Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Comments 451 to 500:
-
MA Rodger at 19:42 PM on 25 April 2024At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?
Eclectic @14,
You say the work of these jokers Kubicki, Kopczyński & Młyńczak failed the WUWT test, being too bonkers even for Anthony Willard Watts to cope-with. I would say Watts has happily promoted work just as bonkers in the past.
And as you say, there is no WUWT coverage of this Kubicki et al 2024 paper although Google shows it is mentioned once in one of the comment threads, as is an earlier paper from the same jokers. Indeed, there are two such earlier papers from 2020 and 2022. Thankfully, these are relatively brief and thus they easily expose the main error these jokers are promoting.
In Kubicki et al (2020) they kick-off by misusing the Schwarzschild equation. The error they employ even gets a mention within this Wiki-ref which says:-
At equilibrium, dIλ = 0 even when the density of the GHG (n) increases. This has led some to falsely believe that Schwarzschild's equation predicts no radiative forcing at wavelengths where absorption is "saturated".
They then measure the radiation from the Moon through a chamber either filled with air or with CO2 and show there is no difference and thus, as their misuse of Schwarzschild suggests, that the Earth's CO2 is "saturated." In preparing for this grand experiment, they research the thermal properties of the Moon as an IR source and thus tell us:-
The moon. The temperature of its surface varies a lot, but for the part illuminated by the Sun, according to encyclopaedic information, it may slightly exceed 1100ºC.
This well demonstrates that these jokers are on a different planet to us as it is well know our Moon only manages 120ºC under the equatorial noon-day sun.
-
Eclectic at 01:29 AM on 25 April 2024At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?
Thanks for that, MA Rodger @13.
Possibly - just possibly - the ultimate Thumbs-Down on the Kubicki et al. paper . . . is that it has not been trumpeted at WUWT website (which usually trumpets any crackpot paper which seems "anti-mainstream" science. And that's despite many of the WUWT denizens regularly/continually asserting that the CO2-GreenHoouse Effect was now irrelevant (because "saturated") or was always non-valid anyway.
Now perhaps I have failed to remember "Kubicki" being a Nine-Day Wonder at WUWT ~ or perhaps I failed to notice "Kubicki" among the mountainous garbage-pile accumulating at WUWT. But as a final check, I used the WUWT Search Function . . . and turned up Nothing.
Something of Contrarian pretensions would need to be pretty bad, not to get 15-minutes of fame at WUWT. But maybe I speak too soon?
-
MA Rodger at 00:15 AM on 25 April 2024At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?
The paper Kubicki et al (2024) 'Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases' is utter garbage from start to finish. When something is so bad, it is a big job setting straight the error-on-error presented.
As an exemplar of the level of nonsense, consider the opening paragraph, sentence by sentence.
Due to the overlap of the absorption spectra of certain atmospheric gases and vapours with a portion of the thermal radiation spectrum from the Earth's surface, these gases absorb the mentioned radiation.
I'd assume this is saying that the atmosphere contains gases (or "vapours" if you are pre-Victorian) which absorb certain IR wavelengths emitted by the Earth's surface. Calling this "overlap" is very odd.
This leads to an increase in their temperature and the re-emission of radiation in all directions, including towards the Earth.
The absorption if IR does lead to "an increase in their temperature" but the emission from atmospheric gases is determined by its temperature. Absorbed IR only very rarely results in a re-emission of IR (and if it does, the IR energy is not cause "increase in their temperature").
As a result, with an increase in the concentration of the radiation-absorbing gas, the temperature of the Earth's surface rises.
This is not how the greenhouse effect works. For wavelengths longer than the limit for its temperature defined by 'black body' physicis (for the Earth, about 4 microns), the planet emits IR across the entire spectrum. The level of emission depends on the temperature of the point of emission which for wavelengths where greenhouse gases operate is not the surface but up in the atmosphere. For IR in the 15 micron band, CO2 will result in emissions to space from up in the atmosphere where it is colder and thus where emissions are less. If adding CO2 moves the height of emission up into a colder altitude, emissions will fall and the Earth then has to heat up to regain thermal equilibrium.
Due to the observed continuous increase in the average temperature of the Earth and the simultaneous increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it has been recognized that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration associated with human activity may be the cause of climate warming.
This was perhaps true before the 1950s but the absorption/emission of IR by various gasses was identified and measured when the USAF began to develop IR air-to-air missiles. The warming-effect of a doubling of CO2 (a radiative forcing of +3.7Wm^-2) has been established for decades.
So just like debating science with nextdoor's cat, taking the heed the whitterings of Messers Kubicki, Kopczyński & Młyńczak is a big big waste of time.
-
Theo Simon at 14:34 PM on 24 April 2024At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?
Thanks Bob - and all of you - for taking the time to answer me. I'm just one of many lay people trying to raise the awareness, and we don't always have sufficient science training to be sure of our ground, so it's very helpful when you engage, without too much impatience! Thanks for all you are doing.
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:43 PM on 23 April 2024At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?
Theo:
Taking a quick look at that paper, I see it refers to Angstrom's work in 1900 to support their "saturation" argument. This is already discussed in the Advanced tab of the detailed "Is the CO2 effect saturated?" post that this at-a-glance introduces. Short version - we've learned a few things since Angstrom wrote his paper in 1900.
Searching the recent paper for "saturation", it seems that they are using the typical fake skeptic approach that applies the Beer-Lambert law (which is exponential in nature, and a standard part of radiation transfer theory) to the atmosphere as a whole. That is - they look at whether or not IR radiation can make it through the atmosphere in a single pass.
