Climate Change - General Discussion : Read the Mod Note in post #1 before posting

Oneiric 3

dense wrote: »

Oh, I don't know; I mean, didn't An Taisce's John Gibbons let rip at ME for not enthusiastically jumping on the CC bandwagon?

I'm surprised that more catastrophe mongers haven't demanded that ME publicly step up to the plate and tell it like it is; after all, aren't they public employees, with an onus to inform the public of the coming self afflicted catastrophes, and in ideal positions for disseminating the establishment CC message of the joys of carbon taxes into homes daily?

If they're not willing to toe the line, we could replace them with properly programmed, quality 3D avatars.

We all of us need to act urgently after all.

I may be wrong, but aren't the public/civil service required by law to remain non-partisan?


It will be a sad day if our beloved Met Éireann employees are forced to become mouthpieces for the 'Ministry of Truth'

Gaoth Laidir

https://twitter.com/CopernicusECMWF/status/993748280453533696?s=19

Warmer overall, but some sizeable areas still notably colder.

https://climate.copernicus.eu/resources/data-analysis/average-surface-air-temperature-analysis/monthly-maps/surface-air-8

Monthly trend is still downward since El Niño.

dense

I noticed that the globally representative C02 measurement service in Hawaii seems to be experiencing some problems.

Whatever could be the cause?

Recent Daily Average Mauna Loa CO2
May 08: Unavailable
May 07: Unavailable
May 06: Unavailable
May 05: Unavailable
May 04: 409.32 ppm
Last Updated: May 9, 20

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html

But I'm sure it's nothing that a few retrospective adjustments won't sort out.

Gaoth Laidir

dense wrote: »

I noticed that the globally representative C02 measurement service in Hawaii seems to be experiencing some problems.

Whatever could be the cause?



https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html

But I'm sure it's nothing that a few retrospective adjustments won't sort out.

I think it's simply down to the major volcanic eruption just 30 km away.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/10/hawaii-volcano-park-to-close-amid-explosion-concerns.html

dense

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I think it's simply down to the major volcanic eruption just 30 km away.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/10/hawaii-volcano-park-to-close-amid-explosion-concerns.html

But I wonder what's the problem? Why is there no data with so much C02 in the air from the volcano?

Either the sampling is working or it isn't.

It would seem to be the case that the Scripps readings are locally contaminated.

Which is a bit of a problem because it makes the Scripps claims that those readings are representative of global C02 measurements a bit hard to believe.

We have confidence that the CO2 measurements made at the Mauna Loa Observatory reflect truth about our global atmosphere. The main reasons for that confidence are:

The Observatory near the summit of Mauna Loa, at an altitude of 3400 m, is well situated to measure air masses that are representative of very large areas.

All of the measurements are rigorously and very frequently calibrated.
Ongoing comparisons of independent measurements at the same site allow an estimate of the accuracy, which is generally better than 0.2 ppm

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

Wanderer78

dense wrote:

Whatever could be the cause?

Could be power issues

dense

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Could be power issues

I know, it could be anything really.
-Maybe the solar panels and batteries have actually packed in, lucky it's not a hospital!

Still, love to know what the local (ahem, global ) C02 figure is.

Guess we'll have to wait till they've "blended" them or safely sequestered it all.

Because generally the figures are really reliable.

That means if the amount of CO2 rises above 400 ppm at the Hawaii site this month, the rest of the world is likely experiencing similar concentrations, Keeling said.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130430/all-eyes-keeling-curve-scientists-anxious-co2-levels-cross-400-ppm

Gaoth Laidir

There was a 6-day gap in readings 4 weeks ago too.

Wanderer78

Gaoth Laidir wrote:

There was a 6-day gap in readings 4 weeks ago too.

Were they experiencing earthquakes then I wonder, maybe that was upsetting readings?

dense

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Were they experiencing earthquakes then I wonder, maybe that was upsetting readings?

