”
Exactly how do you deduce that from Hansen’s paper? Where’s the evidence or logic in it that implies this conclusion?
daveburton wrote: p.3: “Scenario A assumes that growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely; the assumed annual growth averages about 1.5% of current emissions, so the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially.”
You’re only considering CO2 and forgetting the other GHGs. In fact there’s a term in the radiative forcing equation for N2O that’s proportional to CO2, so if CO2 is increasing exponentially so is that forcing term and hence so is the overall global net forcing.
See Table 1 on page 12,620 of
Etminan, M. et al, (2016), Radiative forcing of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide,” Geophys. Res.Lett., 43, 12,614–12,623, doi:10.1002/2016GL071930.
So Hansen didn’t make a mistake.
daveburton commented:
Do you see the inconsistency? They equated “emissions” (p.3) with “the annual increment” (the increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere each year). In other words, it appears that they did not realize that natural processes would remove ANY CO2 from the atmosphere, let alone that those processes would remove CO2 at an accelerating rate
Utterly laughable.
Hansen et al were experts, well aware that nature removes carbon from the atmosphere. That’s kindergarten stuff. They also knew since Keeling that the airborne fraction of CO2 was near constant
shorturl.at/mprCI
so of course CO2 was being removed naturally at an exponential rate.
Again, you don’t seem that this is very basic stuff well known to every climate scientist.
Thanks Dave for the in-depth reply on Hansen ’88. I’ve been looking through my notes on where the Hansen co2 levels came from. I have a graph that shows 414ppm in 2018 for scenario A. The graph is poorly sourced but it says “realclimate” on it. Still investigating. But I find it disingenuous when people claim Scenario A did not happen. I would argue it was Scenario A+ . Far more emissions than “business as usual”
Mary Brown wrote, “I’ve been looking through my notes on where the Hansen co2 levels came from. I have a graph that shows 414ppm in 2018 for scenario A. The graph is poorly sourced but it says “realclimate” on it. Still investigating.”
Thanks. You might be able to find the source using TinEye, Google Image Search, or similar. If this link doesn’t take you directly to those links, then press Ctrl-F to search for a word (or ⌘-F on a Mac), and search for TinEye.
If you don’t find the source, and you want to put that graph somewhere that there’ll be a web address for it, you can email it to me and I’ll put a copy of it on my server.
Mary Brown wrote, “But I find it disingenuous when people claim Scenario A did not happen. I would argue it was Scenario A+ . Far more emissions than “business as usual””
Yes, disingenuous, or at least misled.
Under their “scenario A,” emissions would have increased by 1.5% per year, totaling 47% in 26 years. In fact, CO2 emissions increased by an average of 1.97% per year, totaling 66% in 26 years (or spreadsheet). Yet temperatures increased only about one-third to one-fourth as much as their “scenario A” prediction.
https://sealevel.info/HADCRUT4_1988-2019_woodfortrees18_60pct_471x444.png
Dr. David Appell wrote, “…kindergarten stuff. They also knew since Keeling that the airborne fraction of CO2 was near constant shorturl.at/mprCI so of course CO2 was being removed naturally at an exponential rate.”
I never cease to be startled at how many climate activists, including those calling themselves “climate scientists,” and even those with real scientific credentials, are thoroughly confused about the basics of their own field.
For example, Prof. David T. Suzuki, PhD, CC, OBC, FRSC, is the Dean of Canadian Environmentalists. Listen to him explain global warming:
https://sealevel.info/David_Suzuki_thinks_its_carbon_in_the_glass_that_makes_cars_heat_up_in_sun.png
What Dr. Appell wrote is another example. (Aside: It is disconcerting that so many examples seemed to be named “David.” Fortunately, correlation does not necessarily imply causation.)
One of those points of frequent confusion is the so-called “airborne fraction” (AF). The AF is sometimes inaccurately described as “the portion of CO2 emissions which go into the atmosphere,” which has apparently confused Dr. Appell, and many others. A remarkable number of people think that when CO2 is emitted from a chimney only about half of it (the “airborne fraction”) actually goes into the atmosphere.
That’s obviously ridiculous: all CO2 emitted goes directly into the atmosphere.
What’s more, many of those confused people think it is some sort of rule that, regardless of how much CO2 we emit, a “near constant” airborne fraction (about half) of it actually goes into the air.
I can understand that children like Greta Thunberg might believe such silliness. I’m taken aback to discover that even Dr. Appell is so confused.
The difference between the amount of anthropogenic CO2 emitted, and the amount by which atmospheric CO2 level increases year-to-year, is the “CO2 removal rate.” That’s something with a physical meaning: the rate at which summed negative feedback mechanisms, like terrestrial greening and removal into the oceans, remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
The CO2 removal rate is affected to a minor extent by many factors, like ENSO and volcanoes, but to a major extent by only one factor: the atmospheric CO2 level. Dr. Roy Spencer examined it, and found that it is closely approximated by a very simple function:
(co2level – 295.1) × 0.0233
(units are ppmv CO2)
Note that the removal rate depends on the CO2 level in the atmosphere, not on the emission rate. The removal rate is not affected by the CO2 emission rate (except indirectly, as the emission rate eventually affects the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere).
Atmospheric CO2 is fungible, and little of the CO2 which is removed actually comes from that same year’s emissions. The only way that a change in CO2 emission rate could affect the net CO2 removal rate would be if you piped the emissions into a greenhouse.
The “airborne fraction” (AF) is just the amount by which CO2 level increases year-to-year divided by the anthropogenic emission rate. It does not represent anything physically meaningful, and it certainly is not “near constant.”
The AF is currently approximately 50%, but that’s just an accident of the fact that our current emissions happen to be about twice the removal rate. The AF is declining, and if our emissions were halved, the AF would drop to approximately zero.
In fact, even if our emissions are never reduced at all, if they remain constant at the current rate, the AF will drop to near zero!
Yes, you read that correctly: if CO2 emissions are merely stabilized, and never cut, as the atmospheric concentration rises the removal rate increases, so the CO2 level must eventually plateau.
The plateau level is a function of emission rate, which can be estimated using Spencer’s empirical formula for net CO2 removal rate as a function of atmospheric CO2 level:
removalrate = (co2level – 295.1) × 0.0233
The “plateau CO2 level” is the level at which the removal rate equals the emission rate, so:
emissionrate = (co2level – 295.1) × 0.0233
emissionrate / 0.0233 = (co2level – 295.1)
co2level = (emissionrate / 0.0233) + 295.1
So, for example, if the net anthropogenic emission rate plateaus at 5 ppmv / year (approximately the current rate), then the CO2 level will plateau at approximately (5 / 0.0233) + 295.1 = 510 ppmv. (That’s a forcing equal to 1/3 of a “doubling” from the current 415 ppmv.)
Most climate activists believe and claim that atmospheric CO2 levels will continue to climb as long as we continue to emit CO2. That’s the assumption between “carbon budget” and “net zero” concepts, and it is just plain wrong.
Spencer’s relation also lets us calculate the sustained CO2 emission rate needed for CO2 concentration to approach a given target level. E.g., to reach 725 ppmv would require sustained emissions of at least:
(co2level – 295.1) × 0.0233 = 725 – 295.1) × 0.0233 = 10 ppmv/year
Thus we can say with assurance that if anthropogenic CO2 emissions never double from their current rate, then atmospheric CO2 levels will never reach 725 ppmv.
Dave Burton: regarding airborne fraction – what do the data say?
daveburton wrote:
3/4》 Measurements show that since 1958 (at least), total natural CO2 removals have exceeded total natural CO2 emissions, every single year.
LOLz
Yet atmospheric CO2 is building up. Why?
*HUMAN EMISSIONS*
I wonder why the models don’t use MEASURED water vapor.
Since both have been accurately measured worldwide, about 7 molecules of water vapor have been added to the atmosphere for each molecule of CO2. Each molecule of WV is about 37% more effective at absorbing radiant energy coming from the surface than a CO2 molecule. The human contribution to recent warming has been from water vapor increase mostly (about 90%) from increased irrigation. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
People do not want to know.
“The human contribution to recent warming has been from water vapor increase mostly (about 90%) from increased irrigation.”
This is not correct. water does not care whether it is irrigated or not.
The oceans are much larger than any human irrigation or damming could dream of, not to mention water transport from unirrigated land.
What puts 7 more molecules into the air, if you are right, is the amount of heat reaching the water wherever it is Which is 99.99999…% from the sun.
If you are right it just means we have had more sunshine get through the clouds recently.
Nothing to do with humans.
You obviously did not grasp the analysis at the link.
The fact that about 7 molecules of WV have been added to the atmosphere for each molecule of CO2 added is simply data; the results of measurements for more than 33 years. An investigation of where the extra WV is coming from is presented in Sect 6 where it was discovered that about 90% of the increased WV is from increased irrigation.
Your sarcasm “water does not care whether it is irrigated or not” is vacuous. Water taken from underground or from deep lakes and rivers where it is comparatively cool and then spread wide and shallow in irrigation where it is much warmer results in increased saturation vapor pressure and therefore more evaporation.
The greenhouse effect of water vapor evaporating from the oceans is what made the planet warm enough for life as we know it to have evolved. The ocean area hasn’t changed significantly in millennia and the increased evaporation rate as a result of warming of the oceans is accounted for.
Shallow water in the desert sun warms many times faster and farther than the degree or so of the oceans.
“Your sarcasm “water does not care whether it is irrigated or not” is vacuous. Water taken from underground or from deep lakes and rivers where it is comparatively cool and then spread wide and shallow in irrigation where it is much warmer results in increased saturation vapor pressure and therefore more evaporation.”
Two thirds of the earths surface is permanently covered by water.
The amount of water in the atmosphere is dictated by water presence on the surface and by the air temperature.
I’m sure there is a formula which will tell you how much water the earth’s atmosphere holds and how much it will increase by with a temperature rise.
This far outweighs any minuscule amount of human irrigation.
We had 20 mile rivers in Northern Queensland from recent rain events and salt lakes fill vast expanses for months after rain..
Look at the flood events in America ,Bangladesh, Germany ,Nile flooding etc. Look at the natural totals of water spread out on the land in large shallow plains after every rain event and say the human activity can be detected on this scale?
angech, the effect of agriculture (not necessarily irrigated agriculture) on local humidity appears to be substantial. Large cornfields put a lot of water into the air, via transpiration. While I agree with you that, because 70% of the globe is covered by water (rather than by cornfields), and because water added to the atmosphere is transient, the total effect on “global”[sic] (average) temperatures is surely tiny. But, locally. the extra moisture in the air compresses daily temperature ranges, warming chilly nights, and reducing daytime highs. Here’s an article:
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/corn-belt-weather
Dan, I suspect that the reason they “don’t use MEASURED water vapor” is probably just because measuring water vapor on a global level is hard. H2O vapor is not a well-mixed gas, and there are no sites (analogous to Mauna Loa and Cape Grim for CO2) where you can take H2O vapor measurements which are representative of the entire globe, or of an entire latitude band. The absolute concentration of water vapor varies enormously with latitude, altitude/elevation, and even from hour to hour. There are some satellite-based water vapor measurements for portions of the troposphere, but they obviously don’t give a complete picture, and even if they did there still would be no “global average” number that could be usefully plugged into computer models to generate useful approximations of its consequences, like they try to do with the CO2 level. The bottom line is that the modelers only do what they can do, so things that are too hard to model get left out of the models.
There are two problems. First if you assess ECS based on radiative models, you will have to include overlaps (with GHGs and clouds) and consider realistic surface emissivity. Both make huge differences and are conditio sine qua non. Doing this correctly will only give about 0.4K ECS. That is 0.53K 2xCO2 forcing and a negative (!!!) wapor feedback (lapse rate feedback exceeds the radiative feedback).
Correct radiative models severly undercut observation based ECS estimates. The reason for it is simple, as observation based also means CO2 theory based. If all warming is due to CO2 (and other GHGs plus feedbacks), why is there not enough warming?
Ask a different question: how much warming do contrails cause? Really 0.01W/m2 as the IPCC claims? At the average flight altitude temperatures are 220K, bb emissions about 130W/m2, that is 110W/m2 less than average emissions. If contrails only cover 1% of the sky, that will provide a forcing of 1.1W/m2 already.
“This result shows the increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975, but it is important to acknowledge contrails would add to and not replace any greenhouse gas effect”
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/releases/2004/04-140.html
There is something more profoundly flawed in “climate science”. Did I say something? Rather everything, lol..
https://greenhousedefect.com/
There is a fundamental climate dynamic in which warm periods with circa 280 ppm CO2 abruptly transition to cool states.
‘We note that the Arctic Ocean is characterized by large amplitude multi-decadal variability in addition to a long-term trend, making the link of observed changes to climate drivers problematic. However, the exceptional magnitude of recent high-latitude changes (not only oceanic, but also ice and atmospheric) strongly suggests that these recent changes signify a potentially irreversible shift of the Arctic Ocean to a new climate state.’ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24555307/
https://royalsociety.org/-/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/fig3-large.jpg
Are we there yet?
“The bottom line is that the AR6 has broken the hegemony of the global climate models. The large amount of funding supporting these models towards policy objectives just became more difficult to justify.”
Doubtful.
As you say it is well hidden.
More to the point
The IPCC AR6 WG1 Report. may well have shot itself in the foot as people rush to endorse the worst of these scenarios at COP only to find them grossly wrong, on hopes, in the next 18 months.