To nobody's surprise, this turns out to not be the case - IR radiation in the bands absorbed by CO2 rarely makes it directly from the earth's surface to space. The energy in the photons needs to go through a series of absorption/re-emission cycles as it gradually works its way up through the atmosphere. When these processes are included in the calculations, it turns out that this particular flavour of the "saturation" argument falls flat on its face, and adding more CO2 (compared to our current levels) does indeed have an effect.
Executive Summary: the authors of that paper have no idea how the greenhouse effect works, as Eclectic has stated.
Read the full rebuttal here for more discussion - and the details of the Beer-Lambert Law are also discussed in this SkS blog post.
Elsevier is usually considered a reputable publisher, but they screwed up on this one. The rapid passage from "received" to "accepted" is indeed a red flag. The journal - Applications in Engineering Science - is clearly an off-topic journal for this paper. On the page I link to, it mentions "time to first decision" as 42 days, and "review time" of 94 days. If you click on "View all insights", you get to this page that also gives "Submission to acceptance" as 77 days, and "acceptance to publication" as five days. The seven days for this paper (from "received" to "accepted") is, shall we say, a bit shorter than usual?
It is worth noting that several other papers in the same issue also have very short times between "received" and "accepted". Of the four I looked at, none of them had any indication that the authors were asked to revise anything, which is rather unusual. Someone at that journal is in a rush.
(If you click on "What do these dates mean?", below the title/author section of the web page for the appear, it specifically states that "received" is the date of the original submission, and they will say "revised" if a more recent version is submitted - e.g. after review.)
-
Eclectic at 23:18 PM on 23 April 2024At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?
Addendum:
Theo Simon @7 and earlier :-
I should have mentioned that, if you still have a nagging doubt and wonder if Kubicki et al. have really made an astounding breakthrough ~ then the easy course for you is to put your feet up and relax and observe for 6 or 7 months.
Because in October or November this year (2024) the Nobel Committee will maybe be announcing Kubicki & colleagues have won the Nobel Prize in Physics. If that were to happen . . . then all over the world, the enjoyers of scrambled eggs would celebrate a collapse in the price of their favorite egg-dish . . . as a million physicists wipe all the egg off their own faces. And the name Kubicki will rival the fame of Einstein ! (Excuse my flippancy.)
-
Eclectic at 20:30 PM on 23 April 2024At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?
Theo Simon @7 :
Theo, please don't waste your time (or anyone's) in going through the details of that Kubicki paper.
It is just like when you encounter someone's submitted "paper" showing (with an avalanche of complex mathematics & diagrams) why his design for a Perpetual Motion Machine is certain to work beautifully, as soon as he gets finance to build it. You yourself know that there must be one or more errors buried away in the midst of his presentation ~ but why would you bother to search? Life is too short and precious, to spend time dissecting some crackpot ideas which have already been proven to be fundamentally flawed. Proven and re-proven to be garbage.
NoTricksZone is a cynical recycler of nonsenses, to get clicks & profits ~ and happily recycles any garbage which the climate-science denialists themselves keep recycling at intervals. But I admit to some interest in the psychology of how & why some people with science degrees, even professorships - usually Emeritus types - manage to delude themselves in various ways. Yes, they are often misreported . . . and yet they seem mostly motivated by rather extremist political views and are handicapped by their own Motivated Reasoning.
-
John Mason at 19:28 PM on 23 April 2024At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?
Denialist "Gotcha" papers pop up most years, gain a lot of traction in those circles and then decay away to hardly anything, then that's it until the next one comes along!
-
Theo Simon at 19:05 PM on 23 April 2024At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?
Thanks, I did notice that it was taking a position, which I took as a red flag. But I struggled to understand if it was making new claims regarding saturation, based on new experimental evidence, or if the explanations on this page essentially cover it already.
I'd be very interested to know how valid this papers arguments are and if they have been rebuffed, or found wanting in peer review, as I think this line of attack will be a very popular one in the coming months. I've already met it from numerous trolls elsewhere who currently think it's their "gotcha!"
-
Eclectic at 17:38 PM on 23 April 2024At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?
Theo Simon @4 :
As John Mason says @5 , there are certainly some Red Flags attached to that Kubicki paper ~ including it's citations of papers by Harde; by Humlum; and by Idso . . . those prominent luminati of the Alternate Universe.
Theo, to save your reading time in future ~ whenever you see a "gotcha" article in NoTricksZone .com , claiming that the mainstream science (of anything) is quite wrong . . . then there's a roughly 99% probability that the article is a load of taurine excrement [abbreviation = BS ].
Reading the cited [Kubicki] article's Abstract quickly demonstrates that the authors have simply failed to understand the basic physics of the atmosphere & GreenHouse Effect [abbreviation = GHE ]. And this first impression gets confirmed by reading the article's Conclusions, which are comprised of an excessive amount of word salad and bizarro politics.
Kubicki et al. seem to have discovered ideas that have been well & truly debunked . . . many decades ago. If only the authors had troubled to have their "novel" ideas reviewed by experts, before presenting their paper to the world ! They could have saved themselves so much embarrassment, as well as saving dollars.
-
John Mason at 16:53 PM on 23 April 2024At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?
re - # 4: I've just taken a look at that paper. The reason we didn't mention it was that it came out very recently.
This however is part of the conclusion:
"However, the intention of the authors of this article is not to encourage anyone to degrade the natural environment. Coal and petroleum are valuable chemical resources, and due to their finite reserves, they should be utilized sparingly to ensure they last for future generations. Furthermore, intensive coal mining directly contributes to environmental degradation (land drainage, landscape alteration, tectonic movements). It should also be considered that frequently used outdated heating systems burning coal and outdated internal combustion engines fueled by petroleum products emit many toxic substances (which have nothing to do with CO2). Therefore, it seems that efforts towards renewable energy sources should be intensified, but unsubstantiated arguments, especially those that hinder economic development, should not be used for this purpose."
