Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/adventures-on-the-east-side/feed/
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
change  climate change  climate  comment forced  comment  feb  forced responses  impacts  jan  nino  ppm  unforced variations 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments for RealClimate

Comments for RealClimate



Climate science from climate scientists...



Last Build Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 04:19:19 +0000

 



Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by Thomas

Sun, 18 Feb 2018 04:19:19 +0000

Some interesting CO2 ppm numbers in Feb 2018 Week beginning 2017-02-12 the average was 405.91 ppm These daily avg numbers represent the equivalent wkly time period this year so far: February 16: 408.40 ppm +2.46 February 15: 408.53 ppm +2.62 February 14: 407.92 ppm +2.01 February 13: 408.00 ppm +2.09 February 12: 408.63 ppm +2.72 Roughly that is +2.39 higher avg increase than last year. The same wkly period in 2017 above 2016 was +2.29 ppm. Slightly less but on top of two years of huge numbers. The years 2015 and 2016 were significant because the avg rate of increase was ~3.00 ppm. This is acknowledged and generally significantly boosted due to the (Super?) El Nino from May 2015 thru May 2016. This year there is no El Nino, and no possible "hangover" from an el nino which may have slightly affected 2017's high PPM numbers. In fact, right now it's a Weak La Nina that should be having the opposite effect upon daily, wkly and mthly CO2 ppm numbers relative to 2015, 2016 and 2017 right now. But it isn't happening like that. Instead what I am seeing in February and January's numbers is something quite anomalous, in a historical sense, going back to the 1990s and '98 super el nino and what happened after that. As Yoda once said, "I sense a disturbance in the Force." Pre-El Nino time, in wk 2014-02-9 the avg was 397.87 ppm. This year is looking like ~408.30 or +10.43 ppm in a short 4 years. That's a big number jump from 2014 non-el nino to 2018 non-el nino - or +2.61 ppm per year on average. Which I believe is some kind of a Record since Scripps began in the 1950s. Whereas the jump from mid-Feb 2015 during non-el nino period to mid-Feb 2016 during a severe el nino was +3.69 ppm. 2016 +3.69 versus 2017 +2.29 on top of that versus 2018 +2.39 on top again versus a 4 year avg of +2.61 2014 to 2018 - What do these numbers indicate? And IF this 2018 Jan/Feb pattern and trend continues throughout 2018 where might those numbers end up and what kind of AGW/CC Impacts could one reasonably expect from that in the short and medium term? (That being Rhetorical Hypothetical questions only - all things being equal and the ASI extent (and global SIE) at record breaking lows currently and FF energy use and trends not decreasing at all) Will have to wait and see in a year or so, or hopefully CO2 ppm readings will suddenly crash back down to 406 or 407 unexpectedly one month rather than crashing through the 410 ppm barrier and never ever dropping again. Either way most will have to wait a couple more years for a Paper on it or some other detailed analysis by NASA's OCO etc. Just as well we have all the time in the world to wait. For once we know for certain (right?), then action will definitely be taken to avoid a crisis in positive climate feedbacks and the dangerous regional impacts that will undoubtedly follow. So, thanks for your patience and understanding. Please note my disclaimer and carry on regardless. :-)



Comment on Unforced variations: Feb 2018 by Killian

Sun, 18 Feb 2018 03:35:04 +0000

I think this. from Feb. 5th, might help constrain temp uncertainty? Only seen the abstract. https://www.clim-past.net/14/139/2018/



Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by Thomas

Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:41:17 +0000

DISCLAIMER: Nothing I have said here or elsewhere should be construed as an AGW/CC related scientific forecast nor a scientific prediction nor a rigorous scientific analysis. Experience has shown such an obvious disclaimer needs to be spelled out in text for some readers. It should also be noted that I fully support, respect and continue to encourage the work of all Real Climate Scientists who provide this forum unpaid in their spare time. That does not extend to all other participants by default. Respect is earned and not a given.



Comment on Unforced variations: Feb 2018 by Killian

Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:36:21 +0000

Oops... here's the link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/7deb4950-009b-31b1-aba1-9a1233840a66/largest-science-org-gives.html



Comment on Unforced variations: Feb 2018 by Killian

Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:35:40 +0000

Dear Dr. Mann, If you are up for another legal battle, here's very clear libel from The Federalist via Yahoo! Sue them both. Please.



Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by Thomas

Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:32:04 +0000

And, shock horror, newspapers do it too ..... "The rate of global sea level rise is accelerating as ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland melt, an analysis of the first 25 years of satellite data confirms." http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-02-13/25-years-of-satellite-data-confirms-global-sea-level-rise-rate/9416570 The sky is falling ......



Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by Thomas

Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:22:02 +0000

142 MA Rodger says: 19 Jan 2018 at 5:24 AM mike @119. You ask “The rate of increase is rising, right? Is that ok?” No it is not. “The rate of increase has been rising.” http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/01/unforced-variations-jan-2018/comment-page-3/#comment-689583 Using the altimeter record coupled with careful consideration of interannual and decadal variability as well as potential instrument errors, we show that this rate is accelerating at 0.084 ± 0.025 mm/y2, which agrees well with climate model projections. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/02/06/1717312115 I look forward to the '**** Retentive Perfection Police' tearing the authors of this scientific paper a new '******' forthwith. Patience is one of my virtues. When X happens I know to sit back and wait a while until the Y gift finally drops into my lap. Of course it will make NO DIFFERENCE HERE but a little pointed humour greases the wheels of life making it just a little bit more worthwhile. It makes me smile, a lot! And sometimes there's a bonus like this comment in that publoished science paper that reads: If sea level continues to change at this rate and acceleration,............' So apparently there is the proof that it is quite valid scieitifically to say IF THIS THEN THAT ............. AMAZING, isn;t it? Oh the Joy of seeing Pedantism being mis-used by a Fundamentalist as a supposed fundamental core component of science and subsequently seeing it being trashed by real scientific rigour itself in print. It's still Sad though!



Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by Thomas

Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:05:03 +0000

Researching & Analysis of AGW/CC Impacts MIT - Projecting the impacts of climate change Joint Program researchers advocate for improved modeling approach. Today’s gold standard for climate impact assessments — model intercomparison projects (MIPs) — fall short in many ways. http://news.mit.edu/2018/projecting-impacts-climate-change-0213 To overcome these drawbacks, researchers at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change propose an alternative method that only a handful of other groups are now pursuing: a self-consistent modeling framework to assess climate impacts across multiple regions and sectors. They describe the Joint Program’s implementation of this method and provide illustrative examples in a new study published in Nature Communications. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02984-9 Received: 20 September 2016 Accepted: 11 January 2018 = 15 months + the time to do the work. Large internationally coordinated exercises cannot easily respond to new policy targets and the implementation of standard scenarios across models, institutions and research communities can yield inconsistent estimates. Here, we argue for a shift toward the use of a self-consistent integrated modeling framework to assess climate impacts, and discuss ways the integrated assessment modeling community can move in this direction. Estimating the impacts of climate change is challenging because they span a large number of economic sectors and ecosystems services, and can vary strongly by region. However, these exercises suffer from a rigid and complex framework, driven by the need for international coordination, so they must rely on a limited number of socio-economic scenarios, like the four representative concentration pathways (RCP) scenarios. Furthermore, the MIPs lack flexibility, and responsiveness to changes in economic and environmental policies (like the recent Paris Agreement), and thus they are of limited usefulness in analysis of policy choice. In addition, because of their single sector focus these exercises do not capture important inter-dependencies, linkages and feedbacks, and this lack of integration among sectors is likely to lead to misrepresentation of climate impacts. Basic Conclusion: While there is still a need to bridge the gap between physical impacts and the resulting monetary values for economic damages, ongoing research shows important progress in this direction, such as efforts on health impacts and agricultural impacts, and continued focus should be devoted on this aspect of climate impact research. --- In a way the above relates back to this post: I am curious if there is a ‘science’ repository for (or a series/collection of published papers that addresses ) these kinds of climate change impacts already happening all over the world? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/01/unforced-variations-jan-2018/comment-page-2/#comment-689249 and this one Though I was more thinking along the lines of more tangible events, observations that are a bit more nuanced, real life scenarios, where the avg person is more likely to be able to gauge / understand the degree of impacts upon everyday people, or commercial activity — vs hard core numbers. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/01/unforced-variations-jan-2018/comment-page-3/#comment-689509



Comment on Forced Responses: Jan 2018 by Thomas

Sat, 17 Feb 2018 23:28:42 +0000

Montana NETS & BECCS - Vast bioenergy plantations could stave off climate change. Worldwide, there is no shortage of farmland that's been abandoned because of low productivity or fickle markets. A conservative estimate by Field and his colleagues suggests an area at least the size of India is available globally, and others suggest there is several times that—plenty to support a robust BECCS industry. BECCS would bring sweeping changes to the region, but then again, so will climate change. Indeed, among all the options the team will consider in its study, there is one it won't include: allowing the Upper Missouri River Basin to stay the same. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/vast-bioenergy-plantations-could-stave-climate-change-and-radically-reshape-planet -----



Comment on Unforced variations: Feb 2018 by Dan DaSilva

Sat, 17 Feb 2018 21:08:08 +0000

RE: 18 Thomas 4 Feb 2018 at 4:56 PM "I suspect it will become a repeat moment of the 60 million Tatanka/Bison being wiped out on the Great Plains. Human nature being what it is" Also the 100 people murdered by communism, which is still in practice. Looks like we are in for a repeat by the post modernists, human nature being what it is. At least the poor bison were not killed by forced labor camps.