Thanks for the shockingly clear data and unequivocal analysis of the trends. Sadly, the psychologist in me suspects we will continue our denial until catastrophe strikes. We can’t say that we weren't warned.
I suspect nothing will change the minds of "climate deniers" as defined by the Oxford dictionaries. The A-B-C-D law: anything but carbon dioxide.
The young are just going to have to wait until these deniers die. If we see the extremes we are seeing now continue then things might get ugly as the young, especially those with young children, see red.
I read a NZ civil engineer living in Britain (where I am at present) has been jailed for 3years for protesting, while war criminals Phony Blair and Baby Bush roam free.
The news couldn't be more depressing. I am already having a bad time with old age and health and to see the whole world go down with me is no consolation. Maybe we have had some luck in my corner of Italy in Verona. I live on a hill and some cool air comes form the mountains behind. I am very sensitive to heat and quick to turn on my air-conditioner but so far I've only used it a couple of times also to avoid the expense. The thermometer on my desk has been hovering between 29 and 28 degrees which is a bearable heat for me. if it goes up higher, on comes my airconditioner. We live in a world in which perople refuse to recognise what they are doing to themselves. The money comes first even if followed by death and destruction
It is interesting that 2016, the previous record holder, and in the early parts of the year still hotter than the current year, was at the end of an El Nino (from 2014). I'm not aware of a detailed attribution analysis, ie, whether there have been any other major contributing factors. So since we are just starting an El Nino, it would be interesting to see if the Q1 records will also be broken next year
Actually the peak of the 2015/2016 super El Nino was in late 2015/early 2016. The current El Nino is projected to peak in near the end of 2023, but its still pretty uncertain when it will happen and how big it will get before then: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/enso/sst
Zeke, I love the range of predictions in your second graphic. Their soonest prediction to arrive, for July/August/September, has a range of 7.5 : 1 between the lowest and highest predictions.
This is just more evidence that the current generation of Tinkertoy™ climate models are a joke. Seven and a half to one from the bottom to the top??
So how long will it be before you tell us how great the ENSO models are, because the actual outcome is encompassed by climate models that predict everything from no ENSO to a giant ENSO?
Stick to meteorology, my friend. You are very, very good at that. But when it comes to climate, you believe any nonsense that comes down the road, and what is worse, you repeat it as if it were gospel truth.
The youth are rising as the temperatures do the same...
"The 20-year-old activist, who has become a key face of the movement to fight climate change, had earlier in the day appeared in court, accused of disrupting traffic and refusing to leave a June protest in port city Malmo.
"It's correct that I was at that place on that day, and it's correct that I received an order that I didn't listen to, but I want to deny the crime," Thunberg told the court when asked about the charge against her.
Thunberg said she had acted out of necessity, citing the urgency created by the "climate crisis".
The rally, organised by the environmental activist group Reclaim the Future, tried to block the entrance and exit to the Malmo harbour to protest against the use of fossil fuels.
"According to me we are in an emergency, and then due to that my action was legitimate," she told reporters after the trial.
Nice catch, that was poor wording on my part. I've updated it to read "We know that the surface temperatures will continue to increase as long as our emissions remain above (net) zero..."
Perhaps I am reading the wrong section but this sentence in the "takeaway" does not make sense to me: "Climate change is real, caused by human activity, increasingly damaging to society, and the world will not stop warming our emissions of CO2 get down to (net) zero." (there are some words missing around "...warming our emissions...")
Appreciating that there are delays in the climate system is critical for impatient citizens expecting instant answers - even those who drive cars and so understand that applying the brakes does not instantly stop motion. Surely El Nino starts in the oceans some months before it impacts weather? And if we stop accumulating GHGs in the atmosphere, temps will continue increasing for ?? years as the global heat rebalances.