In scientific literature, a conclusion should be about the work that was done, and not an arm-waving diatribe! The Introduction likewise gives its first 400 plus words over to arm-wavy waffle about the IPCC. I'm surprised it got beyond peer review on that basis. Indeed, its submission/acceptance dates (Received 4 December 2023, Accepted 11 December 2023) suggests it never was reviewed. In most cases a period of months divides those two dates because the peer review process is quite slow. These are all warning signs that 'something is up' with this item.
-
Theo Simon at 15:46 PM on 23 April 2024At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?
I am not science trained but trying to understand. This rebuttal doesn't mention the alleged evidence presented in the paper "Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases" by Kubicki and others - or does it? The current denialism talking point is that additional CO2 has now been shown to have no additional warming effect, and claims new proofs of this:
https://notrickszone.com/2024/04/23/3-physicists-use-experimental-evidence-to-show-co2s-capacity-to-absorb-radiation-has-saturated/
-
sailrick at 14:25 PM on 23 April 20242024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #16
@ 1. Nigelj
Absurd indeed. The IEA has said that the clean energy transition would save the world $71 trillion by 2050. The cost would be $44 trillion, but $115 trillion in fuel savings.
So it's worth doing even without climate change costs. -
nigelj at 06:56 AM on 22 April 20242024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #16
Regarding the story of the week: "Wednesday's study from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), which is backed by the German government, stands out for the severity of its findings. It calculates climate change will shave 17% off the global economy's GDP by the middle of the century." Now compare this with the DICE economic model (Richard Nordhaus) : "The updated results imply a 1.6% GDP- equivalent loss at 3 °C warming over preindustrial temperatures, up from 1.2% in the review for DICE- 2016.19 Mar 2."
The time frames of the two studies look approximately the same. 3 degrees warming would be about mid century. The difference in estimated damages between reducing gdp by 17% compared to 1.6% looks absolutely huge.
You cant reconcile this easily. This has me puzzled so I'm hoping I haven't misinterpreted something. However the DICE model has been heavily criticised by several experts as seriously underestimating the costs of climate change and being an absurd study in its handling of risk assessments.
-
BaerbelW at 20:45 PM on 21 April 2024Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature
Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal was updated on April 21, 2024 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @ https://sks.to/at-a-glance
-
John Mason at 16:13 PM on 21 April 2024Climate's changed before
Re - #899: there's a post in the publication-queue regarding Bolling-Allerod events - not sure as to publication-date, but the points made by Eclectic at #900 are relevant. They are regional in their extent.
-
Eclectic at 11:22 AM on 21 April 2024Climate's changed before
Spooky @899 , you should not really be surprised ~ since the OP article is referring to Global temperature changes.
Not to the local rapid changes in the boreal icesheet region (e.g. Denmark, Greenland, Alaska : during the last glacial age) as shown in the Bolling-Allerod warming and in the briefer Dansgaard-Oeschger events. Those local northern regions are affected by "sudden" changes in local oceanic currents ~ both smaller & larger (e.g. the AMOC). But that has little effect on the global scale, except when it involves a massive event like the melting of the Laurentide Ice Sheet (i.e. the Younger Dryas).
In India, the Indian Monsoons (to which you allude) show much fluctuation resulting from very small alterations in local temperatures & winds (winds which may bring more oxygen18-rich water) . . . even in the absence of a 30-year climate change.
For global temperature changes, there need to be global-scale changes in albedo / insolation / particulates / or greenhouse gasses.
-
Spooky at 01:33 AM on 21 April 2024Climate's changed before
I am surprised that the rapid temperature increase which happened about 15'000 years ago during Bolling-Allerod period is not mentionned. Records indicate a 3C warming in less than 90 years, and therefore was way faster than current warming. Those records are specific to the gulf of Alaska and do not prove by themselves that the warming was global. However brutal variations of Delta18 ratio have also been observed in Greenland and India at the same peiod (I have not checked if it was at the exact same time). I would be interested by comments of experts about this. Thank you.
-
Paul Pukite at 01:19 AM on 20 April 2024How extreme was the Earth's temperature in 2023
nigelj said: "El ninos release ocean heat that has been building up"
The complement to this is that La Ninas absorb atmospheric heat as the cold thermocline approaches the surface, thus exposing a large area heat sink. Thus, a complete swing is -cold to +hot.
So the fact that we have been in a La Nina state the prior few years makes the warming spike even more stark.
Also the AMO shows a significant El Nino-like peak. This is perhaps expected, as the precursor to this situation occurred in 1878 (see chart below) when one of the largest El Ninos recorded occurred in the Pacific, while a similar scaled peak occurred in the Atlantic's AMO.
-
Eclectic at 21:08 PM on 19 April 2024How extreme was the Earth's temperature in 2023
Jan @ 2 / 3 :
my computer does not connect to that facebook site
~ possibly the computer figures (genau richtig) that my German abilities are far too small.
"Long story short" ~ are you saying that the recent slightly greater global warmth is a minor temporary excursion or a longer-term feedback that will give many years of greater-than-expected warmth of surface temperatures?
-
Jan at 17:45 PM on 19 April 2024How extreme was the Earth's temperature in 2023
Made it a little bit nicer, as it is important:
On the causes of the exceptional temperature jump in 2023
First things first:
What was special about the warming in 2023 was, that it happened all in the last 6 months, so it was a much larger jump over these months than the mean values of 2023.
Further, only a moderate El Nino existed, so not too much warming came from here.