We are nearly there.
Mind you, as I may have already mentioned, a couple of climate modellers have just won the Nobel Prize in Physics.
What’s more:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/10/the-2021-nobel-prize-in-physics/#comment-489456
Last month, Time Magazine listed two [climate modellers] – Friederike Otto and Geert Jan van Oldenborg of the World Weather Attribution Project – among the 100 Most Influential People of 2021.
Manabe’s efforts were truly remarkable given the nascent state of climate modeling at the time and that he wrote most of the code himself.
He notes that because he wrote it by himself ( or with a single other collaborator ) he understood how the parameterizations worked and what was inside.
His views on modern models are expressed in this interview:
SM: As the models get ever more complicated – or, as some people say, sophisticated – no one person can appreciate what’s going on inside them. One modeller can be an expert in one component of the model, but doesn’t know the other parts. But now it is impossible to do so. If you make a prediction based on the model and you don’t understand it very well then it is no better than a fortune-teller’s prediction.
( https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-interview-syukuro-manabe )
Mornin’ McGee (UTC),
My views on modern models can be expressed as follows:
Despite all the talk of “the climate models were running too hot” in Judith’s OP it still seems that the CMIP6 bunch have problems modelling past Arctic sea ice decline, let alone projecting/predicting the future thereof.
Worth remembering, the original estimates of sensitivity range were two results. Manabe’s 2C and Hansen’s 4C.
So far, Manabe’s 2C is closest, and he’s the one with the prize.
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/01.04_Cath_Senior.pdf
McGee wrote:
So far, Manabe’s 2C is closest, and he’s the one with the prize.
Nice try — well, not really — but Manabe was a pioneer, by no means the last word.
CMIP6 ECS.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/cmip-6-1.png
Mornin’ Robert (UTC),
Another one of your gnomic comments, not helped by the current inability to embed images in here.
So “the last word” is 1.8 to 5.6 °C?
There is a climate dynamic in which seemingly paradoxically a warm planet with a CO2 rich atmosphere transitions to a cool state. We can expect surprises given a complex dynamical systems theory of climate recognised in the 2021 Nobel prize for physics.
Pingback: More 'Cancel Culture' from Texas A&M Climatologists (Gunnar Schade joins Andrew Dessler) - Master Resource
COucou,
The nobel academy do not agree.
The Nobel Prize in Physics 2021 was awarded “for groundbreaking contributions to our understanding of complex systems” with one half jointly to Syukuro Manabe and Klaus Hasselmann “for the physical modelling of Earth’s climate, quantifying variability and reliably predicting global warming” and the other half to Giorgio Parisi “for the discovery of the interplay of disorder and fluctuations in physical systems from atomic to planetary scales.”
I ‘m curious to read your point of view.
have a good day
Stephane
“natural internal variability receives a lot of attention, volcanoes a fair amount of attention (solar not so much).”
<- Much of "natural internal variability" is variable cloud cover; which is mostly driven by solar variability. Volcanoes are also partly driven by solar variability.
Mark Pawelek wrote:
Volcanoes are also partly driven by solar variability.
1) What’s the evidence?
2) How?
“natural internal variability receives a lot of attention, volcanoes a fair amount of attention (solar not so much).”
<- Because their models don't model solar variability. So it clearly gets little attention as the point of their climate meanderings is to legitimise their models so they can continue to get paid to play computer games.
‘The perils of computing too much and thinking too little’ …
I would add to this that there is too much poor programming because programmers are not thinking through what they are trying to achieve and how it effects and links to the whole system elsewhere. We see the fall out of this very often in commerce e.g. operating system ‘updates’.
We have also seen the problem of information overload in the pandemic from too much data and not enough care ensuring the data is reliable and relevant.
Two comments…
• Many (most?) of us agree that CMIP6 is a big step backwards, and that new models are needed. Personally, I would like to see the time and effort currently wasted on these incorrect models devoted to extending weather models out to much longer time periods. This could pay immediate societal dividends and – in the very long-term – could eventually lead to more useful climate projections.
• It seems that too little attention is being paid to the uncertainty in the temperature record. With all of the corrections being made to measured temperatures to establish a historic record, what is the uncertainty in the pre-industrial average temperature, for example? Do we even know?
John Plodinec wrote: Personally, I would like to see the time and effort currently wasted on these incorrect models devoted to extending weather models out to much longer time periods.
What do you think a climate model is?
John Plodinec wrote: With all of the corrections being made to measured temperatures to establish a historic record, what is the uncertainty in the pre-industrial average temperature, for example?
Why don’t you read some of the papers on reconstructing pre-industrial temperatures of the past few millennia before asking this question??
Pingback: IPCC AR6: Breaking the hegemony of global climate models – Watts Up With That?
With respect to solar, I recently took a look at CERES data here:
https://climateobs.substack.com/p/earth-radiance-trends
Figure 2 indicates that according to CERES, the rate of increase of absorbed solar is nearly twice the rate of radiative forcing!
That doesn’t mean AGW theory is incorrect, but it does raise questions about sensistivity.
CERES could be incorrect, of course. And earthshine indicates an increase of absorbed solar but not as intense as CERES.
Still, there is a lot of ‘splainin’ to be done.
It would appear that not all the warming of recent decades is due to CO2.
It’s an un-peer-reviewed blog post by an anonymous author with hard to follow sources. LOL.
Steve McGee is not “anonymous.” What did you find “hard to follow,” David?
Steve, your new blog site is interesting, and I’ve added a link to it on my site’s “blogroll” page.
That said, your blog site has one glaring flaw: it lacks any way to contact you. You’ve disabled comments, and your “authors” page contains no contact information. Will you please remedy that?
Thanx.
Disabling comments was intentional, but I receive messages through substack.
Afternoon Steve (UTC),
What happens if you try to do a similar analysis just for the Arctic?
Once the CERES site is no longer down for “maintenance” of course!
Steve, I’m not sure that receiving messages through substack works. I found what I think is the correct email address, but I emailed you a couple of times about ten days ago, and got no reply.
Pingback: Breaking the hegemony of global climate models – Watts Up With That? – Adfero News
Pingback: IPCC AR6: Breaking the hegemony of global climate models |
I want to know who the rat at GISS said this in 1972.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Image1810472019.png
You cannot be serious CK?
A (almost) bare link to a random image from (un)Real Climate Science.
Surely you don’t give any credence to “Steve’s” babblings?
Here is your assignment. Discredit the image. I have many, many more of
contemporary news articles about a variety of topics. You are confusing the messenger with the message. Would you like to see all the articles about the Arctic melting in the early 20th Century?
Perhaps you wouldn’t mind explaining at greater length what you think the significance of that particular image is before sharing any others with zero context?
> You are confusing the messenger with the message.
What’s the message, Kid?
Let’s try that again:
I bet you wouldn’t be giving Kid such a hard time if you realized that he’s the guy who impressively foretold Trump’s landslide victory in the 2020 election by reverse engineering from observations about crowd size and social media comments.
The significance is that I can bait Warmists at will since they take the faux science and themselves so seriously. Look at the usual suspects piling on thinking they found something. If they had any real life experiences they would know how they have been had.
You’re the one that’s “been had” by “Steve Goddard” CK.
Here’s some overwhelming evidence for you:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/10/lies-damned-lies-and-tony-heller-videos/
Surely a sufficiently unambiguous title for someone of Tony Heller’s intellectual capacity to comprehend?
[KID] You are confusing the messenger with the message.
[ALSO KID] The significance is that I can bait Warmists
Stop giving Kid such a hard time.
It takes a special talent to bait warmists by making incredibly dumb posts.
Is there a Nobel Prize for smartarses phoning it in?
That’d be a shame if there wasn’t, Chief.
You’d be the first pick.
I know you are but what am I.
Jim
You still aren’t getting it. Look at all the articles that he has put online. Are they authentic? If he posts a 1923 NYT article, did he somehow magically create it? Show me evidence that these old articles are inauthentic then you might have a point. But you can’t so you don’t.
Mornin’ CK (UTC),
“Show me evidence that these old articles are inauthentic”
I already have done! Over and over again.
Most recently, Tony unashamedly referencing a newspaper clipping instead of US Navy data on Arctic sea ice thickness:
https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/1446202085826043909
Warmists are baiting themselves and you don’t have to go back to the 1920s, you need to go back to Wednesday.
Tom Friedman of the NYT wrote this week that “people will die” in Europe this winter due to a shortage of, and resulting high prices of, fossil fuels. He neglects to explain why anyone needs them in the warmist Europe, greta says they don’t.
He also notes that this has made Vladimir Putin a “king” in Europe and put Iran in control of oil prices. Great job Paris Accord!
He unconvincingly begs us to not blame the greens for the coming calamity, after listing all the causes of the shortage, every one of which were the stated goals of the greens (restrict fossil fuels).
His “explanation” is the sudden post-Covid surge in demand – which is actually just back to where it was pre-Covid when supply met demand. Why can’t supply catch up? They stopped investing to address the drop in demand during covid shutdowns and they can’t ramp up because of the green regulations, which assumed the transition from fossil fuels was real.
Oh he also explicitly says on the pages of the NYT from the position of a warmist, that shutting down nukes was a big mistake and anyone not in favor of more nukes right now isn’t serious about climate change. But we’ve all known that for 30 years.
Pace Willard, that’s Friedman saying this, not me.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/05/opinion/energy-climate-iran-nuclear.html
Why wait for Thomas to write, Jeff. Generate your own:
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/create-your-own-thomas-friedman-op-ed-column
Contrarians have done a little cancel culture on teh Goddard a while ago:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperature/#comment-130003
Jim
If Tony referenced a government report would you say the government report is inauthentic? No, of course not.
I’m trying to make a very simple point. Don’t confuse what is in the article versus whether there was never such an article. Obviously that article was published. But, was the article accurate? That is a different question. Was it fake news, that Trump railed about? Possibly. Then you and Trump would be on the same side criticizing Fake News.
I’m surprised you can’t see the distinction. I know all about the charges against Heller. I’ve never referenced his analysis. But providing an article that obviously was published is a totally different issue. I’m fascinated that you have come unglued because of a benign article that was done partially tongue in cheek. I love poking fun at the fanaticism of warmists and their reactions to anything that is not the party line. Reminds me of the behavior of the Soviets, Brownshirts and Red Guard. True believers and Thought Police acting in the name of the “cause”.
I will continue to provide such articles, as I’ve done below, since who put the article online is completely irrelevant. Plus, I know it irritates a lot of people, which is reason enough to do it.
Whatever turns you on CK,
FYI I’m rolling on the floor between the aisles laughing.
> I know it irritates a lot of people, which is reason enough to do it.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kid:
Posting teh Goddard’s newsies mostly shows that you’re going too long in the “but 70s” and “but the press” Bingo squares.
It also shows that you’re powered by contrarianism, but that was already granted.
Hi Willy,
Let’s see, on the topic of solutions, Dot-Earth Andy is wrong, James Hansen is wrong, the Breakthrough boys are wrong, Michael Moore is wrong, Bill Gates is wrong, and Tom Friedman is wrong.
Pretty soon that will impact the narrative that only denier Republicans are wrong.
So who’s right? Go ahead, you care deeply about this, we’ll wait for your answer (in vain).
> on the topic of
These squirrels won’t float just because you like to pontificate on them, Jeff. In fact there’s empirical evidence that your playbook does not work:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abd4201
Better luck in your next life!
Hi Willy,
I find myself in agreement (on solutions) with Michael Moore, James Hansen, Tom Friedman and Bill Gates. So do most Republicans.
That’s the opposite of political polarization. That’s called common ground.
But then again, you are a guest poster on a site currently chit-chatting about rationing in the UK as a solution. Or giant taxes on top of the already skyrocketing prices of energy. Neither of which will happen, but both of which certainly would introduce unnecessary political polarization. And be ineffective too!
But sure, I’m introducing political polarization, just like every conservative does when they cite the NYT’s resident liberal.
> I find myself in agreement (on solutions) with […] James Hansen
Glad to see we may be in violent agreement, Jeff.
Alas it’s not clear that you’re for a carbon tax or for renewables like Jim is. In fact I have yet to see you stand against fossil fuel subsidies, against Republicans cancelling scientists, and against hippie punching in general. Something tells me that you’re trying to insinuate “but nukes” instead of paying any kind of due diligence to what Jim wrote over the years.
Have another cookie:
https://www.pnas.org/content/114/40/10612
Perhaps you’re not punching hippies hard enough?
Actually Willard this is what Hansen has to say about renewables.
“Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the US, China, India or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.”
James Hansen ‘Baby Lauren and the Kool Aid.’
Here’s more recent, Dave:
When you’ll give URLs, I will reciprocate.
Willard
I at least gave you the title of Hansen’s piece which the ducks could easily find for you.
This is the 10th anniversary of Hansen’s Easter Bunny essay, by the way.
Willy quotes without thinking about the quote:
“Renewable energy can play an important role in our energy future, if it is limited to a fraction of total energy. But it needs to be complemented by clean carbon-free dispatchable energy.”
Renewables “limited to a fraction” just like country music is on my play list.
“Needs to be complemented by… dispatchable energy” just like my car complements my bicycle when reviewing cross-state vacation plans (but that bike “can play an important role” in goofing around at the destination!