It all sounds terribly precarious, even a bit backward.

They've even been trying to crowdfund for a few extra bob to keep the show on the road!

https://insideclimatenews.org/content/climate-scientist-ralph-keeling-makes-crowdfunding-plea-back-key-research

Earthquakes, volcanoes, power cuts, missing measurements, and they're still trying to say their measurements are indicitave of representing a stable and accurate global picture of atmospheric C02, accurate to parts per million.

Wanderer78

dense wrote: »

It all sounds terribly precarious, even a bit backward.

They've even been trying to crowdfund for a few extra bob to keep the show on the road!

https://insideclimatenews.org/content/climate-scientist-ralph-keeling-makes-crowdfunding-plea-back-key-research

Earthquakes, volcanoes, power cuts, missing measurements, and they're still trying to say their measurements are indicitave of representing a stable and accurate global picture of atmospheric C02, accurate to parts per million.

ah you d be surprised how difficult it is to maintain critical infrastructures in such seismically active locations, it looks like theyre currently scrambling to save one of their power plants

Gaoth Laidir

dense wrote: »

It all sounds terribly precarious, even a bit backward.

They've even been trying to crowdfund for a few extra bob to keep the show on the road!

https://insideclimatenews.org/content/climate-scientist-ralph-keeling-makes-crowdfunding-plea-back-key-research

Earthquakes, volcanoes, power cuts, missing measurements, and they're still trying to say their measurements are indicitave of representing a stable and accurate global picture of atmospheric C02, accurate to parts per million.

I think the data are still very reliable, despite a few short gaps now and again. Nothing to be getting all conspiracy about.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Individual action is irrelevant on a global issue like this, the only solution is intergovernmental treaties to cut emissions and replace energy infrastructure.

Private industry can do a lot of the innovating but governments need to put a price on carbon pollution.

Study: Skeptics are more environmental — believers do less but want government to solve it instead.


The “highly convinced” believers may tell the world we have to act, but they were more likely to use plastic bags themselves and drive their car.

They were more likely to want government policies to magically solve the problem.

Needing someone else to take control seems to be a central tenet for those imbued with anxieties about climate change.

http://joannenova.com.au/2018/05/study-skeptics-are-more-environmental-believers-do-less-and-want-government-to-solve/

dense

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I think the data are still very reliable, despite a few short gaps now and again. Nothing to be getting all conspiracy about.

It's nothing to do with conspiracy theories; Google or Intel wouldn't build a high tech facility at such a location because of the local issues.

It's why they build them here, for climatic and seismic reasons.

It just seems a silly choice of location for such a globally important facility, which is attempting to analyse atmospherically minute values upon which global decisions are made.

Would it not have better all round if this crucial global measurement facility had been established and operated in a slightly more stable zone?

Or is there something unique about this pristine location that the likes of Google and Intel have overlooked?

Don't think so.

I think it's just that Daddy Keeling set it up and Son Keeling and the scientific community want to follow the tradition, regardless of the obvious problems with the location.

Gaoth Laidir

dense wrote: »

It's nothing to do with conspiracy theories; Google or Intel wouldn't build a high tech facility at such a location because of the local issues.

It's why they build them here, for climatic and seismic reasons.

It just seems a silly choice of location for such a globally important facility, which is attempting to analyse atmospherically minute values upon which global decisions are made.

Would it not have better all round if this crucial global measurement facility had been established and operated in a slightly more stable zone?

Or is there something unique about this pristine location that the likes of Google and Intel have overlooked?

Don't think so.

I think it's just that Daddy Keeling set it up and Son Keeling and the scientific community want to follow the tradition, regardless of the obvious problems with the location.

But what problem with the location? How many times, since the first measurements in 1958, have there been problems? Google and Intel don't build major facilities on Hawaii because of logistics, not seismics.

The facility is back reporting values again now since Wednesday anyway.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I think the data are still very reliable, despite a few short gaps now and again. Nothing to be getting all conspiracy about.