Reasons where:
SOx reductions over the shipping routes amplified the marine heatwave signal across the mid-latitudes.
The El Nino in combination with a positive Indian Dipole - both lead to a larger heat release of the tropical oceans as a clear and strong circulation cell is supported over the tropical oceans due to the zonal SSTs gradient.
Sea ice reductions around the Antarctic caused circulation changes that led to moist and warm air advection over Antarctica (strong effect on the warming as exceptional heat waves rocked Antarctica), as well as radiative effects of the sea ice reductions and heat release over sea ice-free areas.
Then that climate warming warms the oceans now more than natural variability is often able to produce colder than normal SSTs - at one time only some ocean regions existed with colder than normal temperatures.
Then we had the vast expansion of marine heatwaves across the global oceans, especially across the mid-latitudes reaching a coverage of more than 40% in July.
The warmer-than-normal Oceans created a cloud feedback thereby increasing shortwave absorption (reinforces marine heatwaves).
From 2012 to 2016 we had a non-linear increase of moisture in the marine boundary layer caused by exceptional SSTs. The next jump will have happened in 2023 causing a water vapor feedback over large parts of the oceans to increase. And tropical moist air advection is causing marine heatwaves in the subtropics to mid-latitudes. So also here is another feedback as more water vapor radiates longwave radiation back to the surface.
Further, we had during summer to autumn large areas where the soil-moisture-temperature cascade came into play producing these exceptional continental heat waves. It comes along with a cloud feedback and supports stalled/fixed high-pressure systems as these heat domes redirect the jet around them (higher troposphere).
Then we had the pattern effect of increasing zonal (east/west direction) temperature gradients at the ocean surface and continents which disturb the overlying circulation, often causing blocking patterns (also a reason for the marine heatwaves to build up)
Then we had towards autumn a heat release of the marine heatwaves across the mid-latitudes, as the atmosphere gets colder. Also, cold core and warm cors eddies cause extreme temperature gradients in the western boundary extension regions leading to a larger latent heat releases over these ocean regions (small-scale pattern effect of SSTs increases wind speeds).
Last it has been possible that the oceans released heat from the subsurface that had built up. Across the mid-latitudes warm freshening water masses are accumulating under the surface as shallow as 150m depth. And these heat depots could have been tapped, as the jets speed up during winter, as the density gradient between the tropics and poles increases in the upper atmosphere while it decreases near the surface, especially during winter. More and stronger low-pressure systems due to increased shear are the outcome. And all these extreme low-pressure systems in autumn and winter across the mid-latitudes in 2023/24 could have tapped these subsurface heat depots. But no study here as this is a new development seen in the intensity of the low-pressure systems the last years (e.g. number of atmospheric rivers hitting the US west coast)
Main problem thou is the expansion of marine heatwaves, as they are feedback driven by global warming heating the oceans from the surface too fast (thermal stratification increases non-linear in the upper 300m of the oceans in various regions), in combination with the pattern effect which disturbs global zonal circulation with the result of more stalled high-pressure systems (low wind speeds are in most instances the main precondition for marine heatwaves to form besides thermal stratification and shallow upper mixed layer depth).
Last the warming of the northern latitudes can also be included in the factors driving global warming in 2023.
In short, the warming of 2023 was feedback-driven by various systems forcing each other into a heating mode with the systems of the oceans, atmosphere, and landmasses acting in unison!
The exact series of which contributed to what extent to the heating science has to find out. But it would have to be done on a monthly basis!
The next jump will have devastating consequences as they become larger...
In my opinion, the model spread is now a joke as it is way too large proving the uselessness of models as they will increasingly become unable to predict what is coming as too many parametrizations prevent them from simulating the non-linear character of the mutually reinforcing systems with many processes operating on small scales...
p.s. we warm the oceans too fast from the surface that is our main problem!
-
Jan at 16:59 PM on 19 April 2024How extreme was the Earth's temperature in 2023
What was special about the warming in 2023 was, that it happened all in the last 6 months, so it was a much larger jump over these months then the mean values of 2023.
Further, only a moderate El Nino existed, so not too much warming came from here.
Reasons where:
SOx reductions amplified the marine heatwave signal across the mid-latitudes.
The El Nino in combination with a positive Indian Dipole - both lead to a larger heat release of the tropical oceans as a clear and strong circulation cell is supported over the tropical oceans due to the zonal temperature gradient.
Sea ice reductions around the Antarctic caused circulation changes that led to moist and warm air advection over Antarctica (strong effect on the warming as exceptional heat waves rocked Antarctica), as well as radiative effects of the sea ice reductions and heat release over sea ice-free areas.
Then climate warming warms the oceans now more than natural variability is often able to produce colder than normal SSTs - at one time only some ocean regions existed with colder than normal temperatures.
Then we had the vast expansion of marine heatwaves across the global oceans, especially across the mid-latitudes reaching a coverage of more than 40% in July.
The warmer-than-normal Oceans created a cloud feedback thereby increasing shortwave absorption (reinforces marine heatwaves).
From 2012 to 2016 we had a non-linear increase of moisture in the marine boundary layer caused by exceptional SSTs. The next jump will have happened in 2023 causing a water vapor feedback over large parts of the oceans to increase. And tropical moist air advection is causing marine heatwaves in the subtropics to mid-latitudes. So also here another feedback as more water vapor radiates longwave radiation back to the surface.
Further, we had during summer to autumn large areas where the soil-moisture-temperature cascade came into play producing these exceptional continental heat waves. It comes along with a cloud feedback.
Then we had the pattern effect of increasing temperature gradients in the oceans surface and continents which disturb the overlying circulation, often causing blocking patterns (also a reason for the marine heatwaves to build up)
Then we had towards autumn a heat release of the marine heatwaves across the mid-latitudes, as the atmosphere gets colder.