Or, to put it precisely, what Hansen is saying is the same thingt wwe have always known :e at great cost wind and solar can periodically reduce the amount of natural gas (or oil as in the case of Cuba and Hawaii) that is used to balance the peaks in demand above that provided by a nuclear power plant’s baseload power. But, since you have to have 100% of that in the form of natural gas turbines anyway because renewables are unreliable, you might as well not bother with the unreliables.
But… biomass!
https://news.sky.com/story/climate-change-draxs-renewable-energy-plant-is-uks-biggest-co2-emitter-analysis-claims-12428130
If you were tasked to design a “policy framework” under which hundreds of billions were spent for no benefit at all, you would not come up with one as thoroughly useless and destructive as the product of the last 30 years of climate advocacy. T
> At least
You can select the quote to find the text, Dave.
You might note that it was written in 2021, so it might be harder for contrarians to misrepresent what Jim meant.
Not that it will prevent Jeff to punch hippies.
My spidey sense tells me that it is less hippy bashing than wack-a-hipster-doofus.
Hippies care about the planet. Those who don’t, try to hide behind them.
By the way, the sly suggestion that Hansen prefers renewables over nuclear these days is a complete fabrication. He appears to be angrier than ever before at the climate activists who are driving the fantasy of wind and solar powered economies.
http://redgreenandblue.org/2021/09/22/dr-james-hansen-august-temperature-update-gas-bag-season-approaches/
Some choice quotes from the column written less than a month ago:
“Gas bag politicians won’t show you the data that matter because that would reveal their miserable performances. Instead, they set climate goals for their children while adopting no polices that would give such goals a chance. ”
Who are these “gas bags” and what was their miserable performance? Trump, right? He minces no words on that:
“At COP6 in Bonn in 2001, Germany used its host country status to lock out nuclear power as a clean development mechanism, thus locking in dependence on gas and assuring accelerated growth of atmospheric CH4 and CO2. Stabilization of climate requires abundant carbon-free electricity. Instead, use of gas as the complement to intermittent renewables is almost as bad as coal because of the effect on both CH4 and CO2 amounts.”
But…. isn’t nuclear bad?
“Raising living standards while phasing down fossil fuels requires a large amount of dispatchable electric power available 24/7. Historically the fastest growth of carbon-free electricity has been from installation of nuclear power,[6] but fast growth occurred only after acceptable reactor designs were fixed.”
But… renewable policy worked, right?
“Almost unlimited, uncalculated, subsidies were provided to renewable energies, in part via requirement that utilities obtain a growing percentage of power from renewables – renewable portfolio standards, instead of clean energy portfolio standards. Three decades of heavy R&D subsidies drove down the price of renewables, but that is all. Thus, three decades after Clinton’s election, about 80 percent of energy in the United States and in the world (Fig. 4) continues to be provided by fossil fuels.[2]”
And then the kicker- all those massive increases in CO2 emissions from China and India are courtesy of team warm.
“Countries such as China and India need an enormous amount of energy to raise living standards of large populations. More and more of that energy needs to be carbon-free electricity. The West knew that and China and India made known that they wanted modern, safe nuclear power as a major part of that energy, which would also help clean up air pollution. The West not only declined to help – it put up roadblocks.”
The only suggestion on the table is the one according to which Jim would be against renewables. That suggestion is false.
Intriguingly, Jeff never suggests that Jim’s position is more radical than how he usually portrays it:
http://priceofoil.org/2021/07/13/as-killer-heat-continues-dr-jim-hansen-slams-hypocritical-uk-gov-over-proposed-new-oil-field/
But then Denizens know how Jeff is always very parsimonious with the truth.
Willy posts a link to a lefty blog that doesn’t contradict anything i wrote.
Hansen supports nuclear.
Nuclear.
Write that down.
He doesn’t support wind, solar, or oil. Your post that Hansen doesn’t support oil doesn’t contradict anything i wrote.
In fact, the link to Hansen i provided, (rather than a blog by someone else) clearly shows that Hansen believes the Easter Bunny proposals causes more oil and gas development. And nuclear would not.
Truth. Tell it, Dr. Jim.
Meanwhile the blog you guest post on is doing it’s typical solution debate- they permit conversations about rationing, population control, and more windmills and solar panels. However, no nukes.
With apologies to Dr. Strangelove: Gentlemen, this a blog about climate change, real solutions to emissions aren’t allowed here!
You can see why Hansen is ticked.
Jeff squirrels away from the only point that matters here. Let’s call it replacement:
[REPLACEMENT] The only way to replace fossil fuels is to replace fossil fuels.
Jim’s stance is to be understood as a way to implement REPLACEMENT.
It is not meant to support his Hippie punching.
This is so simple that Jeff can only throw squirrels.
“It is not meant to support his Hippie punching.”
I don’t know how Hansen could more clearly launch haymakers at Hippies than he has been.
Wind and solar advocates? Hansen’s words: “belief in the Easter Bunny.”
Politicians making Paris pledges based on renewables: Hansen’s words: “gas bags.”
Evidence of benefit from 30 years of massive investment in renewables? Hansen’s words: “Three decades of heavy R&D subsidies drove down the price of renewables, but that is all. Thus, three decades after Clinton’s election, about 80 percent of energy in the United States and in the world (Fig. 4) continues to be provided by fossil fuels.[2]”
Hippie gas bags getting it completely wrong? Hansen’s words: “The West knew that and China and India made known that they wanted modern, safe nuclear power as a major part of that energy, which would also help clean up air pollution. The West not only declined to help – it put up roadblocks.”
The man is brutal on the warm because he actually cares. He literally says their belief in renewables is a fantasy, he literally says their opposition to nuclear power is irrational, he literally writes that their domestic and global policies aren’t simply nonsense, they result in more emissions.
And that is why Willy wants to hide his words. Hansen has his number.
And so Jeff swings and misses again, for he’s what Jim suggested a long time ago:
Funny how Jeff “forgets” to mention Jim’s stance on oil, gas, and other GHG producing energy schemes.
Let’s do it for him:
Has Jeff ever took a stand against tar sands?
Of course not. He’s just using Jim to punch hippies.
> How long ago? Where?
In your favorite essay by Jim, cupcake.
It’s as if you haven’t read it at all.
In it, Jim makes a very simple point, yet one you continually keep misrepresenting:
This point rests on a very simple axiom:
The only way to replace fossil fuels is to replace fossil fuels.
I get that Jim’s Easter Bunny rant amuses contrarians, as it helps them punch hippies. But for some reason contrarians always miss the point behind it, let alone the axiom on which it rests.
Jim’s carbon tax certainly amused me. Fossil fuels will not be replaced until there are cost competitive alternatives. That requires innovation in free markets. Free markets are anathema to hipster doofi – to be replaced by poor wee willies AI economic overlord.
Jeff –
Speaking of swinging and missing…
Remember this? :
Or how about this?:
So you said that deaths in Florida were 126 for that week. Actually the CDC record now has that on that date there were 204 deaths per day. It per week. PER DAY.
In reality there were some 240 deaths in NY that week and 1,424 deaths on Florida.
That’s very impressive. You weren’t just wrong. You were off by almost 1,250%
Tell me something. Does being off by 1,250% cause you to reevaluate your thinking?
How did you get it that wrong?
I’m very curious.
Poor Josh tries to ride to Willy’s rescue with his Florida obsession.
I used CDC numbers, Josh says the CDC lies! A Trumpian conspiracy theory, but I guess he’s entitled to it.
Florida is doing just fine with Covid. Still significantly better than Josh’s heroes in the NY government.
Interestingly enough, the case counts in NY are higher than Florida right now. By a lot. Have been for a week and are getting worse. Despite the fact that NY has much lower population that Florida and NY prohibits you from buying a hamburger without two masks and six vaccine shots.
But the narrative!!!
Jeff –
> I used CDC numbers, Josh says the CDC lies!
I used the CDC numbers Jeff. With accounting for the lag, on the 23rd of September the 7-day average moving number is 204. You laughably thought the death total was 116 for the week.
203 is the number from the CDC, Jeff.
That very day I told you that you needed to account for the lag in reporting. I gave you information on why the lag exists.
You wrote a comment based on the mistaken view that there were more deaths in NY at that time than in Florida. You weren’t just wrong about that. You were ridiculously wrong. He number you though I was, was off by over 1,250%
Your lack of accountability for that degree of error is impressive.
Here’s the newspaper article snippet which so upset Jim Hunt:
I found the rest of the article; here’s a screenshot:
https://sealevel.info/Leonard_Metz_Sun-Telegram_1972-10-15_climate_change02_outlined.png
One bit of context that it provides is that “degree” is “centigrade” (Celsius). So let’s see what climate sensitivity that implies.
One small problem is that “increase ten times” is a bit vague. Does it mean 10× the current level, or 11× the current level? I’m going to guess that it means 10×, but I’m not sure.
10× the current level would be 3.32 doublings. 2.5 °C of warming from 3.32 doublings implies a climate sensitivity of 0.75 °C per doubling. That probably isn’t very far from the mark for TCR.
You and Tony are both mind readers now Dave?
Who said I was upset?
Certainly ’twasn’t me!
CKid wrote, “I want to know who the rat at GISS said this in 1972. https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Image1810472019.png ”
Jim Hunt replied with invective suggesting that he doesn’t believe the excerpt is genuine.
Note that in 1972 the atmospheric CO2 level was about 327.5 ppmv.
Here’s the text of 1972 newspaper article excerpt which so upset Jim:
I found the rest of the article; here’s a screenshot:
https://sealevel.info/Leonard_Metz_Sun-Telegram_1972-10-15_climate_change02_outlined.png
One bit of context that it provides is that “degree” is “centigrade” (Celsius). So let’s see what climate sensitivity that implies.
One small problem is that “increase ten times” is a bit vague. Does it mean 10× the current level, or 11× the current level? I’m going to guess that it means 10×, but I’m not sure.
10× the current level would be 3.32 doublings. 2.5 °C of warming from 3.32 doublings implies a climate sensitivity of 0.75 °C per doubling. That probably isn’t very far from the mark for TCR.
“Invective”?
Moi?
Surely you cannot be serious Dave?
1. Sorry about the duplication. I’m having trouble telling when my comments fail or are merely enqueued for moderation.
2. Yes, Jim, when you call someone’s blog “(un)Real” and their communication “babbling” I call that invective, and evidence of being upset. Where I live, folks don’t talk that way unless they’re upset.
BTW, Tony blocked me on Twitter. So you’re apparently not the only one who appears to be upset.
Mornin’ Dave (UTC).
I’ll allow your “invective”.
However I recently translated your “upset” on Twitter as “rolling on the floor between the aisles laughing.
#ROFBAL?
Hey, don’t give kid six a hard time.
Hwa the guy who impressively foretold Trump’s landslide victory by reverse engineering from his observations about crowd size and social media comments.
“And so Jeff swings and misses again, for he’s what Jim suggested a long time ago:”
How long ago? Where? I gave you a link where he said the opposite last month.
“Funny how Jeff “forgets” to mention Jim’s stance on oil, gas, and other GHG producing energy schemes.”
-Actually I addressed it directly, so does Jim. He says the ridiculous reliance on unreliables was the direct cause of more oil and gas development. Says it in the link I gave you and the quotes I posted.
You can’t electrify transportation or anything else without clean, reliable, abundant electricity. You want to reduce the use of oil, promote nuclear energy because it’s the only way you’ll get electric heat, cars, trains, buses. You want to increase the use of oil, promote solar so that we need fossil fuels to back it up, everyone needs a home generator, and people determine gas-powered cars are necessary for reliability.
“Has Jeff ever took a stand against tar sands?”
Who cares what Jeff thinks, has Justin Trudeau? Of course not. He’s well aware that issuing the right press releases on left-wing talking points means he never has to.
Me? I love the Tesla, I’m looking forward to the day I can afford or get an EV and they shut down the trains and trucks running tar sands to the ports.
First step- reliable, cheap electricity.
Since we’re asking each other questions?
Has Willy ever explained why he insists on ineffective policy (sold with untrue hype about renewables and untrue scare stories)?
In your favorite essay by Jim, cupcake. See in the proper subthread for more.
Now, my turn: where was the last time you took a stand against oil, gas, and other GHG producing energy schemes?
Ah, so 10 years ago. In the essay where he said relying on renewables was a fantasy. And a month ago he acknowledged that he was wrong- it was worse than a fantasy, it promoted the growth of fossil fuels.
Hansen grasps a simple axiom that is far beyond political hucksters like you- there is no “rising cost of carbon” without an alternative to switch to. A carbon tax coupled with the current fairy tale of the gas bags won’t happen because not even Justin Trudeau is silly enough to freeze his voters to death.
I get Hansen’s point just fine, I also recognize your sleight of hand in misrepresenting it.
A “rising cost of carbon” is possible with an inexpensive, reliable, solution that works. Like nuclear. Of course, people capable of reason immediately notice that you don’t actually need to increase the cost of carbon or demand that everyone rebuild their houses to be more efficient once you allow the available, sane energy policy.
You can use as much abundant, emissions-free energy as you want and won’t care how much oil costs because you don’t need it.
Build solar and you could put a $100/gallon tax on oil without making a dent in the amount used because you’ll pay any price to avoid freezing to death. Well, they’ll pay it until the next election.
Hansen is smarter than you- a carbon tax is a threat that would spur people to do something smart – like switch to nukes – but would never get anyone to do something ridiculous. He wouldn’t care if it never actually got implemented as long as they’re building nukes.