Plus, the Mauna Loa site isn't the only place that measures CO2, there are hundreds of other measurement sites showing the same increasing trend

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Plus, the Mauna Loa site isn't the only place that measures CO2, there are hundreds of other measurement sites showing the same increasing trend

I notice you didn't make any comment on my post about the warm April, unlike the cold March one. ;--)

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I notice you didn't make any comment on my post about the warm April, unlike the cold March one. ;--)

I was too busy sheltering from a hail shower yesterday

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

I was too busy sheltering from a hail shower yesterday

I suppose it was nice weather when I posted about the cold March. :rolleyes:

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I suppose it was nice weather when I posted about the cold March. :rolleyes:

I was away most of last week and didn't have any time to check this thread. tbh, I didn't even see your post.

I've looked at it now and it's as to be expected in line with global warming., 3rd warmest April globally despite being in la nina.

Other factors such as the NAO and the weaker than usual solar output cannot explain this although they can form part of the explanation for how that heat is distributed.

Looking at short term trends saying 'the monthly trend is down since El Nino' is a curious thing to say given that El Nino usually accompanies warmer atmospheric temperatures and La Nina accompany cooler atmospheric temperatures. It is not a surprise that there is this short term trend. What is interesting is that temperatures now during a weak La Nina event, are hotter than they were even during the most powerful El Nino events previous to recent times.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

I was away most of last week and didn't have any time to check this thread. tbh, I didn't even see your post.

I've looked at it now and it's as to be expected in line with global warming., 3rd warmest April globally despite being in la nina.

Other factors such as the NAO and the weaker than usual solar output cannot explain this although they can form part of the explanation for how that heat is distributed.

Looking at short term trends saying 'the monthly trend is down since El Nino' is a curious thing to say given that El Nino usually accompanies warmer atmospheric temperatures and La Nina accompany cooler atmospheric temperatures. It is not a surprise that there is this short term trend. What is interesting is that temperatures now during a weak La Nina event, are hotter than they were even during the most powerful El Nino events previous to recent times.

But you've no problem with me posting that month? Grand, just checking.

La Niñas 60 years ago were warmer than La Niñas 100 years ago too, yet that was not down to agw. On an already underlying naturally-increasing trend it's not groundbreaking that the 1960s were warmer than 100 years ago, or that the 2010s are warmer than the 1960s. That underlying trend has been modified by agw, but by how much exactly is not clear. What is clear, however, is that the observations are not quite matching the forecasts, so far.

Akrasia

A new study in PNAS looks at long term projections for emissions under different economic scenarios and finds that the 'worst case scenario' has about a 35% chance of being too optimistic.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/05/08/1713628115

Results from this study suggest a greater than 35% probability that emissions concentrations will exceed those assumed in the most severe of the available climate change scenarios (RCP 8.5), illustrating particular importance for understanding extreme outcomes.....

.....Our primary results suggest a median 2010–2100 global growth rate in per-capita gross domestic product of 2.1% per year, with a standard deviation (SD) of 1.1 percentage points, indicating substantially higher uncertainty than is implied in existing forecasts. The larger range of growth rates implies a greater likelihood of extreme climate change outcomes than is currently assumed and has important implications for social insurance programs in the United States.

One of the Authors of the study is responsible for developing the DICE economic/climate model
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DICE_model and this study is based on an updated version of this model.

If you're interested in William Nordhaus' research, there's a talk on youtube that goes into his views on the matter here (it's a couple of years old but you get the idea)

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

But you've no problem with me posting that month? Grand, just checking.

Post whatever you like Gaoth. You can consider this me giving you permission from now on. No need to ask me in future.

