Climate Change

[Alan V]

Predicting weather events and predicting the effects of climate change are not the same thing.  At all.
Climate models and weather models are entirely different, the time scales are orders of magnitude apart.

We don't need to be able to predict the snowfall for any given storm or the temperature for any given day to be able to predict long term averages.

For example, scientists already know there is an increase of category 4 and 5 hurricanes.  Hurricanes feed off the heat of ocean water, which is getting hotter because of climate change.  Hurricanes will be able to move further north and south as well.  What they don't know is whether the total numbers of hurricanes will increase or decrease, since that depends on chaotic factors, just like the weather.  So when scientists talk about how climate will effect weather, they say things like "Such and such weather events will become 20% more intense by such and such time," not "Climate change caused a hurricane."

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/hurrica...ate-change

Weather is like predicting if it will rain next week.  Climate is like predicting if it will be hot next summer.  Scientists need something like 30 years worth of data to detect the "signal" of climate trends above the "noise" of natural variability.

In contrast, scientists still don't know how climate change will effect tornadoes, because they don't have enough reliable, long-term data.  Some suspect it will push them further east in the U.S., the last I read.

Climate models are not designed to and will never predict specific weather events.  They only predict climate, not weather. However, the models are getting better at predicting what will likely happen in specific regions due to climate change, so that's something at least.

[Alan V]

https://www.cnn.com/style/article/global...index.html

The cooling of our air is responsible for 10% of the planet's electricity consumption, according to the International Energy Agency. And as the world heats, demand for air conditioners will only grow, especially in developing countries. This, in turn, will increase the impact that cooling appliances have on the climate, thus warming the Earth further and creating a vicious cycle.

The current technology is unsustainable. That's why a new coalition -- led by India's government and America's Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), a nonprofit environmental research organization -- has launched the Global Cooling Prize, a $1-million competition to design the next generation of air cooling systems.

[PopeyesPappy]

Still getting hotter



8 of the hottest years on record have been in the last 10 years.
19 of the hottest years on record have been in the last 20 years.
27 of the hottest years on record have been in the last 30 years.



https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/table...s+dSST.csv

[Alan V]

Still getting hotter

8 of the hottest years on record have been in the last 10 years.
19 of the hottest years on record have been in the last 20 years.
27 of the hottest years on record have been in the last 30 years.

I couldn't say whether climate change is a factor, but this winter in the Philadelphia area we haven't seen any significant snowfall.  We've just seen a few flurries and less than a half inch total.  Usually we see around 20 inches total every winter.  It's has been unusually warm and rainy instead.

[Alan V]

https://climatenewsnetwork.net/paris-cli...yYqWNl5JWI

By the late 1970s scientists had settled on a probable climate sensitivity of 3°C (plus-or-minus 1.5°C), corresponding to about 560 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. That assessment remained largely unchanged − until now.

“Right now, there is an enormously heated debate within the climate modelling community,” said Earth system scientist Johan Rockström, director of Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

“You have 12 or 13 models showing sensitivity which is no longer 3°C, but rather 5°C or 6°C with a doubling of CO2,” he told AFP. “What is particularly worrying is that these are not the outliers.”

Models from France, the US Department of Energy, Britain’s Met Office and Canada show climate sensitivity of 4.9°C, 5.3°C, 5.5°C and 5.6°C respectively, Dr Zelinka said. “You have to take these models seriously − they are highly developed, state-of-the-art.”

Among the 27 new models examined in his study, these were also among those that best matched climate change over the last 75 years, suggesting a further validation of their accuracy.

But other models that will feed into the IPCC’s next major Assessment Report found significantly smaller increases, though almost all were higher than earlier estimates. Scientists will test and challenge the new models rigorously.

“The jury is still out, but it is worrying,” said Rockstrom. “Climate sensitivity has been in the range of 1.5°C to 4.5°C for more than 30 years. If it is now moving to between 3°C and 7°C, that would be tremendously dangerous.”

[abaris]

You don't have to be a scientists to know it's getting hotter with every year. Not an inch of snow so far where I live and last june we pushed 40 degrees celsius. Going by the reports you get the feeling that every month is the warmest in recorded history. And these date back almost 300 years.

[Aractus]

8 of the hottest years on record since 1880 have been in the last 10 years.
19 of the hottest years on record since 1880 have been in the last 20 years.
27 of the hottest years on record since 1880 have been in the last 30 years.

Fixed that for you.