And now you know why Hansen cares about climate, and Willy does not.
Your turn? You never answered my question. Have you ever taken a stand for something rational in climate? Looking forward to your guest post on the riveting rationing and population reduction discussion on ATTP.
> so 10 years ago
I can go further to spoonfeed you, dear Jeff:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/dec/27/james-hansen-copenhagen-agreement-opportunities
Just tell me if you want more of Jim’s corpus on this idea.
The only way to reduce fossil fuels is to reduce fossil fuels, not “but renewables.”
> Have you ever taken a stand for something rational in climate?
I bet you still have to read the post, Jefforino:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/11/29/going-nuclear/
The only way to reduce fossil fuels consumption is to reduce fossil fuel consumption. As a matter of rational fact, it might be hard to bypass tautologies.
I’m still waiting for your quote bashing tar sands, btw.
“The only way to reduce fossil fuels consumption is to reduce fossil fuel consumption. As a matter of rational fact, it might be hard to bypass tautologies.”
The policies you fought for increase the use of fossil fuels. Here’s the Wall Street Journal today following up on stories that every major news outlet is reporting- Europe and much of the rest of the northern hemisphere is taking the unusual step of burning oil this winter to make electricity:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/gas-shortage-forces-power-plants-to-switch-to-oil-boosting-demand-11634200084
“Analysts say the IEA’s forecast of an extra 500,000 barrels a day in demand from the energy crisis may be conservative.”
Analysts think it will be a million barrels
500,000 to a million barrels a day of oil burned for literally no other reason that Willy et al wanted to shut down emissions-free nuclear power and “replace” it with wind and solar that cannot replace it.
A million barrels. Per day. Willy should be Exxon’s employee of the year.
Why are they doing this?
“Relatively weak natural gas inventories for the time of year and low wind levels in Europe have coincided with the post-pandemic economic recovery, coal shortages in China and the possibility of a cold Northern Hemisphere winder to send fossil-fuel prices soaring.”
And they have to burn oil because Willy’s policy preference really is that the alternative is to freeze in the dark while unemployed and no democratic government will allow that (and most non-democratic ones won’t as well.)
Wouldn’t a big carbon tax reduce this demand? We already know the answer. The price of fossil fuels is skyrocketing – doubling and in some cases up five-fold – thanks to Willy’ policies. The big additional price on carbon is here and higher than that proposed by any warmist. The result- it won’t make a dent in the demand, in fact the amount burned will be higher than normal. Jacking up the price is meaningless if you don’t allow something else that works.
Hansen knew this, Willy does too. Hansen cares about climate and Willy something else.
Wall Street Journal today
https://www.wsj.com/articles/gas-shortage-forces-power-plants-to-switch-to-oil-boosting-demand-11634200084
IEA says they’re going to burn 500,000 barrels of oil a day to make electricity this winter in China, Japan, France, Germany and Brazil. In Europe because the wind didn’t blow and they got nothing else.
Analysts say the IEA is wrong. The real amount will be a million barrels a day of oil. To make electricity. The price is skyrocketing, with no impact on demand (the opposite of the carbon tax argument).
I nominate Willard to be tar sands employee of the month.
I remember that four-year-old ATTP thread. I skimmed it again. Love the suggestion that it would be fine if wind/solar didn’t work because you’d just institute 3-day work weeks and rolling blackouts in the winter in the UK. You were interested. Even BBD thought that was nuts.
That was also the thread where you claimed it was too late to build nukes because they take decades to build (they don’t), which is fun because people told you this three decades ago.
But now we see the result- restrict fossil fuels (coal and natural gas) build wind and solar and you get to….. burn oil. And argue that you have to keep doing the wrong thing because it’s too late to stop now.
I love how you’re tap dancing around the fact that I’m far from being against nukes, Jefforino. There’s no need to delve in how or why you still misunderestimate the costs of them for the moment.
What is required from you right now is a clear stand against fossil fuels, say tar sands, and to acknowledge that the only way to reduce fossil fuels is to reduce fossil fuels.
“But renewables” does not cut it.
> I love how you’re tap dancing around the fact that I’m far from being against nukes, Jefforino.
Tapdancing? Never seen that before.
I mean that’s not at all like when Jeff says I said the CDC lies. Or when he says that I didn’t mention per capita rates. Or when he makes up many other statements I never made and puts words in my mouth.
Nope. Not at all. Not even remotely.
Who’s dancing here? Your preferred policies caused more oil use. End your policies, burn less oil.
You aren’t fooling anyone, by the way. You are not pro-nuke. I encourage any lurker here to actually visit Willard’s own link. It’s a masterpiece of the warmist nuclear 2-step.
It goes like this (I paraphrase): well, we acknowledge that the pro-nuke crowd has a pretty obvious, clear point, and gosh-darnit, we’d love to see one, maybe two nuclear power plants perhaps after 2050 as we obviously need to set a regulatory framework such that they take at least 30 years each to build and cost at least five times the necessary amount for no apparent reason other than it pleases to the Green Party.
Now, having said that, we can’t wait, so solar panels and rolling blackouts it is! (In that link, Willard literally nods approvingly to the idea of only allowing factories or any businesses to operate three days a week in the UK and be dark the other four.)
To simplify the state of affairs:
Hansen, and others who care, suggest assuming that governments won’t turn off the heat or lights and, as a result, advocates should choose rational alternatives.
Willy stops him in that first phrase- why assume any government won’t turn off the lights and heat?
In that 2017 link to ATTP they would have government turn off the lights and heat with rolling blackouts. Today on ATTP they’re chit-chatting about powering down via rationing. In ’17 and today they think it would be better to have government impose a giant cost on lights and heat that would force people to turn them off. And, of course, having always known renewables couldn’t power western economies, their first choice is to simply demand them, tell the public fairy tales about them, and just let the night go dark and cold as a surprise.
But Hansen has been consistent. If you assume no government is daft enough to turn off the lights and heat, you won’t be wrong. None have in 30+ years. The minute the prospect of rolling blackout loomed, the global plan formed to burn a million barrels of oil a day to keep the lights and heat on this winter -even in climate-goofy Europe.
And you understand whose fault that is.
> Your preferred policies caused
And what are my preferred policies, Jefforino?
Something tells me you’re confusing me with the hippies you gleefully punch each day.
While I await you to back up your strawman, have more of Jim:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20080604_TaxAndDividend.pdf
When will you commit against encourageing population growth?
“You cannot hide coal in your purse; it travels in railroad cars that are easy to spot.”
Nuclear power went from zero to 20%+ of the US electricity supply in ~20 years, supplanting coal in each case.
Quick- how big was the carbon tax that caused that?
Trick question, there wasn’t one.
Natural-gas has been replacing coal feverishly in the US over the last 10 years and it isn’t fear of carbon taxes, the warmists have successfully forced governments to replace nuclear power with natural gas. And now they are forcing governments to burn oil for electricity.
Quick- how big was the carbon tax that caused that?
Trick question, there wasn’t one.
Based on observations, how big does the carbon tax need to be in order to affect the change from coal and nuclear to something that works?
Trick question, you don’t need one, you simply need competent leadership and sane activists.
Willard’s love of a carbon tax is no secrete, the question of what he wants people to switch to instead of carbon is no secrete either. Willard would have people burn more carbon every year and pay higher taxes- just as they will this winter as a result of his preferred policies. At least that’s the net effect. What he actually wants, of course, is for the lights to go out in the West, not for any climate benefit of course.
> Willard’s love of a carbon tax
You mean Jim’s and more than 97% of all economists, Jeffornino.
Have more of Jim:
https://bigthink.com/videos/a-carbon-tax-that-works/
Yeah – even “renewable energy”! If only you accepted that the only way to reduce fossil fuels is to reduce fossil fuels…
Where’s your stand against tar sands?
“Where’s your stand against tar sands?”
Asked and answered- low cost, abundant, reliable electricity production means fewer home generators running, more EVs, more electric trains and trucks, no more tar sands.
Where’s your stand against Gazprom? Or are Putin and Trudeau fighting over which one of their fossil fuels you do a better job of selling? I say Putin, because you have forced the tar sands to be even less environmentally friendly and more costly to transport and that means even more profit and control for Putin. Imagine how much money you can get to the Russian military if you manage to prevent nuclear and shut down the tar sands!
That’s not a stand against tar sands, Jefforino. That’s just contrarian magical thinking, the very kind of reasoning Jim warns against. Here’s what a stand against tar sands looks like:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110902_WhiteHouseAndTarSands.pdf
You should read what Jim has to say instead of squirreling away with with cherries picked from his Bunny essay.
Whining about how oil prices is skyrocketing these days might not be the best way to take a stand against tar sands. It’s not even coherent with going long on nukes. Were nukes price competitive, you can bet that Murican venture capitalists would have plunged a long time ago.
You don’t think your posts through very well do you?
If nuclear, then more EVs, less demand for oil then lower price for oil, then which which source of oil goes away first?
Hmmm.
Could it be the one that costs the most to produce? “Tar sands oil not only exceeds conventional petroleum, the energy used in mining, processing, and transporting…”?
Why, yes, it would be the one that goes away first! Go figure.
But, you’re Canadian so you actually have a say in the Canadian government, and obviously you’ve done much better at reducing tar sands oil. In fact, your much better approach to policy has resulted in the following reduction in tar sands output: zero.
Oh, my.
You haven’t done a thing. Except make tar sands more profitable. And therefore harder to shut down (go ahead, take those jobs and that government revenue). Great job!
“Were nukes price competitive, you can bet that Murican venture capitalists would have plunged a long time ago.”
Another line you didn’t think through. Jim Hansen, again, “The West not only declined to help – it put up roadblocks.”
When you put up roadblocks to something, you cannot complain people didn’t drive the road. Those ‘merican venture capitalists put their money into the stuff you wanted- oil and natural gas. Now, granted, you only wanted that developed in Russia and maybe Venezuela, but you got the money spent where you wanted it.
In that month-old link I provided, our friend Jim ventures into some dark conjecture about how warmist’s hostility to nuclear benefits Vladimir Putin by essentially leaving Russia as the sole source of investment and nuclear technology – one that the globe must turn to for actual energy while the western “gas bags” babble about Easter Bunnies.
But then benefitting Russia is Wee Willy’s goal.
> If nuclear
You keep burning down a strawman to dodge an elementary points, Jefforino. The only way to limit GHGs in the atmosphere is to reduce fossil fuel consumption. One sure way to reduce fossil fuel consumption is to incentivize against it. One way to do that is Pigouvian tax.
Virtually everyone agrees on this, including Jim and more than 97% of all the economists.
Besides, what do you mean by “if nuclear”? Be specific. While awaiting for your clarification, here’s another bit from Jim on the price for oil:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/19/james-hansen-nasa-scientist-climate-change-warning
Whatever fantasy you entertain about the Hippies you punch, reality offers you little choice. Nukes do not cost less than fossil fuels, so to replace fossil fuels by nukes will increase costs.
Hitachi are no hippies, you know.
Williard:
Yes – nukes do cost more. However, that could be changed by standardizing on one or two newer and safer designs and then building 100 at a time (and getting rid of some of the regulation). Store the waste on-site or ship it to a recycling reactor.
Even if nukes cost more – they don’t produce nearly the amount of CO2 as fossil fuels and provide baseload power which is available when it is dark and not windy.
We produce 20% of the power in the USA with 100 nukes. Build 100 more and we can produce 40%. Build another 100 and we can produce 60%. Build another 100 and we can produce 80%.
The tech exists and solves the problem – so what is more important. A little extra cost or preventing CO2 emissions? I predict if we built 300 in the next 5 to 10 years, the costs would plummet and it would be cheaper than coal, oil and natural gas – especially if you take the transportation costs of fossil fuels into account.
Just one person’s opinion of course.
“One sure way to reduce fossil fuel consumption is to incentivize against it.”
For goodness sakes, think man!
The world did not switch from bronze because of a copper tax or peak tin. It was because there was something better than bronze. The only way to reduce fossil fuel use is to give people something else to use.
1. Assume people will use energy.
2. Allow the production of energy.
3. Incentivize the energy production that makes sense.
You fail utterly (intentionally) at number three, therefore you wish to debate one and two.
Hansen has called your bluff- people will use energy, you must allow them to use energy, time to stop trying to sell unobtanium.
Hansen believes a carbon tax could make the switch to nuclear faster. I don’t think it’s necessary, but the point’s moot because for 30 years you’ve interrupted that conversation to demand the world impose a big fat tax in order to make the jump to hamster wheels. When you’re done banging your high chair and throwing food, call the adults back in the room. Take your time, we all have plenty.
> However
That’s the most beautiful “yes, but” I have seen in a long while, RickA. At least you have more fortitude than Jefforino, who doesn’t seem to grasp energy economics very well. That might explain his hippie punching and now his red baiting.
I heard there were interesting oil fields in Irak. Do you think he’d like to invade again?
Let’s remind him who’s stopping which conversation:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/sep/15/hitachi-to-pull-plug-on-north-wales-nuclear-power-station
Who’d have thunk that Jefforino was a damned statist?
Rick –
Given that pretty much everywhere that nukes have gone big its been subsidized/funded by federal-level governments through very centralized energy policies, and given that return on investment in nukes has a very long time horizon (and good returns Ina much shorter time horizon are fairly easy to find if you have those kinds of bucks), how do you see massive build out of nukes taking place with the large ideological resistence to “big government?”