Last it have been possible that the oceans released heat from the subsurface that had built up. Across the mid-latitudes warm freshening water masses are accumulating under the surface as shallow as 150m depth. And these heat depots could have been tapped, as the jets speed up during winter, as the density gradient between the tropics and poles increases in the upper atmosphere while it decreases near the surface. More and stronger low-pressure systems due to increased shear are the outcome. And all these extreme low-pressure systems in autumn and winter across the mid-latitudes in 2023/24 could have tapped this subsurface heat depot. But now study here as this is new.
Main problem thou is the expansion of marine heatwaves, as they are feedback driven by global warming heating the oceans from the surface too fast (thermal stratification increases non-linear in the upper 300m of the oceans in various regions), in combination with the pattern effect which disturbs global zonal circulation with the result of more stalled high-pressure systems (low wind speeds are in most instances THE precondition for marine heatwaves too form besides thermal stratification and small mixed layer depth).
Last the warming of the northern latitudes can also be included in the factors driving global warming in 2023.
In short the warming of 2023 was feedback-driven by various system forcing each other into a heating mode with the systems of the oceans, atmosphere, and landmasses acting in unison! The exact series of which contributed to what extent to the heating science has to find out. But it would have to do it on a monthly basis!
The next jump will have devastating consequences as they become larger...
Here is my FB page, want now to make my own blog, as the experts lose the oversight and models will be increasingly wrong (the model spread is in my opinion a joke as it is way too large proving the uselessness of models)...
https://www.facebook.com/Erdsystemforschung/
All the best
Jan
p.s. we warm the oceans too fast that is our main problem!
-
nigelj at 07:08 AM on 18 April 2024How extreme was the Earth's temperature in 2023
Some explanations for the unusual global warming levels in 2023:
James Hansen thinks the anomalously high global surface temperature in 2023 are due to AGW + El Nino + Aerosols reductions. I can't find the related commentary, and have to go by memory, but Hansen suggests that the quite abrupt reductions in shipping aerosols in 2023 added to reductions in industrial aerosols over the last ten years warmed the oceans and this energy comes out after a time delay and it all came out in 2023. Perhaps someone has the details of his suggestion and comments on its credibility.
El ninos release ocean heat that has been building up. I note that the high sea surface temperatures are in the northern oceans are away from the centre of el nino activity.
From NASA: Five Factors to Explain the Record Heat in 2023. But what caused 2023, especially the second half of it, to be so hot? Scientists asked themselves this same question. Here is a breakdown of primary factors that scientists considered to explain the record-breaking heat ( I have cut and pasted the key statements only):
The long-term rise in greenhouse gases is the primary driver.
The return of El Niño added to the heat.
Globally, long-term ocean warming and hotter-than-normal sea surface temperatures played a part.
Aerosols are decreasing, so they are no longer slowing the rise in temperatures.
Scientists found that the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha‘apai volcanic eruption did not substantially add to the record heat.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/152313/five-factors-to-explain-the-record-heat-in-2023
From PBS News: ‘We’re frankly astonished.’ Why 2023’s record-breaking heat surprised scientists. A range of factors including general warming due to human-caused climate change, the El Niño climate pattern, record-low Antarctic sea ice and others — contributed to 2023’s record-breaking heat, but they don’t tell the full story. Schmidt said more work has to be done to fully understand why the year was so hot.
“In 2024, we’ll be seeing whether this persists or whether it kind of goes back to a normal pattern,” he said. “And that will be kind of telling as to whether 2023 was just a very unusual combination of things that all added up to what we saw, or whether there’s something systematically different going forward.” (Seems like good comments to me)
From Copernicus:
Some alternative suggestions on 2023 warming including changes in regional wind patterns over the northern parts of the oceans bringing heat to the surface:
atmosphere.copernicus.eu/aerosols-are-so2-emissions-reductions-contributing-global-warming
(This is not a reference to el nino, but to other changes in wind patterns to the north. For me it raises the question of caused the changes in wind patterns)
Clearly there is no definitive answer yet on why 2023 was so unusually warm ( ditto 2024 thus far). As scientists say next years data will help illuminate the causes.
-
ubrew12 at 16:28 PM on 17 April 20242024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #15
Of potential interest to readers of SkS: This opinion piece in 'The Hill' ("Expect financial fallout when the fossil fuel bubble finally bursts") suggests that when the fossil fuel bubble finally pops it will rival the Crash of 2008 on the global economy. The article examines what such a phenomenon might look like. A quote "We are past the point for the “smooth” and “gradual” transition that... [former Governor of the Bank of England, Mark] Carney urged a decade ago, making his warning of a major Minsky Moment even more relevant."
-
Rodgers_Kawooya at 04:16 AM on 17 April 2024Climate's changed before
As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You!
-
prove we are smart at 00:04 AM on 16 April 2024What is Mexico doing about climate change?
On behalf of Mexico and the many,many nations on this planet who will struggle more than the "entitled wealthy", climate justice - can it come from those who have given us the current 20% of global co2. www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zP0L69ielU
Full article here www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change/
-
scaddenp at 06:19 AM on 15 April 2024A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change
William,I have been away.
The risk is : we try and transition aways from fossil fuels without a better alternative - all previous significant energy changes have occurred naturally - when we have had a better alternative.
I don't think you have provided any evidence that alternative energy systems are not a better alternative. Especially when considering all factors like climate change, health impacts of pollutions, etc
One day we likely will have a better cheaper alternative to fossil fuels - at the moment we don't . Renewables cannot replace fossil fuels they are too unreliable and expensive ,Constantly repeating this does not make it true. You have been provided with peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary. The Lazard analysis of levelized energy costs is putting unsubsidized wind+storage and solar+storage ahead of all but fully depreciated FF stations.