Still getting hotter

[img]


https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/table...s+dSST.csv

Northern Hemisphere temperature trend 804-990 AD using the Christiansen & Ljungqvist dataset:



See? The trend you've published isn't at all unprecedented, nor is it the longest in just the past 2,000 years. 804-990 shows the same +0.07°C per decade warming as your graph, except over a longer time-scale (1.2°C rise over 186 years). That compares to ~1°C warming over 139 years globally (1880-2019).

And here's the modern trend using the dataset you linked to graphed to the same scale:



You can see the trend is only slightly more than the trend observed for northern hemisphere from 804-990 (it's less than 0.1°C over the 138 year time period).

[SYZ]

This table lists the global combined land and ocean annually averaged
temperature rank and anomaly for each of the 10 warmest years on record.

Top 10 warmest years (NOAA), (1880–2018)

Rank Year       Anomaly °C    Anomaly °F
1..... 2016 ......0.94 ............1.69
2..... 2019 ......0.93 ............1.67
3..... 2015 ......0.90 ............1.62
4..... 2017 ......0.84 ............1.51
5..... 2018 ......0.77 ............1.39
6..... 2014 ......0.74 ............1.33
7..... 2010 ......0.70 ............1.26
8..... 2013 ......0.66 ............1.19
9..... 2005 ......0.65 ............1.17
10... 2009 ......0.64 ............1.15

Although the National Climatic Data Center temperature record begins in 1880,
reconstructions of earlier temperatures based on climate proxies, suggest these
years may be the warmest for several centuries to millennia, or longer.

[Alan V]

Northern Hemisphere temperature trend 804-990 AD using the Christiansen & Ljungqvist dataset:

See? The trend you've published isn't at all unprecedented, nor is it the longest in just the past 2,000 years. 804-990 shows the same +0.07°C per decade warming as your graph, except over a longer time-scale (1.2°C rise over 186 years). That compares to ~1°C warming over 139 years globally (1880-2019).

You can see the trend is only slightly more than the trend observed for northern hemisphere from 804-990 (it's less than 0.1°C over the 138 year time period).

First of all, trends in the Northern Hemisphere are not necessarily world trends.

Second, "The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010." In other words, scientists know the present changes in temperatures are caused by greenhouse gas emissions. This is per: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Third, and I can't emphasize this enough: Scientists know the climate varied in other periods, and typically also know what caused those variations. They were not caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

You keep talking as if scientists, and even the general public, are unaware the climate has always shown both long-term changes and temporary variations. You are incorrect. You also keep talking as if we don't know for a fact that present changes are caused by emissions of greenhouse gases. This is untrue.

[Aractus]

First of all, trends in the Northern Hemisphere are not necessarily world trends.

You have an example of one hemisphere going the other way to the other over a 180 year period? Or for that matter any multidecadal period?

I mean  that's kind of nuts to claim each hemisphere was doing something different, you know that right?

Second, "The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit

You lost all credibility when you quote Fahrenheit.

Third, and I can't emphasize this enough: Scientists know the climate varied in other periods, and typically also know what caused those variations.  They were not caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

Okay, so what precisely caused the warming trend in the reference years I gave - 804-990?

To be clear - the trend is nearly identical to what we're experiencing now, yes? And I could have cherrypicked an even shorter ranger that shows a steeper rise in temperature compared to say the last 40 years.

You keep talking as if scientists, and even the general public, are unaware the climate has always shown both long-term changes and temporary variations.  You are incorrect.  You also keep talking as if we don't know for a fact that present changes are caused by emissions of greenhouse gases.  This is untrue.

And now you're straw-manning. That should be given a new meaning - I henceforth declare we call it strawManning.

We don't know "for a fact" anything of the sort. If you bother to read the IPCC report (or the "consensus") it says they have 95% confidence to say that anthropogenic GHGs are contributing something greater than 50% of the total trend. There's a 1 in 20 chance, according to their own statistical maths, that they're wrong.

[Alan V]

You keep talking as if scientists, and even the general public, are unaware the climate has always shown both long-term changes and temporary variations.  You are incorrect.  You also keep talking as if we don't know for a fact that present changes are caused by emissions of greenhouse gases.  This is untrue.

We don't know "for a fact" anything of the sort. If you bother to read the IPCC report (or the "consensus") it says they have 95% confidence to say that anthropogenic GHGs are contributing something greater than 50% of the total trend. There's a 1 in 20 chance, according to their own statistical maths, that they're wrong.

The odds have improved since the last IPCC report, to something like 1 in a million chance against. I could dig up the reference if you insist.