“To provide [electricity] in today’s world, an ‘advanced reactor’ must improve over existing reactors in the following 4-core objectives. It must produce significantly less costly, cost-competitive clean electricity, be safer, produce significantly less waste and reduce proliferation risk. It is not sufficient to excel at one without regard to the others.” Dr. Christina Back, Vice President, Nuclear Technologies and Materials for General Atomics, May 2016 testimony before the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on the status of advanced nuclear technologies.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/ga-em2.jpg
https://watertechbyrie.com/2019/04/08/small-modular-nuclear-reactor-promise-smr-prospects-are-good/
Joshua:
I don’t know how we get from point A to point B. But nuclear is the answer to the problem of global warming. If there is a will there is a way. Nothing technical stands in the way.
I would provide tax breaks and encourage private power companies to build them. I would structure it so nuclear was cheaper to the companies than fossil fuels and allow the companies to raise rates to recoup the capital outlays and incentives over 30 years. I am not an expert in finance – but it seems to me if the problem of global warming is big enough we can find a way to finance the nuclear solution. It seems like a no brainer to me. We will see if the rest of the environmental movement comes around to nuclear like Hansen and Schllenberger did.
> Nothing technical stands in the way.
There actually is. For instance:
https://www.gao.gov/nuclear-waste-disposal
But let’s blame Russians. And hippies. More importantly hippies.
That’ll solve everything.
No there isn’t.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/10/radiative-energy-flux-variations-from-2000-2020/#comment-961563
For what it’s worth – I blame hipster doofi.
Indeed there is:
https://www.sussex.ac.uk/news/research?id=53376
Hippie punching will cause the nukes’ demise.
Chief –
It’s not worth much bucaise you can’t even count. At least some hipsters can count:
The number for October 3 is 108 (and it’s going to go up).
Rick –
> If there is a will there is a way.
If there were will to provide cheap energy – to everyone who needs it – without fossil fuels, it could happen
> We will see if the rest of the environmental movement comes around to nuclear like Hansen and Schllenberger did.
The environmental movement isn’t in the driver’s seat.
You gotta love Willard’s latest nuclear two-step tap dance link.
Nuclear and renewables are “incompatible”- oh my!
Why?
“These include the configuration of electricity transmission and distribution systems where a grid structure optimized for larger scale centralized power production such as conventional nuclear, will make it more challenging, time-consuming and costly to introduce small-scale distributed renewable power.”
You see, if you build nuclear, not only do you not need the renewable power, it interferes with the need that renewables have to tear down the existing power distribution grid and replace it entirely!
But what happens if you do that?
No electricity at night or when the wind doesn’t blow. And then what? A million barrels a day of oil burned to keep the lights on and the heat on.
Let’s rephrase the discovery of this study: We find that airlines and airports are incompatible with transcontinental bicycle travel. These include the configuration of rapid travel optimized through centralized airports will make it more challenging, time consuming, and costly to introduce cross country bicycle paths.
And still it’s wrong. Why not let solar, wind, and batteries provide peaking power and nuclear provide base load? If you do that, the lights won’t go off and Putin and Trudeau wont be able to sell their oil. And let’s not forget, they aren’t merely preventing nuclear power, they’re shutting down existing plants. And replacing them with oil, gas, coal and idle windmills.
This is now entirely political. If they admit nuclear is the answer, then it was obviously so in the 1990s and the “climate action” proposed by left-wing parties for the last thirty years was wrong.
And, of course, the world’s energy policy post the thoughtless attack on nuclear in the 1970s by left-wing parties was wrong.
And, of course, as Hansen noted last month, all those trillions of tons of CO2 emitted by China over the last 30 years were unnecessarily caused by climate activists affiliated with left-wing parties rather than Exxon. They insisted on it and got it.
Today, preservation of the left-wing parties is more important to activists than climate so, they ask us to pretend hamster wheels are still an option.
And the oil burns.
Willard –
It’s clear from Jeff’s comments that you hate nukler.
Why do you hate nukler, Willard?
Step aside, James Delingpole – there’s a new Interpreter of Interpretations in town!
Jefforino can’t bring himself to accept that the main reason why nuclear power plants have been decommissioned in the US of A is the gas boom:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States
Not hippies. Not Vlad. Low fossil fuel production costs. High financing costs for nuclear plants. And Jefforino still has the nerves to claim that taxation won’t be necessary!
Nevertheless, let’s thank him for his concerns. Our “But Nukes” Bingo square is mostly complete.
“Jefforino can’t bring himself to accept that the main reason why nuclear power plants have been decommissioned in the US of A is the gas boom:”
You still aren’t thinking through your posts.
Goal: reduce emissions.
Requirement: don’t turn off the lights and heat
Options:
1. Nuclear. Problem: certain political operatives refuse it for no apparent reason.
2. Natural gas. Problems: at one time it was too expensive, now it’s cheap, but price fluctuates. Reduces but doesn’t eliminate CO2 emissions.
Things that are not options:
Renewables: do not meet either the goal or the requirement except in places where you can dam rivers.
Debate:
Could we ignore the requirement? No.
Could we throw enough money at renewables to make them work? No, we’ve been trying for 30 years and aren’t even close.
Situation today:
Natural gas is the only allowed option. Thank goodness it’s cheap because even Europe has committed to it entirely.
Questions:
If we tax coal more will renewables function? No.
If we tax gas more, will we get nuclear? No, the left won’t allow it.
What happens if we tax gas and oil and coal more and still don’t allow nuclear? Everyone pays more, but still burns oil, gas and coal because renewables still don’t work.
> Things that are not options:
Jefforino still does not get it.
Let’s see if he’ll listen to Zeke, who’s now the Chief scientist at the think tank his guru founded:
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/article-by-michael-shellenberger-mixes-accurate-and-inaccurate-claims-in-support-of-a-misleading-and-overly-simplistic-argumentation-about-climate-change/
MikeS was so likeable that he’s been kicked out.
Let’s see if Jefforino will do better than his guru!
“… and mistakenly sees denigrating other clean energy technologies as the best way to promote it.”
You still don’t get it. I’m not denigrating other clean energy technologies. I’m reading the newspaper. The newspapers, all of them, are reporting that Europe, Japan, North America, South America, will be burning oil to make electricity this winter.
They are reporting – honestly for a change – on the reason for that: because the windmills didn’t produce, solar can’t in the winter (it’s dark at night), access to gas and coal was restricted, and they turned off the nukes.
There isn’t anything else. So they’re burning oil.
They gave you your shot with renewables and, at some point, a lesson has to be learned from the effort. The lesson is learned, move on. As Hansen put it, all that massive investment in renewables over the past 30 years since the Clinton days has resulted in… oil and gas and coal.
It’s okay to be sad about that. You just can’t ignore it. Ignoring reality is not ‘denigrating’ or gloating. You could, if you were clever and cared, still find a use for unreliables.
Where you can dam a river they work great- identify some rivers.
Nuclear is base load- it requires peaking, figure out how to do that with solar, and batteries instead of gas.
Wind is tailor made for producing hydrogen- work on ways to use that in transportation. Build decentralized renewable grids in undeveloped areas with minimal loads. You can do that for a village in Africa, just don’t ask us to power the auto factories and city heat in Detroit with them in February.
> I’m not denigrating other clean energy technologies
Of course you do, Jefforino. In fact there’s not one single comment of yours on this page that does not. Check your latest one:
It’s quite simple, really:
The.
Only.
Way.
To.
Replace.
Fossil fuels.
Is.
To.
Replace.
Fossil.
Fuels.
Gas isn’t an option to replace fossil fuels, you know that, don’t you?
Factory built fast neutron nuclear fission engines are poised to transform the energy landscape. Cheap, safe, proliferation resistant and producing much less (3%) and much more tractable (decays to background radiation levels in 300 years) waste.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/em2-summary-e1514320391410.png
Delivering super abundant, high density energy for 1000’s of years using diverse fuel types in a convert and burn process. No water cooling and minimal materials and land area required.
‘Fast neutron reactors (FNRs) are a technological step beyond conventional power reactors, but are poised to become mainstream.
They offer the prospect of vastly more efficient use of uranium resources and the ability to burn actinides which are otherwise the long-lived component of high-level nuclear waste.
Over 400 reactor-years of experience has been gained in operating them.
Generation IV reactor designs are largely FNRs, and international collaboration on FNR designs is proceeding with high priority.’ https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/fast-neutron-reactors.aspx
“Replace.
Fossil.
Fuels.”
Finish your thought:
With
What?
There’s some news on this front this week. “Poor countries” will be heading to Scotland with a demand for a trillion dollars in handouts from western nations. If they are going to make any attempt at unreliables, they expect Uncle Sam to pay for them. And then, of course, they expect permission to burn oil and coal for the actual energy.
They won’t get the money. “World leaders” aren’t even pretending to go along anymore, they’re refusing to meet their “goals” of a tenth of the amount. Meanwhile, Russia and China are happily supplying the investment in fossil fuels that will be burned for energy.
And more columnists are catching on and piling on:
“Climate policy that is geopolitically and economically unsustainable will inevitably fail. That green policy makers failed to anticipate the obvious consequences of their preferred policy mix bodes poorly for their success.”
That’s Walter Russell Mead politely stating the obvious in the Wall Street Journal this week.
Mead is another one who notes the seriousness of the geopolitical situation right now:
“The real problem is that the green agenda as currently conceived is an effective machine for undermining the economic and political power of the democratic world and boosting the influence of precisely the authoritarian powers President Biden has made it his mission to oppose. By artificially depressing fossil-fuel production and investment in the democratic world faster than renewables and other fuels can fill the gap, Biden policy promotes a multiyear, multitrillion dollar windfall for countries like Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. ”
It’s true, I quibble with the “faster than” – there is no evidence they can “fill the gap” with any amount of time and certainly no evidence of any appetite for spending trillions more on them.
The situation is “obvious”- massive spending didn’t work, they haven’t got the ability to triple the spending and there is evidence doing so wouldn’t accomplish the goal. If you wish to press on with failed policy, be my guest but let’s be clear that doing so is not “climate” policy. Scotland should be fun.
> Walter Russell Mead
Our “Sick Man of Asia” might not sport a good enough shape to serve as a squirrel. “But the Poor” will have to wait. We predict “But Alarmism” soon enough, as it’s Walter’s main square.
Let’s complete Jefforino’s thought:
There is no silver bullet. The alternative to fossil fuels isn’t gas. The only way to replace fossil fuels is to replace fossil fuels. The concept of “alternative energy source” should provide a big hint.
Any news from NuScale, a tiny reactor company that received more than 1B last year? Last I heard they promised to be able to electrify us in… 2030.
“Let’s complete Jefforino’s thought:”
Let’s see if Willard has any thoughts at all.
Replace fossil fuels with…..
what?
Hint- I proposed an alternative. You have not. Though in the link you provided to ATTP you were really intrigued with the idea of shutting down the UK for four days a week. How’s that going, how many nations are shutting off the power instead of burning oil?
Any news….?
Yep. Sweden mostly uses nuclear and hydro and won’t be burning oil to keep the lights on. The ones who shut down their nuclear and attempted wind and solar will be burning oil this winter.
You might not like it, but that’s the news.
> You might not like it
Jefforino has not much left in the tank:
https://sweden.se/climate/sustainability/energy-use-in-sweden
So even with his cherrypick nukes are less than 50% of the alternative energy portfolio.
But he sure likes to say stuff.
The third largest source of energy in Sweden is OIL, about the same consumption as nuclear and hydro.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/sweden
Do you have a POINT, Jim?
The POINT, Williard, is Sweden burns a lot of OIL. Blathering on about Sweden’s energy mix is otherwise pointless because most countries don’t have the potential for hydro that they do. Windmills and solar panels are equally pointless. Those just move money from the poor to the rich.
Jim –
Do you care to comment, in retrospect, on your quality of quality of judgment and anslysis that went into your high level of confidence in Sidney Powell and Lin Wood?
Are you still lookin’ for that Kraken?
> Blathering on about Sweden’s energy mix is otherwise pointless
You’re gonna make Jefforino sad, Jim. But wait – are you REALLY suggesting that the claim:
[REPLACEMENT] The only way to replace fossil fuels is to replace fossil fuels.
is pointless because there are still fossil fuels to replace?
Something tells me that you are not following much.
And that’s notwithstanding your confusion between energy and electricity.
“But he sure likes to say stuff.”
I guess Willard has answered my question here. He supports hydroelectric. Now, which rivers to dam- the East River or the Hudson? The Thames goes without saying of course.
With what, Willard? We’re all waiting while you juggle squirrels.
Hi Joshie. Florida- per the NYT, second lowest transmission rate in the nation today (far below New York) and a vaccination rate higher than the national average. Your narrative is wasting away faster than Willard’s.
Don’t make fun of the disabled, Jeff. Josh obviously has an incurable case of ADD. Williard seems to believe oil is a problem only if it’s used to make electricity. Interestingly, burning oil isn’t a problem in the first place – well, other than Rainbow-Unicorn Land.
> With what
Certainly not with gas as you just suggested, dear Jefforino, for one does not simply replace fossil fuels with fossil fuels. And I already answered you, or more precisely Zeke did:
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/article-by-michael-shellenberger-mixes-accurate-and-inaccurate-claims-in-support-of-a-misleading-and-overly-simplistic-argumentation-about-climate-change/
So to REPLACEMENT with might add NO SILVER BULLET:
[NO SILVER BULLET] There is no silver bullet to replace fossil fuels. We will need all the weapons we got.