Fossil fuels have brought untold benefits.
I don't dispute this for a second, but I fail to see why it is relevant. FF are now doing a great deal of harm and we have alternatives. We don't "owe" FF any loyalty for past benefits. That would be absurb.What puzzles me is why you obviously dont believe peer-reviewed analysis of alternatives but instead opt for what seems to me to be either uninformed opinion or worse, FF propoganda. You seem to be deeply commited to the status quo, and trying to find arguments to defend that. Why do you think that is and how do go about evaluating competing claims?
-
Eclectic at 12:54 PM on 14 April 2024Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!
Plymouth Sid @ 107&108 :
yes ~ "Sid for World Prez" sounds a good idea.
And, my term "rant" was just a tad self-deprecating. And, the definition of a Statesman : is a politician who rises above the usual hot mess of denial, sloth, etcetera.
Sid, although the Venn Circle called politics does overlap with most aspects of everyday life, nevertheless SkS does permit "political" discussion of actions & remedies ~ so long as the discussions keep away from partisan politics.
And yes, the WUWT blogsite does have its points : (a) It is very, very active as a website, both in articles per day, and in 100's of comments per day. True, the articles are selective & slanted as outrage-stimulating propaganda . . . and the comments are highly repetitious venting. But interspersed with a few useful comments (by a handful of real scientists who enjoy tweaking the Denialists' noses).
~(b) WUWT is a slanted mirror, enabling the viewer outside to gaze over the parapets of the Deniosphere ~ and into the Bedlam that lies within. The denizens there are not insane [per legal definition] . . . but most are intellectually & morally insane. Arguably, they are psychiatrically insane too.
~(c) Possibly . . . and arguably . . . WUWT is a "good thing", for it acts as a flame to attract & amuse the climate nutter/moths of the Anglosphere, and give them a feeling that they are being "active" in their cause.
Sid , the SkS site is very much the opposite (of WUWT ) : it is a small site, run by volunteers, and provides only a few comments per day ~ but provides a wealth of easily-accessible climate science information for those who wish to educate themselves. So the site cannot be expected to be the "mover & shaker" on the world scene (such as a President like yourself would desire).
Sid, the SkS site
-
William24205 at 03:52 AM on 14 April 2024A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change
https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters#:~:text=In%20most%20years%2C%20the%20death,less%20frequent%2C%20or%20less%20intense.
All the prrof of no increase in droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc - can be found above.
It is intercative - so put in the floods or drought and it will show the stat.
Wprld in Data is the the gold standard of datsa sights - used by everyone during the pandemic
Moderator Response:[BL] Empty assertions. That link means nothing more than "data exists"
Your posts here are devoid of analysis.
In that web page, I see increases in many of the metrics they provide. Have you actually bothered to read it, or are you just repeating links from some cheat sheet?
As I stated previously, on this comment:
Here is a prediction: you will continue to scatter your comments with statements that are discussed (and discredited) on other posts here that you have not bothered to read.
Are you willing to make an effort to make my prediction incorrect?
...and here is the closing graphic from the link you provided: No signs of increase here, you think? Floods and extreme weather seem to be driving the increase.
-
Plymouth Sid at 02:50 AM on 14 April 2024Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!
Eclectic at 106.
Thank you.
Some would say that the very essence of politics ~ "is a hot mess of denial, sloth & inertia, and short-term self interest." What scientists must try very hard to do is, somehow, to "enter the lists" and adjust the focus away from the short term. (If I knew how to do that I would be "World President" ! )
Beware! ???? If you "rant" (no matter how justified, you will be moderated and chastised! Notwithstanding, I thank you for the promt to look at WUWT ~ it, like the movie, is quite entertaining.
Plymouth Sid
-
Plymouth Sid at 02:26 AM on 14 April 2024Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!
Bob Loblaw @105
Thank you. You are doubtless correct but the scientist in you should scream that what matters is what people actually do not what they say (evidence not stated opinion).
At least one major branch of economics (which some would like to call a "science") would insist that the "price mechanism" in a free market economy cannot be bettered (that does not at all mean that it is error free!).
Re: This blog's policy on Politics would seem to allow some political/economic discourse on this thread's topic. The "Movie" seems to me to be (unfortunately) very much about politics.
Democracy, by which I mean one person one (SECRET) vote, can at times produce perverse outcomes as often as not as a result of campaigns of misinformation (such as "Climate: The Movie"). It behoves scientists (and the media) to produce effective counters. This site goes a long way towards that but how far does it actually reach and can it be bettered? (Those last two questions are a cri de coeur and rhetorical.)
Plymouth Sid
-
Eclectic at 10:34 AM on 13 April 2024Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!
Plymouth Sid @104 : you are certainly correct in your scientific assessment.
IMHO, the "climate problem" is like a coin ~ one side is the mainstream science; the other side is the politics of How & When to take action against the problem.
The science side is very straightforward ~ and only a handful of genuinely well-qualified scientists are nay-sayers or doubt-mongers (and even these, on closer examination, are often guilty of speaking out of both sides of their mouth).
The politics side ~ is a hot mess of denial, sloth & inertia, and short-term self interest. Of which we are all guilty to a greater or lesser extent. Plus, we need better technology too, to fully replace fossil fuels.