[Alan V]

First of all, trends in the Northern Hemisphere are not necessarily world trends.

You have an example of one hemisphere going the other way to the other over a 180 year period? Or for that matter any multidecadal period?

I mean  that's kind of nuts to claim each hemisphere was doing something different, you know that right?

Yes, that was my mistake. It was too early in the morning and I was thinking in terms of local variations, which are of much shorter duration.

Second, "The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit

You lost all credibility when you quote Fahrenheit.

Here is the complete original quote: Second, "The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010." In other words, scientists know the present changes in temperatures are caused by greenhouse gas emissions. This is per: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Please note that it included Celsius as well as Fahrenheit, so it confirmed your assertion that total recent warming has been less than 1C. I assume your truncating the quote was a mistake on your part, since you thought I was trying to pull a fast one about total warming. But the quote was used to emphasize that we know present warming is caused by greenhouse gases, as was indicated by the original bolding.

Third, and I can't emphasize this enough: Scientists know the climate varied in other periods, and typically also know what caused those variations.  They were not caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

Okay, so what precisely caused the warming trend in the reference years I gave - 804-990?

To be clear - the trend is nearly identical to what we're experiencing now, yes? And I could have cherrypicked an even shorter ranger that shows a steeper rise in temperature compared to say the last 40 years.

You mean you don't know what caused the warming trend between 804 and 990? What kind of climate scientists are you? Oh yeah, none at all.

You keep talking as if scientists, and even the general public, are unaware the climate has always shown both long-term changes and temporary variations.  You are incorrect.  You also keep talking as if we don't know for a fact that present changes are caused by emissions of greenhouse gases.  This is untrue.

And now you're straw-manning. That should be given a new meaning - I henceforth declare we call it strawManning.

We don't know "for a fact" anything of the sort. If you bother to read the IPCC report (or the "consensus") it says they have 95% confidence to say that anthropogenic GHGs are contributing something greater than 50% of the total trend. There's a 1 in 20 chance, according to their own statistical maths, that they're wrong.

First of all, I have read a range of books from a number of climate scientists, not just Michael Mann, most all of which refer back to IPCC reports, which summarize peer-reviewed worldwide climate science studies. So this can be dismissed as a cheap shot.

Second, here is the reference I mentioned above:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-clima...SKCN1QE1ZU

Evidence for man-made global warming has reached a “gold standard” level of certainty, adding pressure for cuts in greenhouse gases to limit rising temperatures, scientists said on Monday.

“Humanity cannot afford to ignore such clear signals,” the U.S.-led team wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change of satellite measurements of rising temperatures over the past 40 years.

They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming.

...

Peter Stott of the British Met Office, who was among the scientists drawing that conclusion and was not involved in Monday’s study, said he would favor raising the probability one notch to “virtually certain”, or 99-100 percent.

[SYZ]

Interesting article about Australia's climate and the Indian Ocean Dipole—which is an irregular
oscillation of sea surface temperatures in which the western Indian Ocean becomes alternately
warmer (positive phase) and then colder (negative phase) than the eastern part of the ocean.

Indian Ocean Dipole linked to global warming in new research by Australian scientists

One of the big drivers of drought in Australia, the Indian Ocean Dipole, is trending towards a more
drought-causing positive state due to climate change, according to new research. Professor Nerilie Abram
from the ANU Research School of Earth Sciences said the changes were occurring in the IOD's behaviour.
"That is going to increase the risk that we will have these very dry and hot years and those are the
years where we precondition our landscape to burn," she said.

[Aroura]

Antarctica reaches highest temps ever, 69 degrees F, last week.  Normal temp this time of year is roughly 39 degrees.

[Aroura]

Antarctica just experienced its single hottest day ever recorded, hitting a high of 69.35 degrees Fahrenheit (20.75 degrees Celsius) on Feb. 9, a team of Argentine researchers reported.

The new record-breaking temperature also fits with global warming trends over the past decade. According to the U.N., 2010 to 2019 was the single hottest decade on record, with 2019 ranking as the second-hottest year ever (the hottest was 2016).

The warming trend is already continuing into the new year: January 2020 was rated the hottest January in the 141-year climate record.

[Alan V]

ABC News

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos announced via Instagram that he is donating $10 billion to fight "the devastating impact of climate change on this planet we all share."

Bezos, whose net worth is reported to be more than $129 billion, said the $10 billion commitment will go toward "scientists, activists, NGOs" and "any effort that offers a real possibility to help preserve and protect the natural world."