Jefforino’s problem is that he wants to play the Real Politik guy but he sucks at it.
“[NO SILVER BULLET] There is no silver bullet to replace fossil fuels. We will need all the weapons we got.”
This from the team that is shutting down nuclear and preventing its construction.
When you run about unloading weapons and hiding the bullets, it is reasonable to assume you aren’t interested in winning the battle.
One more time… we’re burning gas and oil and coal because those are the only options you allow if you want the lights and heat to stay on. To that, your response is to ponder why governments insist on keeping the lights and heat on. Realpolitik says no government will turn off the lights and heat, observations concur.
Scotland will be funny.
> This from the team that is shutting down nuclear and preventing its construction.
More hippie punching by our one and only Jefforino.
Let’s recap:
He knows I’m not against nuclear.
He knows that Hitachi could not reach a deal with the conservative Brit government.
He knows that Toshiba said they can’t compete with teh Donald’s inflated gas boom.
He knows that Sweden has more alternative energy from non-nuclear than nuclear sources.
He knows that Zeke is the chief science advisor of the Breakthrough Institute, which is far from being against nuclear.
So what does he have left?
Hippie punching.
Let’s recap: my replies in parenthesis.
He knows I’m not against nuclear. (as long as it comes after the windmills and solar panels)
He knows that Hitachi could not reach a deal with the conservative Brit government. (Even the Guardian concedes the rising price of fossil fuels and absence of wind has the UK focusing on building more nuclear.)
He knows that Toshiba said they can’t compete with teh Donald’s inflated gas boom. (focus- it’s pointless to talk about increasing the price of fossil fuels unless you have a functional alternative. You can – I would say you don’t need to – but you can use a carbon tax to transition to nuclear because it works. You can’t use a carbon tax to transition to something that doesn’t work because it still doesn’t work at any price.)
He knows that Sweden has more alternative energy from non-nuclear than nuclear sources. (and that’s why he said use the Sweden model- dam the Thames and Hudson! or build nukes. Windmills aren’t cutting it and solar is worse than windmills.)
He knows that Zeke is the chief science advisor of the Breakthrough Institute, which is far from being against nuclear. (the Breakthrough is furious and Germany and California for shutting down functional nukes because it means burning coal, oil, and gas. This is not helping your case.)
So what does he have left? (a question you won’t answer- With What? And, yes, because of 30 years of forcing failed policy on the world we’re all going to have to burn oil and coal until you change to a rational policy.)
Hippie punching. (Hippies care about the environment, you aren’t a hippie).
> my replies in parenthesis
More squirrels. Let’s focus on his main one: it’s pointless to talk about increasing the price of fossil fuels unless you have a functional alternative. This falls again for what we should call Jefforino’s Silver Bullet Fallacy:
[JSBF] Unless it can be a Functional Alternative ™, it’s pointless.
Let’s apply JSBF to his own stance. Is nuclear a functional alternative all by itself? The answer is no:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abbd02/pdf
Among the technologies under development the authors mention hydrogen (the green kind – they are not all equal), electrowinning (can’t go wrong with a name like that!), and EAF.
The long and the short of it is that we need all the weapons we got.
Did you start happy hour early? Your pull quote has nothing to do with your claim. In fact it supports that which you’re trying to knock down rather than disputes it.
It’s wonderful that they think industry can be electrified.
Where is the electricity going to come from?
You still refuse to answer that. In fact, as a dedicated climate campaigner you still appear to consider the question irrelevant at best or annoying at worst (who needs electricity or industry, right?)
As a result of this, the world will burn a million barrels of oil a day to make electricity this winter because governments don’t find that question to be irrelevant or annoying at all. In fact they see themselves as having a quaint, yet important duty to provide for the provision of that electricity.
Economies and the lack of freezing deaths being important in the eyes of those who periodically face voters. At least the ones remaining in government- Labour has taken your proposed route and can boast a presence on the BBC if not in Parliament.
Then we have Scotland, where the climate glitteratti will arrive by private jet to the serenading of “poor countries” that expect $1 trillion a year from the west before they sign on to the unobtanium-only future. Russia and China will be there, offering them coal and oil investment. And they’ll take it because you literally have nothing else on offer.
I enjoy sparring by the way, and wish you and yours a nice weekend.
> the quote
It’s called an abstract, Jefforino.
Perhaps you missed the emphasized bit: Seventy-eight per cent of the energy demand is electrifiable with technologies that are already established, while 99% electrification can be achieved with the addition of technologies currently under development. Not nukes and nukes only. A vast array of technologies, which we already know to get 78%, and some others in the pipeline to get to 99%.
That, Jefforino, supports the claim that to get to carbon zero we’ll need all the weapons we got. Not just your pet nukes. If only to meet the peak demands because nukes’ ramp rates suck. Ask the French:
https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/edition-numerique/chiffres-cles-energies-renouvelables-2021/1-les-energies-renouvelables-en-france
No wonder it’s always squirrels and hippies with you.
This passage is confusing. The “best estimate” of climate sensitivity is not a climate projection and it isn’t meaningful to compare it to the range of projections in this way.
Oops, didn’t quote the passage to which I was referring:
“Here are the ensemble forecasts for SSP2-4.5, including the projections from the individual models, the ‘constrained’ versus ‘unconstrained’ 90% range, and the AR6 best estimate (note this image was pulled from a CarbonBrief article). The AR6 best estimate is near the lower end of the entire range; this bias doesn’t allow much scope for natural variability (particularly of the multi-decadal variety) at the lower end of the model range to truly illustrate a realistic time range as to when we might pass the 1.5 and 2C ‘danger’ thresholds.”
This passage is confusing. The “best estimate” of climate sensitivity is not a climate projection and it isn’t meaningful to compare it to the range of projections in this way.
I spy with my little eye a “pingback” from WUWT!
I must rush over there and bring the recent Nobel Prize announcement to the attention of Anthony’s denizens…
Sadly it seems Anthony is not very keen on bringing my exciting Nobel news to the attention of his faithful followers:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/10/whats-up-with-that-arctic-sea-ice-disinformation/#comment-490478
Suki Manabe’s name is still conspicuous by its absence over there.
I love how the Nobel Prize has rocked the boat of the deniers. What was left of it.
The “usual suspects” certainly seem to be remarkably reluctant to discuss the recent surprising news.
Amongst many other things!
You apparently don’t recall what Manabe said about using model output as predictions or projections.
Evenin’ Thomas (UTC),
So what exactly did “Manabe [say] about using model output as predictions or projections.”?
Pingback: Breaking the hegemony of global climate models – Watts Up With That? - Blue Anon News
Thank you, Judith, for this review.
Two questions arise:
As ECS has been officially nailed to 3.0 °C, and as ESM are too costly to run, will all the simpler ’emulators’ be set to run with this value as a set parameter?
As ESM still run too hot, will the ’emulators’ also run to hot?
Michel de Rougemont wrote:
As ECS has been officially nailed to 3.0 °C
It hasn’t.
Pingback: IPCC AR6: Breaking the hegemony of global climate models – Climate- Science.press
“However, we have reached the point of diminishing returns on this unless there is more emphasis on improving the simulation of modes of internal climate variability and advancing the treatment of solar indirect effects.”
The AMO is inversely solar driven by changes in the solar wind strength, not internal variability. That is the main reason why the models have no fitness for purpose.El Nino conditions increase during low solar periods, again a potent negative feedback.
“It is very likely that well-mixed GHGs were the main driver of tropospheric warming since 1979”
The increase in shortwave forcing since 1995 due to weaker solar wind states driving a warm AMO phase and reducing low cloud clover, is a lot more than the increase in non-condensing GHG forcing.The coldest AMO anomaly in the early to mid 1970’s was during the strongest solar wind states of the space age observations.
Ulric Lyons wrote: The increase in shortwave forcing since 1995 due to weaker solar wind states driving a warm AMO phase and reducing low cloud clover, is a lot more than the increase in non-condensing GHG forcing
Data?
Meanwhile, Big Climate continues its destruction of free speech and free enterprise.
http://www.mikesmithenterprisesblog.com/2021/10/people-who-believe-science-is-actually.html
The are now a little over two decades of data on outgoing power flux from purpose built instruments. Models can be tuned to this with sea surface temperature in the eastern Pacific (EP) as a key variable. That changes dramatically with shifts in ocean and atmospheric circulation over decades to millennia. It suggests the potential to incorporate albedo changes estimated from proxies of sea surface temperature in paleoclimate modelling.
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/timeseries/IPOTPI/img/maptpiipo.sm.png
‘A model’s ability to represent changes in the
relationship between global mean net TOA flux and surface temperature depends upon how well it
represents shortwave flux changes in low‐cloud regions, with most showing too little sensitivity to EP SST changes, suggesting a “pattern effect” that may be too weak compared to observations.’ https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1429929/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Forecasting the pattern effect in ocean and atmospheric circulation is more of a weather problem that is being addressed with the new class of Earth system models in development.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/2-figure1-1.png
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Deep-learning-and-process-understanding-for-Earth-Reichstein-Camps-Valls/b2114228411d367cfa6ca091008291f250a2c490
‘Climate projections continue to be marred by large uncertainties, which originate in processes that need to be parameterized in models, such as clouds, turbulence, and ecosystems. But breakthroughs in the accuracy of climate projections are finally within reach. New tools from data assimilation and machine learning make it possible to integrate global observations and local high-resolution simulations in an Earth system model (ESM) that systematically learns from both. Scientific, computational, and mathematical challenges need to be confronted to realize such an ESM, for example, developing parameterizations suitable for automated learning, and learning algorithms suitable for ESMs. While these challenges are substantial, building an ESM that learns automatically from diverse data sources is achievable now. Such an ESM offers the key opportunity for dramatic improvements in the accuracy of climate projections.’ https://clima.caltech.edu/2018/03/08/earth-system-modeling-2-0/
Jim Hunt | October 7, 2021 at 5:30 am | Reply
“Mind you, as I may have already mentioned, a couple of climate modellers have just won the Nobel Prize in Physics.”
–
Ahem
Jim.
Not that ground breaking.
Michael Mann and 20,000 others already ahead of him.
Not to mention Obama.
The lesson of history strikes again.
Evenin’ Angech (UTC),
For some strange reason you neglected to mention famed Nobel Laureate Al Gore?
Mind you, that wasn’t for Physics!
Too many to mention
And he was not a modeller .
Still worried about that arctic ice heading west instead of north.
Not looking good at the moment?
Thanks for your blog updates.
‘Both basic physics and past experience (at least on timescales that observations constrain) teach us that our ability to predict natural fluctuations of the climate system is limited by such biases (8⇓⇓–11). By downplaying the potential significance that model inadequacies have on our ability to provide reliable estimates of climate change, including of course in terms of extremes of weather and climate, we leave policy makers (and indeed, the public in general) ignorant of the extraordinary challenge it is to provide a sharper and more physically well-grounded picture of climate change, essentially depriving them of the choice to do something about it.’ https://www.pnas.org/content/116/49/24390
What to do about it in our nonlinear world is commonly the elephant in the room. I suggest more cows and advanced nuclear fission engines.
Have you calculated that Hurst exponent for HadCRUT5 yet?
Has David figured out what the Hurst exponent says about geophysical data yet.
Has Robert been able to calculate a Hurst exponent yet, instead of being able to use the term to try to impress people?
Until David has some understanding of nonlinear dynamics – so evident in weather and climate – and in models – this is just a pointless game he plays for fun and disruption. Model inadequacies in the words of leading edge climate modellers? Surely not.
It’s no game — you can’t calculate your way out of a paper bag. You’re all talk, no action. Where I was trained that makes you useless, a nonentity.
Tell us about the Hurst exponent and what it says about geophysical series David.
That would be a starting point in demonstrating that David is not just a churlish nonentity.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Tell us about the Hurst exponent and what it says about geophysical series David.
First calculate the thing you’re always bragging about. Show us you have that rudimentary competence.
This is obviously so off track as to be nothing more than a waste of time. It is of course not relevant to my comment on models. That David assiduously ignores as is his practice. The key thing to understand is that it is his cultural warfare and not maths and science at all.
But if David can cite any reputable study calculating Hurst statistics for temperature series… I might revise my opinion on whether it is possible to have a serious discussion with him.
Robert I. Ellison commented: But if David can cite any reputable study calculating Hurst statistics for temperature series…
It’s a time series. Just calculate the Hurst exponent or shut up already. You don’t need a study; there’s an algorithm. Show you know how to do *something* other than regurgitate words you’ve cut-and-pasted out of a paper.
I am an engineer who has run hydrodynamic models = inter alia – for decades. I was trying to get him to understand that this is not a statistic used for temperature series for good reason. If he knew any Earth science he might have something interesting to say. Or had any notion of nonlinear dynamics he might might understand the math of models and climate. As it is he whines about referencing science and whines about not citing peer reviewed science. Typically it is just silly little games.
More warming = More beer. What more do you need to know?
BBQ recipes.
Judith,
Thankyou for this comparison of parts of the SPM with the scientific reports of AR6. Past experience has shown that the 2 versions can differ because the first is written by government spinners and the second by scientists. What with a world record for lockdowns here – more than 250 days now – and health and age issues, my progress has been slow so your progress is much appreciated.