On SkS here, I occasionally rant against the notorious WUWT website (a website I view frequently, to experience some laughs . . . and some Schadenfreude). WUWT shows both sides of the coin continually ~ the participants there are largely in denial of the realities of climate science . . . and at the same time they exhibit a political extremism brimming with anger, selfishness, and uncharitableness. WUWT is a very toxic site : and the participants love "Climate - The Movie" and seem oblivious to its many severe flaws.
-
nigelj at 08:33 AM on 13 April 2024A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change
Moderator. Thank's for the correct link. There was also a typo. The numbers are for deaths in 2010 and projected deaths in 2030. I'm having a bad day. Sorry.
-
Bob Loblaw at 08:18 AM on 13 April 2024Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!
Plymouth Sid:
The choices that humans make can be guided by science, but those choices also include values that are not really amenable to scientific examination. You can use science to study people's choices, and associate the choices they make with other measurable items, but values are hard to measure. (You can record what people say about their values, or you can assign "value" labels to their actions or words, but there is a degree of subjectivity about individual behaviour.)
As for politics: that also can be guided by science - but often it is not. Here at Skeptical Science, we try to avoid purely political discussions - but there are times when political issues do connect with climate science. The Comments Policy states this as follows:
No politics. Rants about politics, religion, faith, ideology or one world governments will be deleted. Occasional blogposts on Skeptical Science touch on issues intimately related to politics. For those posts this rule may be relaxed, but only if explicitly stated at the end of the blogpost.
-
nigelj at 07:00 AM on 13 April 2024A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change
Regarding claims that "currently over 400,000 deaths are caused every year by climate change." Orginal source material below:
https://daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CVM2ndEd-FrontMatter.pdf
The main factors in the 400,000 deaths are (Numbers in 2010 and projected numbers in 2023)
Diarrheal Infections 85,000 150,000
Heat & Cold Illnesses 35,000 35,000
Hunger 225,000 380,000
Malaria & Vector Borne Diseases 20,000 20,000
Meningitis 30,000 40,000
Environmental Disasters 5,000 7,000Moderator Response:[BL] The link provided is broken. I think this is the correct link:
https://daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CVM2ndEd-FrontMatter.pdf
Confirmed as correct by the original commenter and corrected in the original comment.
-
Plymouth Sid at 06:10 AM on 13 April 2024Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!
I have hugely enjoyed following this "blog" and am gratful that I checked this site before I swallowed "Climate: The Movie" whole. It is a very entertaining movie if over long.
The problem, as I see it, is that the issue of "Climate Change" has 3 parts:
1. Is this latest episode of "global warming" unusual in such a way that it deserves close attention?
(I think the answer to that is a resounding YES ~ depite what the "Movie" says.)2. Is this latest episode of "global warming" mostly caused by us humans?
(I think the answer to that is also a resounding YES ~ depite what the "Movie" says.)
3. What shall we humans do to prevent what appears to be the consequences for "the world"?
(Am I correct in saying that the answer to that question will not be found on this site because this site is about science NOT politics?)
Plymouth Sid
-
William24205 at 03:36 AM on 13 April 2024A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change
Can renewables provide baseload power?
No , because we do not have the battery storage capacity . the USA currently has 7 minutes of storage capacity . - they need at least 3 months. So we are not even remotely close.
Is renewable energy too expensive?
Yes - because of the above - Renewables are cheap in theory but not in practice - not in practice because they don’ t do the job required . It is the equivalent of buying an expensive electric car and still having to use petrol.
From source to the end user they are expensive - which is why the Germany despite having spent billions on subsidies for renewables have one of if not the highest energy costs in Europe. And why they had to rely on Putin's gas. You have to pay twice.Moderator Response:[BL] Until you read the links provided, don't bother commenting.
-
William24205 at 03:10 AM on 13 April 2024A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change
You are again repeating yourself - treating one statistic as if it is the only thing that matters, and treating predictions about the future as if they mean nothing at all.
Amongst other things, this is just getting boring. Please come up with a new argument, or stop wasting people's time.
I have not just used one statistic - I have cited stats on flooding, drought, hurricanes, typhoons bush fires - and provided links for evidence.
I don't think predictions for the future are meaningless - I just think they should be not be treated as firm evidence and carry the same weight as hard facts. I don’t think I am being unreasonable there.Moderator Response:[BL] Providing links and citations requires actually providing links (i.e. a clickable source)and citations (i.e. a full journal name, title, etc. that someone can easily find). IT does not mean "I saw a study somewhere", which anyone can make up.
You provided one link to one news article (on USA Today) that mentioned one Lancet study I had to find myself.
You are now just provoking moderation.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
William24205 at 02:59 AM on 13 April 2024A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change
William, it isn't clear what you meaning by risk. Financial risk, increased mortality? or what? I would say that in any case, how you transition would be relevant - and that varies country to country, region to region. Suddenly dropping fossil fuels without replacing with other energy sources or better efficiency would indeed be damaging but I am not seeing advocates for that.
The risk is : we try and transition aways from fossil fuels without a better alternative - all previous significant energy changes have occurred naturally - when we have had a better alternative.
One day we likely will have a better cheaper alternative to fossil fuels - at the moment we don't . Renewables cannot replace fossil fuels they are too unreliable and expensive ,Spend money on R&D and keep investing in fossil fuels at the same time.
To answer your question directly .
Fossil fuels have brought untold benefits.
So by definition the inverse could unwind some of those benefits.
Fossil fuels are the main reason we are safer from the climate than ever before - it seems pointless to risk throwing all the gains or somehow the gains away.
Increased poverty brings many problems - expensive energy has inherent risks.Moderator Response:[BL] Your ability to remain uninformed is impressive. From the list of most common myths.
Can renewables provide baseload power?
Is renewable energy too expensive?
Here is a prediction: you will continue to scatter your comments with statements that are discussed (and discredited) on other posts here that you have not bothered to read.