"We can save Earth," he wrote. "It’s going to take collective action from big companies, small companies, nation states, global organizations, and individuals."

[GenesisNemesis]

https://www.carbonbrief.org/methane-emis...imated/amp

Methane emissions from fossil fuels ‘severely underestimated’

"Human-caused emissions of methane from the extraction and use of fossil fuels may have been “severely underestimated”, a new study suggests.


The research indicates that “natural” emissions of fossil methane, that seep out of deeply-held reserves, make up a much smaller fraction of total methane emissions than previously thought.


This means that the levels of fossil methane in the atmosphere are likely being driven by the methane escaping as coal, oil and natural gas are mined, drilled and transported."

[SYZ]

https://www.carbonbrief.org/methane-emis...imated/amp

Bit off topic... sorry.

But isn't interesting how much we unknowingly read people's lips when they're speaking.
One can tell exactly what this bloke's saying, WTF, without hearing a sound.



I'm finding as I get older that it's easier for me to "hear" people when I'm looking at their
faces when they're talking to me.  And particularly kids who mumble, gabble, talk in SMS
speak, or just grunt.

... back to topic, with apologies.    

[Alan V]

CNN

Using data from surveys that studied 538 animals, insects and plants from 581 sites across the globe, researchers John J. Wiens and Cristian Román-Palacios from the University of Arizona found that approximately one in three plant, insect and animal species could face extinction by 2070. However, things could be even worse if emissions continue to rise as rapidly as they have in recent decades.

In a worst-case scenario, that number could rise to over 55%.

[epronovost]

You have an example of one hemisphere going the other way to the other over a 180 year period? Or for that matter any multidecadal period?

I mean  that's kind of nuts to claim each hemisphere was doing something different, you know that right?

The Medieval Warm Period of 950 to 1250 AD would be an example of a phenomenon affecting mostly the Northern Atlantic. While the  tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean actually got a little bit colder and drier in the same period. African temperature's remained stable during that period, but it got drier. Japan had both a warmer and cooler interval during the same period too. In other words, it's not really a synchronised phenomenon like the current climate change and both the rate and sometime nature of the change during that period can vary depending on where you are on the planet. The most likely suspect for such an ''anarchic'', but still global change in temperature is a change in volcanic activity though some have suggested intense deforestation by humans in meso-america to explain both the warm period and the cooler period afterward (the warming was caused by deforestation which caused drouts and the destruction of the civilisation doing the deforestation, the cooling was caused by an increase in forestrial cover and a drop in human population).

[Phaedrus]

The "Anti-Greta"

[epronovost]

The "Anti-Greta"

What's with right-wing hack and blond tokken women? Seriously there's her, Kaitlin Bennett (that blond chick who defend gun's rights), Megyn Kelly, Christina Hoff Sommers (an ex-feminist turned MRA conspiracy theorist), Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham (discount Coulter), Tomi Lahren (younger Coulter), Lauren Southern (canadian discount Coulter). They basically are the exact same women with a few years of difference and slightly different, more age appropriate, haircut. It's creepy that when they need a women pushing right-wing stuff they always pick one that fits right into the same mold as all the others. They couldn't look more manufactured if they tried.

[Alan V]

What's with right-wing hack and blond tokken women? Seriously there's her, Kaitlin Bennett (that blond chick who defend gun's rights), Megyn Kelly, Christina Hoff Sommers (an ex-feminist turned MRA conspiracy theorist), Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham (discount Coulter), Tomi Lahren (younger Coulter), Lauren Southern (canadian discount Coulter). They basically are the exact same women with a few years of difference and slightly different, more age appropriate, haircut. It's creepy that when they need a women pushing right-wing stuff they always pick one that fits right into the same mold as all the others. They couldn't look more manufactured if they tried.

Stepford wives?  

[Cavebear]

For any rational person, "human-caused climate change" is already established. So the problem is political. The solution is easy. Get the Republicans out of office. And the way to do that is to remove the corrosive effects of corporate money from politics. It is time to eliminate the legal fiction that corporations are "people".

[Alan V]

Politico

Brussels on Wednesday presented its European Climate Law — the centerpiece of its Green Deal vision of radically slashing greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by mid-century. EU leaders signed off on the goal in December, but the bill is meant to turn their political commitment into law.

Brussels argues that making the 2050 target legally binding provides the long-term certainty to green the way Europe produces, consumes and uses resources over the next decades.