Thank you for your clearly prepared comparisons. The 5th-95th bounds reflect the uncertainty in the mean with the increase in time. Were the bounds not inflated current data would likely be closer to anomalies. Future runs will not doubt clarify the variance. ZF
If emissions were now instantly zero, Hansen et al estimate +10C total change assuming aerosols also gone. +8C with aerosols. So current 17C to 27C. We are now at 1.1C on the low end. WAY beyond “as long as” too. Last paragraph: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2023/ElNino2023.14June2023.pdf
All that you've shown here is that the climate models are a joke. The historical period for CMIP6 models ended in 2014 … and in the 5%-95% range there was already a spread of a full degree among the models.
Since it's clear that the models can't even get the historical temperature right, the idea that we should use them to predict the future is a sick "scientific" joke.
More to the point of this article, when your models give you answers that stretch all the way from the floor to the ceiling, almost ANY result is going to be within the ludicrously large 5%-95% interval. And boasting about that totally predictable result just proves that you've swallowed the Koolaid.
what El Nino? it hardly shows on a chart. and why reference net zero when we are still accelerating our emissions and have done nothing to reduce them, let alone go towards a fake "net zero" yet? in the USA where we emit twice as much as China does. per capita, 1.7 times as much. in the land where we expect to toss out the 9/10 of fossil fuel that isn't kerosene, as if it were the 1800's again... by "switching to an EV". etc etc. and maybe SAF05... notwithstanding we will also likely face a kerosene deficit, globally, because 113 millions barrels a day of crude ain't nearly enough. simple math. 8,000 million and only a few hundred million burn kerosene. so far. in the upper atmopshere. while we step up in the climate response, but enjoy a narrative of this all being transitory. 'it's mostly an El Nino'. transitory. what a sales job.
what El Nino? it hardly shows on a chart. and why reference net zero when we are still accelerating our emissions and have done nothing to reduce them, let alone go towards a fake "net zero" yet? in the USA where we emit twice as much as China does. per capita, 1.7 times as much. in the land where we expect to toss out the 9/10 of fossil fuel that isn't kerosene, as if it were the 1800's again... by "switching to an EV". etc etc. and maybe SAF05... notwithstanding we will also likely face a kerosene deficit, globally, because 113 millions barrels a day of crude ain't nearly enough. simple math. 8,000 million and only a few hundred million burn kerosene. so far. in the upper atmopshere. while we step up in the climate response, but enjoy a narrative of this all being transitory. 'it's mostly an El Nino'. transitory. what a sales job.
Our assessment provides strong scientific evidence for urgent action to mitigate climate change. We show that even the Paris Agreement goal of limiting warming to well below 2°C and preferably 1.5°C is not safe as 1.5°C and above risks crossing multiple tipping points.
Okay the fact that durign recovery of them it levels off combined with the baseline level increasing makes it seem like a former upper limiter is broken.
Zeke, do you think climate journalists , including those in the orbit of CJR, have a duty to remind readers of the linkage of temperature and elevation when they put thermometers in Death Valley on the front page?
<b>Hotter, Longer and More Widespread Heat Waves Scorch China</b>
Jul 26, 2022 Heat-related deaths in China rose more than fourfold between 1990 and 2019, to 26,800 in 2019, according to a study published in the medical journal The Lancet. Researchers have predicted that the …
<b>As China Bakes in Record Heat, John Kerry Presses ..</b>. - The New York Times
7 days agoIndeed, the Chinese capital itself offered yet more proof of the urgency of combating climate change: Tuesday was the 27th day this year that Beijing has recorded temperatures above 35 Celsius, or…
The Climate Desk run-up to the journalistic dog day editorial and sidewalk egg-frying season merits an old-fashioned <i>CJR</i> Darts and Laurels hyperbole Dart and a mention in Pseuds Corner at <i> Private Eye</i>.
I can't follow all of that so you'll have to explain more clearly where elevation enters into the issue and how you think they should have phrased it to include the linkage to elevation.
As roughly 99.9 % of the Earth's surface lies above sea level I view as journalistically dubious headlines that feature below sea level temperatures without mentioning the elevation of the places referred to, or the linkage of temperature and pressure.