Are you willing to make an effort to make my prediction incorrect?
-
MA Rodger at 17:19 PM on 12 April 2024Climate Adam: Is Global Warming Speeding Up?
ubrew12,
Tamino subsequently posted an OP titled 'Accelerations' which features this NOAA adjusted data (the last two graphics) showing a pair of break-points in the rate of warming, 1976 & 2013, with the pre-2013 rate being quoted as +0.165ºC/decade and the post-2013 rate measuring a rather dramatic +0.4ºC/decade. But that said, there will be very big 'error bars' on that last value. Additionally Tamino's adjustments did result in 2023 temperature being increased (by +0.02ºC) which, given the cause of the "absolutely gobsmackingly bananas" 2023 temperatures remain unresolved, may be very wrong.
-
Eclectic at 12:19 PM on 12 April 2024At a glance - Does CO2 always correlate with temperature?
William @1 , you are making multiple failings in logic.
Bigly confused politicians tend to use a "word salad" ~ but William you are using a "logic salad".
Maybe somewhere you have some good points to make . . . but it's certainly not obvious! Please slow down a bit, and make your points one at a time ~ and use a carefully considered logical analysis. The "close your eyes and use a shotgun" approach is unconvincing and counterproductive, if you are seeking to persuade readers.
-
William24205 at 10:05 AM on 12 April 2024At a glance - Does CO2 always correlate with temperature?
Instead, the correct way to look at temperature trends is to examine them over multiple decades - 30 years is standard in climate science. So to answer the question, "where are we now?", one would look at the temperature record from 1992-2022.
30 years is a tiny sample size - there has been 4.5billion years of weather. The next 100, 1000, or even 10,000 of weather would not necessarily mean anything either way.
It could be 3c colder or warming and still be natural variation . We just don't have the records . We have guess for large periods of milliosn of years - but nothing on any specific period of less than 1000 .
There could have been multiple periods of 100 years whne the temp when up or down by 1.2c. It is statiscally likely there have been . because there have millions of 100 year periods.
Moderator Response:[BL] "We have guess [sic]" only applies if "we" means people that have ignored the huge amounts of evidence about past climates and what we understand about the climate processes that created that evidence.
I am pretty certain that you are correct in including yourself in that "we", but your "we" does not include climate scientists.
You can read more about what climate scientists know about past climates (and how this influences our expectations of future climates) by reading this SkS page. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one.
-
William24205 at 09:53 AM on 12 April 2024A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change
scaddenp
Thanks again for you reasonable reply - you do at least seem to believe in reason and the real world . It is refreshing
Moderator Response:[BL] Why don't you actually try answering some of his questions?
-
William24205 at 09:51 AM on 12 April 2024A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change
"New Health Data Shows Unabated Climate Change Will Cause 3.4 Million Deaths Per Year by Century End."
It is a prediction for the far future.
That currently over 400,000 deaths are caused every year by climate change
An obscure article with no credible data or evidence. What are the extra 400,000 dying of? Deaths have gone down . it is a familar tactic of citing existing occurances and saying it is climate change - it would be plausable if there were increases in what was cited - but it is not credible when there are fewer .
Moderator Response:[BL] You are again repeating yourself - treating one statistic as if it is the only thing that matters, and treating predictions about the future as if they mean nothing at all.
Amongst other things, this is just getting boring. Please come up with a new argument, or stop wasting people's time.
-
nigelj at 05:19 AM on 12 April 2024Skeptical Science New Research for Week #15 2024
"Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind and Electric Vehicles, Eisenson et. al., Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia University."
Very interesting, informative and useful resource. Thanks!
-
Grumnut at 20:39 PM on 11 April 2024Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!
I think it's bizarre, that Durkin has basically made the same movie again. This is "The Great Global Warming Swindle" made over with the same players. One of the oddest parts of BOTH films is the contention of the claim that warming comes first, followed by CO2 rise, 800 years later. They even use the graph (at least in TGGWS) from the paper from Caillon et al. The trouble is, that paper clearly states that CO2 rose first in the Northern Hemisphere followed by warming. Highly educated scientists, some with doctorates, can't read a simple scientific paper, it seems.
They wouldn't be trying to put one over on us, would they?
-
scaddenp at 06:32 AM on 10 April 2024A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change
"Would you not acknowledge that transitioning away from fossil fuels to a different energy form carries some risks in itself "
William, it isn't clear what you meaning by risk. Financial risk, increased mortality? or what? I would say that in any case, how you transition would be relevant - and that varies country to country, region to region. Suddenly dropping fossil fuels without replacing with other energy sources or better efficiency would indeed be damaging but I am not seeing advocates for that.
-
ubrew12 at 04:54 AM on 10 April 2024Climate Adam: Is Global Warming Speeding Up?
Tamino adjusts the raw data for 1) volcanic aerosols 2) El Nino/La Nina cycle, 3) solar variations. The adjusted graph is much clearer that the global warming signal is accelerating upward, as should be expected from the input signal (greenhouse gases). NASA GISS yearly averages, adjusted, shows the clearest signal:
I got this link from this website a few weeks ago. -
Eclectic at 04:38 AM on 10 April 2024Climate Adam: Is Global Warming Speeding Up?
Steveeeeej @1 : Also, google is your friend, independently.
Dr Adam is intelligent, well-informed, yet a tad histrionic..
I suppose that's better than being the opposite !
-
Bob Loblaw at 04:30 AM on 10 April 2024Climate Adam: Is Global Warming Speeding Up?
steveeeej:
If you are genuinely curious, you could try following the link behind "Dr. Adam Levy", near the end of the first line in the green box.