Your words and those of bloggers to date on this thread reinforce the difficulty of arriving at conclusions for AR6 that mean anything. As a long-term advocate for proper studies and expressions of uncertainty and error, I find it sad that the parts of AR6 I have read in adequate detail still rest much more on subjective supposition, assumption, hand-waving and reinforcement of dismissals of past errors as if they had been corrected. Clouds remain, to date, one of the main problematic topics, with the strength of estimated forcings great enough to alone upset the conventional applecart. We cannot believe AR6 any more than its predecessors until there is valid agreement about what clouds do to global energy effects.
There is still a struggle to get policy makers to understand the difference between hard science within uncertainty bounds and the many voices expressing little more than wishful thinking. Climate “science” continues to drag the more established sciences down by setting poor examples of how to do it. Geoff S
In complex and dynamic, nonlinear systems – such as weather and climate – investigative methods used in the natural sciences are a complement to reductionist cause and effect. It provides the basis for theory that is less certain but that is the fount of scientific discovery used in the development of productive hypotheses. In policy – the focus is not on scientific certainty at all but on risk. The two should not be confused.
‘Modern hydrology places nearly all its emphasis on science-as-knowledge, the hypotheses of which are increasingly expressed as physical models, whose predictions are tested by correspondence to quantitative data sets. Though arguably appropriate for applications of theory to engineering and applied science, the associated emphases on truth and degrees of certainty are not optimal for the productive and creative processes that facilitate the fundamental advancement of science as a process of discovery. The latter requires an investigative approach, where the goal is uberty, a kind of fruitfulness of inquiry, in which the abductive mode of inference adds to the much more commonly acknowledged modes of deduction and induction. The resulting world-directed approach to hydrology provides a valuable complement to the prevailing hypothesis- (theory-) directed paradigm.’ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016WR020078
Pingback: IPCC AR6: Breaking the hegemony of global climate models | ajmarciniak
In this era of global scale satellite based observation systems – it is churlish to declare that we don’t know what clouds are doing with well defined confidence.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-pink/s3fs-public/styles/background_image_file_size/public/thumbnails/image/newdo.jpg
Low level marine boundary layer cloud – the planet coolers – are a positive feedback to sea surface temperature. Modelling at eddy resolving scales suggests extreme risk at CO2 levels of some 1000 ppm.
e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0310-1
Pingback: What We’re Reading: Tree Infrastructure, Climate Models, Mask Mandates … And More – Issues & Insights
“…. we are arguably in a period of negative learning.”
A great thought. The problem is that the field is not fit for purpose psychologically. To gain greater insights into what is not known and admitting to a greater level of uncertainty, some humility is necessary. To date, there’s little evidence that’s happening. And it’s not as if there shouldn’t be cause for it, given the track record of calling the future.
“ An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.” NEW YORK TIMES -January 1978
EPA 1983 sea level rise up to 10 feet in several decades.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-15190822_shadow.jpg
Pentagon 2004
Britain in Siberian climate by 2020.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2018_03_04_19_45_19-down.png
These apocalyptic predictions will continue despite failures in the past because they want them to continue. Other scientific fields would have learned from their mistakes and taken a new course. Negative learning in this field is hampered by incentives unrelated to science.
LOL. Much better data now than in 1978, especially due to satellites, also due to better technology and more measurements.
We’re as far from 1978 as 1978 was from 1935!
Lol.
Same nimrod thinking. Every day there are failures. No acceleration in SLR despite fantasyland contention.
Same article:
“Dr. Kukla, in a telephone interview this week, said that the cause of the apparent cooling remained unknown and that no scientific attempt to predict whether the trend would continue was possible.”
Where’s the Pentagon report, btw?
“ Where’s the Pentagon report, btw?”
The same place as the inflated VC body count reports.
I have one, Kid, but not the other.
Pingback: More ‘Cancel Culture’ from Texas A&M Climatologists (Gunnar Schade joins Andrew Dessler) – Climate- Science.press
Finally some conclusive evidence of ancient fluvial processes on Mars. Not the sort of thing that you have to have a PhD to relate to, scarps are common enough to be relatable to everyone with observational skill.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasa-s-perseverance-sheds-more-light-on-jezero-crater-s-watery-past
This is major progress as it identifies areas that would have been conducive to life as we know it.
Here’s an interesting one:
https://phys.org/news/2021-07-probability-earth-energy-imbalance-naturally.html
“We always think, ‘Increasing greenhouse gases means trapping more infrared heat’—the classic greenhouse effect becomes larger,” said Raghuraman. “This is correct, but the flip side is that the resulting warmer planet now also radiates more infrared heat away to space, so the greenhouse gas heating impact is canceled. Instead, much of the imbalance increase comes from the fact that we are receiving the same amount of sunlight but reflecting back less,”
Physically impossible.
We radiate back to space exactly as much energy as we receive.
Whether we have a flashbulb shining on the earth or a sun both send the same amount of energy back to space.
Why is that so hard to understand?
The earth does not want the sunlight or the flashlight energy.
It is in its own harmonious balance.
gradually losing the energy it naturally has and produces to space.
It is a full bucket.
Any extra energy that comes in has to go out.
There is no battery storage.
No deep sea storage.
If you take a glass of water and shine a light on it it accepts and radiates that energy.
I hate these examples.
It goes back to being a glass of water.
Same with any energy coming into the earth.
CERES data shows more emitted IR and less reflected SW. Natural variability and anthropogenic change.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/ceres_ebaf-toa_ed4.1_anom_toa_shortwave_flux-all-sky_march-2000tojune-2019.png
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/ceres_ebaf-toa_ed4.1_anom_toa_longwave_flux-all-sky_march-2000tojune-2019.png
angech
“We radiate back to space exactly as much energy as we receive.”
Yes, but there always are some small amounts of energy being accumulated for longer or for shorter periods of time. Thus the climate variability occurs – the slow succession of Glacial and Interglacial Periods…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Mornin’ Angech,
Surely you cannot be serious? You know more about the topic of Earth’s energy (im)balance than “a graduate student in atmospheric and oceanic sciences (AOS) at Princeton”?
Here’s NASA/NOAA’s humble opinion:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/joint-nasa-noaa-study-finds-earths-energy-imbalance-has-doubled
Researchers have found that Earth’s energy imbalance approximately doubled during the 14-year period from 2005 to 2019.
Earth’s climate is determined by a delicate balance between how much of the Sun’s radiative energy is absorbed in the atmosphere and at the surface and how much thermal infrared radiation Earth emits to space. A positive energy imbalance means the Earth system is gaining energy, causing the planet to heat up…
Scientists at NASA and NOAA compared data from two independent measurements. NASA’s Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) suite of satellite sensors measure how much energy enters and leaves Earth’s system. In addition, data from a global array of ocean floats, called Argo, enable an accurate estimate of the rate at which the world’s oceans are heating up. Since approximately 90 percent of the excess energy from an energy imbalance ends up in the ocean, the overall trends of incoming and outgoing radiation should broadly agree with changes in ocean heat content.
Jim Hunt | October 10, 2021 at 8:06 am |
Mornin’ Angech,
You know more about the topic of Earth’s energy (im)balance than “a graduate student in atmospheric and oceanic sciences (AOS) at Princeton”
Thank you.
Judith has this up as a new discussion so pop over to that thread and I will bemuse you.
Will be fun putting up NASA/NOAA’s very humble opinion:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/joint-nasa-noaa-study-finds-earths-energy-imbalance-has-doubled
Researchers have found that Earth’s energy imbalance approximately doubled during the 14-year period from 2005 to 2019.
Will the Princeton chappie be able to cope with the Harvard emeriti?
angech wrote:
We radiate back to space exactly as much energy as we receive.
The Earth currently is not. That’s why it’s warming.
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
CERES data shows more emitted IR and less reflected SW. Natural variability and anthropogenic change.
The question is, what’s causing each?
From NASA on the Loeb et al June 2021 GRL paper:
“The study finds that the doubling of the imbalance is partially the result an increase in greenhouse gases due to human activity, also known as anthropogenic forcing, along with increases in water vapor are trapping more outgoing longwave radiation, further contributing to Earth’s energy imbalance. Additionally, the related decrease in clouds and sea ice lead to more absorption of solar energy.”
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/joint-nasa-noaa-study-finds-earths-energy-imbalance-has-doubled
“…due to human activity…”
Just because David can’t walk and chew gum at the same time doesn’t mean I can’t.
With more and more variables the degrees of freedom cannot be known and without that we cannot evaluate the accuracy of our representation of the world. The notion of statistical significance becomes meaningless. Only the actual outcome will be of any significance and for that we must wait for it.
Assume ergodicity in that all realised past states are all possible future states given that it is a physically constrained complex dynamical system – and behave economically rationally, environmentally conservative and socially pragmatic.
Then… there goes chaos theory.
Not in the real world.
I wonder what the red line means after 2031?
https://i.ibb.co/8Y1hDtV/ises-solar-cycle-f107cm.png
Now the solar flux 10.7 cm looks like this:
https://www.spaceweather.gc.ca/auto_generated_products/solradmon_eng.png
For comparison, a plot of the solar flux F 10.7 cm in the 23rd and 24th solar cycles? Why doesn’t Canada make this graph available?
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/solar-cycle-10-cm-radio-flux_Nov17.gif?itok=0IrM45vm
We will know that global warming is for real when elephant seals return to the Antarctic Ross Sea
https://notrickszone.com/2021/10/07/antarctic-temperatures-were-up-to-5c-above-modern-from-12000-2000-years-bp/
We have plenty of data that shows global warming is for real, regardless of what elephant seals do.
“We have plenty of data that shows global warming is for real,”
At last a statement that says nothing and everyone can agree with.
angech commented:
“We have plenty of data that shows global warming is for real,”
At last a statement that says nothing and everyone can agree with.
Pretending the data doesn’t exist.
Not surprised that’s coming from you.
Pingback: Tri Curry ilmastomalleista ja IPCC:stä | Roskasaitti
The stratospheric polar vortex is just developing in the north, and already a strong anomaly is visible. You can see that the center of the vortex is shifted over Siberia, and there is a surplus of ozone over the Bering Sea that is blocking circulation in the stratosphere.
https://i.ibb.co/hVb37M6/gfs-t30-nh-f00.png
I’m assuming that the polar stratospheric vortex is the polar vortex in the stratosphere.
NCEP/GFS analyses and Forecasts
The NCEP Global Forecast System model (GFS, formally the AVN) stratospheric temperature, height, and total ozone analyses and forecasts are generated each day from the 00Z cycle at the levels: 70, 50, 30, 20, 10, 5, 2, and 1 hPa (approximately 18-45 km). Below are contoured maps of the initial analyses (f00) and forecasts at 24 hour intervals out to 10 days (f240). Additional information about the validity of the forecasts is given in the Forecast Error set of graphs for temperature and zonal wind for all pressure levels from 200 to 1 hPa.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/
During the winter season, the polar vortex determines the circulation in the upper troposphere.
https://i.ibb.co/G08y9bJ/Screenshot-2.png
The polar vortices are driven by planetary rotation.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/850hPa/orthographic=-147.75,-92.07,241
Sorry.
During the winter season, the polar vortex determines the circulation in the upper troposphere.
https://i.ibb.co/G08y9bJ/Screenshot-2.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z200anim.shtml
Sorry. I’m quite sure you can’t meaningfully eyeball teleconnections between such complex, coupled nodes.
“During the winter season, the polar vortex determines the circulation in the upper troposphere.”
Chicken and egg
Nonlinear dynamics in the Earth system has been likened to the pressure of a finger on a light switch. When the pressure is sufficient the switch will inevitably change state. As the pressures of greenhouse gas emissions build to a crescendo not seen in millions of years – pushing the planet towards the next inevitable tipping point – damn the inadequacies of models.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/2016-05/global_emissions_sector_2015.png
Alternative paths to cheap and abundant energy are there. Not just for electricity but for industry, transport and residential and process heat. While providing wealth for the repair of soils and ecosystems that is equally essential to secure the future. Surely that’s what pissant progressives hate most?
“The notion that renewable energies and batteries alone will provide all needed energy is fantastical. It is also a grotesque idea, because of the staggering environmental pollution from mining and material disposal, if all energy was derived from renewables and batteries.” James Hansen An industrial economy powered entirely by renewable energy is a “fantasy”. It’s almost as if they do not want industrial economies.
In a column coauthored with fellow climate advocates Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira and Tom Wigley, Hansen writes, “Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change”
Nonlinear dynamics in the Earth system has been likened to the pressure of a finger on a light switch. When the pressure is sufficient the switch will inevitably change state. As the pressures of greenhouse gas emissions build to a crescendo not seen in millions of years – pushing the planet towards the next inevitable tipping point – damn the inadequacies of models.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/2016-05/global_emissions_sector_2015.png
Alternative paths to cheap and abundant energy are there. Not just for electricity but for industry, transport and residential and process heat. While providing wealth for the repair of soils and ecosystems that is equally essential to secure the future. Surely that’s what pissant progressives hate most?