Climate journalism that ignores the lapse rate to hype temperatures is just as deplorable as surface station cherry picking by PR hacks like Watts and Morano
The standard dry atmosphere adiabatic lapse rate is ~ 9.5 C per 1000 meters and tends to be higher in summer and lower in winter.
as its elevations vary from -58 M at Furnace Creek to -86 m in the Badwater Basin the altimetric temperature correction for Death Valley is in the .57 to .82 Celsius , or 1.02 to 1.47 Fahrenheit range
China's highest temperatures, referred to in the linked NYTimes headline have been recorded in the 154 meter deep Turpan depression , where the same calculation yields an increase of 1.46 C or 2.63 F
Record temperatures have likewise been reported along the lower Jordan River and the Dead Sea, present elevation -430 M, corresponding to a temperature increase of 4.08 C or 7.3 F
Thanks for the shockingly clear data and unequivocal analysis of the trends. Sadly, the psychologist in me suspects we will continue our denial until catastrophe strikes. We can’t say that we weren't warned.
I suspect nothing will change the minds of "climate deniers" as defined by the Oxford dictionaries. The A-B-C-D law: anything but carbon dioxide.
The young are just going to have to wait until these deniers die. If we see the extremes we are seeing now continue then things might get ugly as the young, especially those with young children, see red.
I read a NZ civil engineer living in Britain (where I am at present) has been jailed for 3years for protesting, while war criminals Phony Blair and Baby Bush roam free.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/131870410/kiwi-climate-activist-given-draconian-prison-sentence-in-uk
The news couldn't be more depressing. I am already having a bad time with old age and health and to see the whole world go down with me is no consolation. Maybe we have had some luck in my corner of Italy in Verona. I live on a hill and some cool air comes form the mountains behind. I am very sensitive to heat and quick to turn on my air-conditioner but so far I've only used it a couple of times also to avoid the expense. The thermometer on my desk has been hovering between 29 and 28 degrees which is a bearable heat for me. if it goes up higher, on comes my airconditioner. We live in a world in which perople refuse to recognise what they are doing to themselves. The money comes first even if followed by death and destruction
Excellent post, thank you.
It is interesting that 2016, the previous record holder, and in the early parts of the year still hotter than the current year, was at the end of an El Nino (from 2014). I'm not aware of a detailed attribution analysis, ie, whether there have been any other major contributing factors. So since we are just starting an El Nino, it would be interesting to see if the Q1 records will also be broken next year
Actually the peak of the 2015/2016 super El Nino was in late 2015/early 2016. The current El Nino is projected to peak in near the end of 2023, but its still pretty uncertain when it will happen and how big it will get before then: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/enso/sst
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso_tab=enso-sst_table
Zeke, I love the range of predictions in your second graphic. Their soonest prediction to arrive, for July/August/September, has a range of 7.5 : 1 between the lowest and highest predictions.
This is just more evidence that the current generation of Tinkertoy™ climate models are a joke. Seven and a half to one from the bottom to the top??
So how long will it be before you tell us how great the ENSO models are, because the actual outcome is encompassed by climate models that predict everything from no ENSO to a giant ENSO?
Stick to meteorology, my friend. You are very, very good at that. But when it comes to climate, you believe any nonsense that comes down the road, and what is worse, you repeat it as if it were gospel truth.
w.
The youth are rising as the temperatures do the same...
"The 20-year-old activist, who has become a key face of the movement to fight climate change, had earlier in the day appeared in court, accused of disrupting traffic and refusing to leave a June protest in port city Malmo.
"It's correct that I was at that place on that day, and it's correct that I received an order that I didn't listen to, but I want to deny the crime," Thunberg told the court when asked about the charge against her.
Thunberg said she had acted out of necessity, citing the urgency created by the "climate crisis".