La Ni60 years ago were warmer than La Ni100 years ago too, yet that was not down to agw. On an already underlying naturally-increasing trend it's not groundbreaking that the 1960s were warmer than 100 years ago, or that the 2010s are warmer than the 1960s. That underlying trend has been modified by agw, but by how much exactly is not clear. What is clear, however, is that the observations are not quite matching the forecasts, so far.

Early 20th century warming was caused mostly by increased solar activity. Pop over to the 'the sun is dying, ice age coming' thread to see where solar activity has been going in recent decades.

Current climate change is despite an underlying cooling trend, or in other words, humans have been responsible for more than 100% of the observed warming

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf

dense

I lose sleep over climate change almost every single night.

I can't remember how long this has been happening, but it's been quite a while, and it's only getting worse. I confess: I need help.

Like many people who care about the fate of the planet, I've spent most of the past year alternating between soul-crushing despair and headstrong hope.

I'm a meteorologist by training and a journalist by profession.

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2018-2-march-april/last-words/eric-holthaus-got-those-climate-change-blues

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.

I really feel for the first guy. Its not nice to feel that way and it's good to open up.

Are there are any emotional climate justice support services available in this country if I begin feeling the same way?

Do meteorologists here who feel crushed by climate change have a support network?

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2018-2-march-april/last-words/eric-holthaus-got-those-climate-change-blues



I really feel for the first guy. Its not nice to feel that way and it's good to open up.

Are there are any emotional climate justice support services available in this country if I begin feeling the same way?

Do meteorologists here who feel crushed by climate change have a support network?

What does your 2nd quote mean to you?

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

What does your 2nd quote mean to you?

The UN Director of Environment saying in 1989 that temperatures will rise by 1 to 7 degrees by 2019 "if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000"?

Not much, it's just the usual UN scaremongering nonsense.
A temperature rise of up to 7 degrees was a "conservative" estimate back then.

Does it mean anything to you?

The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.

https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

The UN Director of Environment saying in 1989 that temperatures will rise by 1 to 7 degrees by 2019 "if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000"?

Not much, it's just the usual UN scaremongering nonsense.
A temperature rise of up to 7 degrees was a "conservative" estimate back then.

Does it mean anything to you?


https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

How is the very top of a range spanning 6 degrees the 'conservative' estimate?

In 2016 global average temperatures were 1.1c above the pre industrial levels (which is what he was referring to) so his statement was more or less accurate.

Lets see how 'skeptics' predictions have worked out shall we?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/dec/19/checkmate-how-do-climate-science-deniers-predictions-stack-up

Every climate skeptic that I can think of has predicted either a reversal of the warming, or a very slow rate of warming and a climate sensitivity that is below 1c.
Can you find a single predictive statement from a climate change skeptic made 30 years ago that has been accurate in hindsight?

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

How is the very top of a range spanning 6 degrees the 'conservative' estimate?

That's what he said.

I'd like to have seen his throwing caution to the wind estimate.

Akrasia wrote: »

In 2016 global average temperatures were 1.1c above the pre industrial levels (which is what he was referring to) so his statement was more or less accurate.

What are the figures then?

The average global temperature for 2016 was what?

And the last time it was 1.1c lower than that was what year?

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

That's what he said.

I'd like to have seen his throwing caution to the wind estimate.

So here we are, someone made a predictive statement 30 years ago that has come true, and you're arguing that it was a wild prediction.

What are the figures then?

The average global temperature for 2016 was what?

And the last time it was 1.1c lower than that was what year?

According to NASA

“2016 is remarkably the third record year in a row in this series,” said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt. “We don’t expect record years every year, but the ongoing long-term warming trend is clear.”

The planet’s average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally

global average temperature increases are measured against pre-industrial temperatures, and the cut-off is the mean for the period 1880 -1899

Have you had any luck finding any climate skeptic predictions from 30 years ago that have come true?

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

A new study in PNAS looks at long term projections for emissions under different economic scenarios and finds that the 'worst case scenario' has about a 35% chance of being too optimistic.

So a 75% that it's not. That's good.