“The notion that renewable energies and batteries alone will provide all needed energy is fantastical. It is also a grotesque idea, because of the staggering environmental pollution from mining and material disposal, if all energy was derived from renewables and batteries.” James Hansen
An industrial economy powered entirely by renewable energy is a “fantasy”. It’s almost as if they do not want industrial economies. “Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change.” James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira and Tom Wigley
Surely the light switch analogy doesn’t exist in nature since what is it that she is keen to start, stop or control? I have whole hearted support for nuclear energy development but isn’t at least a part of our apparent reticence over its development and potential down to the simple fact that nuclear reactions can be difficult to control especially when things go awry?
Are we too concerned about discovering nature’s switches and not concerned enough about natures ever changing processes, ever changing faces and her clear distaste of control? Mother loves new challenges.
Humans’ seem to love control and we have shown how pathetic this can be when faced with a virus when all reason says we must learn to live with it just as we do with all other things nature throws at us. In the meantime we should concentrate on cheaper energy for all via green and clean nuclear for all and surely, if there were a real climate crisis caused by fossil fuel use, we would be doing it as rapidly as we can.
The switch is an analogy for abrupt climate change – whether of natural or anthropogenic origins. As for nuclear reticence – don’t you know the world is on fire?
A switch is not a good analogy of a chaotic system.
Because of misguided policies based on misguided models could this be a sign of things to come?
“In India, over half of 135 coal-fired power plants, which supply around 70% of the country’s electricity, have fuel stocks to last less than three days, Reuters reported on Friday.”
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/new-delhi-chief-minister-warns-power-crisis-coal-stocks-decline-2021-10-09/
“ The two main power plants in crisis-hit Lebanon have gone out of commission, effectively stopping all state electricity in the country.
The shutdown on Saturday of the Deir Ammar and Zahrani plants, which have generated very limited electricity in recent months, was because of a diesel fuel shortage, sources said.”
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/9/fuel-shortage-forces-shutdown-main-lebanese-power-plants
“ In India, over half of 135 coal-fired power plants, which supply around 70% of the country’s electricity, have fuel stocks to last less than three days, Reuters reported on Friday.”
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/new-delhi-chief-minister-warns-power-crisis-coal-stocks-decline-2021-10-09/
“ The two main power plants in crisis-hit Lebanon have gone out of commission, effectively stopping all state electricity in the country.
The shutdown on Saturday of the Deir Ammar and Zahrani plants, which have generated very limited electricity in recent months, was because of a diesel fuel shortage, sources said.”
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/9/fuel-shortage-forces-shutdown-main-lebanese-power-plants
Failing models are a rationale for the failing energy policies across the globe. Will these situations presage even more cataclysmic events in the decades to come.
Pingback: Nach IPCC AR 6: Brechen der Hegemonie der globalen Klimamodelle | EIKE - Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie
Pingback: Nach IPCC AR 6: Brechen der Hegemonie der globalen Klimamodelle – Aktuelle Nachrichten
“ A.1.3 The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–2019 is 0.8°C to 1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C”
This statement is especially delicious in view of the paucity of observations for 1850-1900.
Millions of square miles of oceans were without regular SST observations pre 1900
https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/436974/fmars-06-00441-HTML/image_m/fmars-06-00441-g002.jpg Kent 2019
12% of the Southern Hemisphere within 1200 km of a land reporting station some years pre 1900
50-60% of the Northern Hemisphere within 1200 km of a land reporting station some years pre 1900
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v3/
When perhaps 100 million+ square miles of the globe were without regular observations pre 1900, how can there be a high level of confidence in temperatures 1850-1900
I rest my case
Pingback: Weekly Energy and Climate News Roundup #472 – Watts Up With That?
Dr Curry and others – the thing I just don’t get, have never understood, is why we let modelers, or anyone else, start the world in 1850. We can do better, and should do better. For instance, if the SSP ensembles incorporate, for instance, this baseline, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23627-6, F 3, which many of us know and have studied, what would we get? To my thinking, a more measured discussion, in the least.
Pingback: Nach IPCC AR 6: Brechen der Hegemonie der globalen Klimamodelle • Cottbuser Freiheit
Those temperature projection graphs look a lot like Neil Ferguson’s covid19 death projections.
they knew models are not able to do the job… they hid behind models..
they hid this using generally a little slide in language..confidence and trust.. taking advantage of the superposition of words of likely hood in common language ad probability ..
“trust the scientists..”
NO.
the theoretical warming radiative effect of CO2 all other thing equal is true..
it is about that, the rest is spéculations..made by scientists.
I’ve been arguing for an Open Source Highly Transparent Climate Model for years. Transparency is need in this closed “Peer Review” club. They start with a conclusion and work backwards. Most importantly, the models have to actually model the global temperature. The current models are clearly flawed to a level that they do more to rule out CO2 than to implicate it.
Also, I doubt the climate “scientists” have any real understanding of modeling.
1) If you are going to create an aggregate model, you don’t start by modeling the aggregate, you first model the parts.
2) There isn’t one global climate, so why have one model to represent something that doesn’t exist?
3) To create a true model you would need to model a) a rain forest b) desert c) forests d) coastal e) inland f) over oceans g) over Antarctica
Simply start with Antarctica. There is no water vapor, no urban heat island effect and near constant albedo. It is the prefect control experiment for isolating the impact of CO2 on temperatures. Basically, there is none. CO2 increased and Antarctica temperatures did absolutely nothing. Once you have the baseline for CO2, you then add in other exogenous data. Take the simple Antarctica and add water vapor to model the temperature over the oceans, then add the Urban Heat Island Effect and model NYC. That is how a real modeler would create a valid model. Do climate modelers use such common sense modeling practices? Nope. If they did, they would have stopped blaming CO2 once they looked at the results of the Antarctica Model.
Afternoon CO2 (UTC),
Have you never heard of the Community Earth System Model?
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1356
“The source code for CESM releases is distributed through a public Subversion code repository.”
Doesn’t that satisfy your criteris?
Thanks Jim, I wasn’t aware of that effort, but I wouldn’t call it Open Source. It is run by The Energy Department and NSF. It looks like they are trying to model at least some of the components. I didn’t however see any results regarding how accurate their models are. In my opinion, if they are using the Ground Measurement Data from NASA GISS or other sources, I would imagine you will simply get GIGO. I will always just keep pointing to Antarctica. None of their CO2 driven models will ever be able to model Antarctica.
Jim Hunt commented on IPCC AR6: Breaking the hegemony of global climate models.
Have you never heard of the Community Earth System Model?
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1356
“The source code for CESM releases is distributed through a public Subversion code repository.”
Doesn’t that satisfy your criteris?
LOL you will believe anything!
NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 3.0)
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/atm-cam/docs/description/description.pdf
Mornin’ David (UTC),
Are you a mind reader?
“LOL you will believe anything!”
If that remark is aimed at me perhaps you would be good enough to explain yourself further?
TIA
Jim Hunt commented:
Mornin’ David (UTC),
If that remark is aimed at me perhaps you would be good enough to explain yourself further?
The CESM model is described in great detail.
What part of it do you disagree with?
What part of its code do disagree with?
Evenin’ David (UTC),
I’m afraid I still have no idea what you’re on about. Can you elucidate further?
Have you read my words carefully?
Have you clicked my link and read the words there?
Are you entirely sure that you shouldn’t be addressing your cryptic comments to CO2?
Jim Hunt commented:
Evenin’ David (UTC),
I’m afraid I still have no idea what you’re on about. Can you elucidate further?
No.
You think the CESM model is some conspiracy.
But I’m sure you can’t even understand the math in the description I linked to.
Afternoon David (UTC),
Oh no I don’t!
Did you bother to click my link?
If so, what are you smoking?
(Another) Afternoon David (UTC),
Has the cat got your tongue?
Jim Hunt commented:
(Another) Afternoon David (UTC),
Has the cat got your tongue?
No — just not interested.
Evenin’ David (UTC),
Well, I’m interested in hearing your apology.
Will I have long to wait?
Pingback: Energy and Environmental Review: October 18, 2021 - Master Resource
Pingback: AWED Newsletter: We cover COVID to Climate, as well as Energy to Elections. - Dr. Rich Swier
Comments on the sixth report, not on this post:
1. The map showing regional drought information defines drought by the amount of water in the soil. What matters to us is the effect on plant growth. As the report concedes in another context, increasing CO2 concentration reduces plants’ need for water. If available water goes down 10% and the plant’s water requirement goes down 20%, drought has increased by the IPCC definition, decreased by the definition relevant to the effect on us.
The report does not give enough information to redraw the map taking account of that, but it does report, with confidence, that global vegetation has increased over the past two to three decades, which suggests that on average drought has decreased, not increased, if defined by the effect on vegetation. That contrasts with the map in the summary, which shows fifteen regions with increased drought, one with decreased.
2. The summary says that the proportion of strong cyclones is increasing, which will be read as the number increasing. The report makes it clear that what models show is a decrease in the total number of tropical cyclones driven by a decrease in weak cyclones (1 and below). It is that decrease the increases the proportion of strong cyclones. Whether the number of strong cyclones goes a little up or a little down is not clear in the models.
3. The report repeatedly, and correctly, combines increasing heat waves and decreasing cold waves as effects of warming, but it pays almost no attention to the latter. One can calculate from the information it gives — but the report doesn’t — that winters in cold areas get milder much faster than summers in hot areas get hotter, two to three degrees per degree of warming vs about one degree. This reflects a general pattern of paying more attention to changes that make things worse than to changes that make things better.
4. My overall impression of the report is that it is honest but biased. The authors are not willing to lie about their results but they are looking for things that make climate change look worse not ones that make it look better. Given how complicated the calculations are, the combination of publication bias and researcher bias can be expected to make things look worse than they are. The best test of this is to compare projections with what happened thereafter. I calculated that back in 2014 and found that the IPCC had projected high four times out of four. I have not yet redone the calculation with current data.
David: What are your credentials?
David
Thrill us with your acumen. What are yours? Other than a mastery of 8th grade equations (upscaled from 5th grade equations since I apparently hurt your feelings).
Looking at all the blue on this map makes me wonder if some are going to be overcome by the same emotions that a home builder gets watching his balsa wood house crumbling before his eyes.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_relative_global_1.png
Pingback: COP26 in Glasgow will just be another COPout - Troy Media
My latest hoot:
https://www.cfact.org/2021/10/22/laughing-at-climate-hysteria/
The beginning:
We should laugh at climate hysteria, especially the fantasy proposals for stopping evil climate change. Electrify everything, running it on wind and solar? Restructure the economy? Restart the world in a green image? Stop eating meat and drinking milk? These proposals are all laughable, so feel free to laugh at them, as it will do a lot of good.
Same for the scary science that supposedly justifies these outrageous proposals. It only exists in monster computer models that are deliberately programmed to produce it. True science is based on observation and we are seeing nothing to support these fantastical hot models. Floods, droughts, heatwaves, hurricanes and wildfires, are all continuing to occur in normal amounts. Same with sea level rise. Dealing with natural disasters is important but hoping to prevent them by not using gasoline or gas is just nuts.
Why laugh? There are several good reasons. First of all, ridicule is a powerful form of criticism. Properly used it is far more effective than anger. Laughing at the green fantasies also makes them a lot less scary, especially the end-of-days climate scares. This helps alleviate the fear that is being forced upon the children. But the best reason is that it feels good to laugh. Anger is useful in its proper place, but endless anger is debilitating. If you think about it the right way, these green fantasies are hilarious. I read the green news for laughs and they never disappoint.
Moreover, fixating on the fantasies distracts us from the real issues. These are the dangerous small steps that the fantasies are used to justify. Pushing electric vehicles for example. Or subsidizing the building of more tax-sheltering wind farms and acre-eating solar slabs. Combining the two is a super fantasy. In the case of wind and solar the battle has to be fought at the project level, but making fun of the fantasy can be very useful. President Trump’s great joke is a good starting point — “Honey I want to read tonight. Is the wind blowing?”
A lot more in the article.
This is junk, as usual, and the author gets a lot of the science wrong. This sea level rise is normal? The author doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He gets paid anyway.
Sea level has been rising for several hundred years at very close to the rate we have witnessed over the last 30 years. Nut job alarmists keep claiming there will be some dramatic acceleration SOON, DUE to age, and it is always just around the corner.
Problems due to global warming are like fusion power – always 50 years out.
jim2 commented:
Problems due to global warming are like fusion power – always 50 years out.
You mean like the 1,000 deaths in the June Pacific Northwest heat wave? The 3,000 deaths in Puerto Rico from the monster Hurricane Maria? The thousands of homes and 11 deaths in the 2020 Oregon wildfires, people in western Oregon confined to their homes for two weeks due to smoke, the worst air quality in the world at the time? The town of Lytton, British Columbia completely burned to the ground the day after a monster heat wave of 121 F (50 C)? Rich Bar and Greenville California destroyed by wildfire; California this year saw the second largest wildfire in its history, a million acres.
140,000 deaths from monster Cyclone Nargis in 2008 in Myanmar. Farmers forced to sell livestock because of the summer drought. Lake Powell at a record low — some California farmers now denied water. 2000 deaths and 20 M affected by 2010 flooding in Pakistan, where extreme rains are become ever more common. At least 15,000 deaths in the 2010 Russian heat wave. At least 30,000 deaths in the 2003 heat wave in France.
Yeah, always 50 years out. Open your frigging eyes.
Rob Starkey wrote:
Sea level has been rising for several hundred years at very close to the rate we have witnessed over the last 30 years.
Show us those data, Rob.
Pingback: How and Why the False Climate Consensus is Manufactured – CLIMATE CHANGE THE FACTS