The rally, organised by the environmental activist group Reclaim the Future, tried to block the entrance and exit to the Malmo harbour to protest against the use of fossil fuels.
"According to me we are in an emergency, and then due to that my action was legitimate," she told reporters after the trial.
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/climate-activist-greta-thunberg-removed-from-sweden-protest-hours-after-fine-4237684
Climate change will continue not “until” but well after emissions theoretically go to zero. Way well after.
Nice catch, that was poor wording on my part. I've updated it to read "We know that the surface temperatures will continue to increase as long as our emissions remain above (net) zero..."
Perhaps I am reading the wrong section but this sentence in the "takeaway" does not make sense to me: "Climate change is real, caused by human activity, increasingly damaging to society, and the world will not stop warming our emissions of CO2 get down to (net) zero." (there are some words missing around "...warming our emissions...")
The downside of not having an editor. I've added the missing word "until" to the post...
And stabilize not instantly but within approximately how many years?
More or less instantly (at least in terms of global mean surface temperatures): https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/warming-in-the-pipeline-decoding?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Ahh, thank you. Please inform if factor comes to/develops in your team's minds that could delay this instant response. Thanks again.
Appreciating that there are delays in the climate system is critical for impatient citizens expecting instant answers - even those who drive cars and so understand that applying the brakes does not instantly stop motion. Surely El Nino starts in the oceans some months before it impacts weather? And if we stop accumulating GHGs in the atmosphere, temps will continue increasing for ?? years as the global heat rebalances.
Thank you for your clearly prepared comparisons. The 5th-95th bounds reflect the uncertainty in the mean with the increase in time. Were the bounds not inflated current data would likely be closer to anomalies. Future runs will not doubt clarify the variance. ZF
Nice, thanks. Now Antarctic sea ice? That seems to be the most aberrant metric at the moment.
I don't have easy access to model monthly Antarctic sea ice projections, unfortunately.
If emissions were now instantly zero, Hansen et al estimate +10C total change assuming aerosols also gone. +8C with aerosols. So current 17C to 27C. We are now at 1.1C on the low end. WAY beyond “as long as” too. Last paragraph: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2023/ElNino2023.14June2023.pdf
That is thankfully both not what Hansen says and not accurate: https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/warming-in-the-pipeline-decoding?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Also see Hansen himself on the topic: https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/warming-in-the-pipeline-decoding?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Oops, wrong second link there. Here is Hansen's words: https://twitter.com/DrJamesEHansen/status/1682768624992354305
"If emissions cease, there would be little additional warming."
There are differences of opinion on what he’s claiming and I’ll leave it at that. Keep up the good work!
All that you've shown here is that the climate models are a joke. The historical period for CMIP6 models ended in 2014 … and in the 5%-95% range there was already a spread of a full degree among the models.
Since it's clear that the models can't even get the historical temperature right, the idea that we should use them to predict the future is a sick "scientific" joke.
More to the point of this article, when your models give you answers that stretch all the way from the floor to the ceiling, almost ANY result is going to be within the ludicrously large 5%-95% interval. And boasting about that totally predictable result just proves that you've swallowed the Koolaid.
Regards to all,
w.
what El Nino? it hardly shows on a chart. and why reference net zero when we are still accelerating our emissions and have done nothing to reduce them, let alone go towards a fake "net zero" yet? in the USA where we emit twice as much as China does. per capita, 1.7 times as much. in the land where we expect to toss out the 9/10 of fossil fuel that isn't kerosene, as if it were the 1800's again... by "switching to an EV". etc etc. and maybe SAF05... notwithstanding we will also likely face a kerosene deficit, globally, because 113 millions barrels a day of crude ain't nearly enough. simple math. 8,000 million and only a few hundred million burn kerosene. so far. in the upper atmopshere. while we step up in the climate response, but enjoy a narrative of this all being transitory. 'it's mostly an El Nino'. transitory. what a sales job.
what El Nino? it hardly shows on a chart. and why reference net zero when we are still accelerating our emissions and have done nothing to reduce them, let alone go towards a fake "net zero" yet? in the USA where we emit twice as much as China does. per capita, 1.7 times as much. in the land where we expect to toss out the 9/10 of fossil fuel that isn't kerosene, as if it were the 1800's again... by "switching to an EV". etc etc. and maybe SAF05... notwithstanding we will also likely face a kerosene deficit, globally, because 113 millions barrels a day of crude ain't nearly enough. simple math. 8,000 million and only a few hundred million burn kerosene. so far. in the upper atmopshere. while we step up in the climate response, but enjoy a narrative of this all being transitory. 'it's mostly an El Nino'. transitory. what a sales job.
I often enjoy reading the Comments as much as the essay. Thanks to all that posted here.
BTW--- Zeke, I would like to see your analysis include BOTH 5-95% and 10-90% bounds. Anything data exceeding 90% is a bonifide warning IMHO. ZF
Another, more recent paper re "tipping points": Exceeding 1.5°C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn7950#tab-contributors ;
“CONCLUSION
Our assessment provides strong scientific evidence for urgent action to mitigate climate change. We show that even the Paris Agreement goal of limiting warming to well below 2°C and preferably 1.5°C is not safe as 1.5°C and above risks crossing multiple tipping points.
Does anyone have an idea what happened around 1880, 1905, 1915, 1960, 1980 & 1990 with the downward spikes?
Those are major volcanic eruptions, which cool the planet for a few years.
Okay the fact that durign recovery of them it levels off combined with the baseline level increasing makes it seem like a former upper limiter is broken.
that's quite messed up.
Zeke, do you think climate journalists , including those in the orbit of CJR, have a duty to remind readers of the linkage of temperature and elevation when they put thermometers in Death Valley on the front page?
can you give me an example of what a CJR-orbiting reporter said and how you think it should be modified?
Sure ; it's a long list:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/07/with-guardian-weather-headlines-who.html
Here is the BBC Death Valley leader and two<i> New York Times</i> ledes on highs in China's even deeper Tarim Basin:
https://www.nytimes.com › 2022 › 07 › 26 › world › asia › china-heat-wave.html
<b>Hotter, Longer and More Widespread Heat Waves Scorch China</b>
Jul 26, 2022 Heat-related deaths in China rose more than fourfold between 1990 and 2019, to 26,800 in 2019, according to a study published in the medical journal The Lancet. Researchers have predicted that the …
https://www.nytimes.com › 2023 › 07 › 18 › world › asia › china-heat-kerry.html
<b>As China Bakes in Record Heat, John Kerry Presses ..</b>. - The New York Times
7 days agoIndeed, the Chinese capital itself offered yet more proof of the urgency of combating climate change: Tuesday was the 27th day this year that Beijing has recorded temperatures above 35 Celsius, or…
The Climate Desk run-up to the journalistic dog day editorial and sidewalk egg-frying season merits an old-fashioned <i>CJR</i> Darts and Laurels hyperbole Dart and a mention in Pseuds Corner at <i> Private Eye</i>.
I can't follow all of that so you'll have to explain more clearly where elevation enters into the issue and how you think they should have phrased it to include the linkage to elevation.
As roughly 99.9 % of the Earth's surface lies above sea level I view as journalistically dubious headlines that feature below sea level temperatures without mentioning the elevation of the places referred to, or the linkage of temperature and pressure.
Climate journalism that ignores the lapse rate to hype temperatures is just as deplorable as surface station cherry picking by PR hacks like Watts and Morano
How big of an effect do you think altitude is in Death Valley's temperature?
The standard dry atmosphere adiabatic lapse rate is ~ 9.5 C per 1000 meters and tends to be higher in summer and lower in winter.
as its elevations vary from -58 M at Furnace Creek to -86 m in the Badwater Basin the altimetric temperature correction for Death Valley is in the .57 to .82 Celsius , or 1.02 to 1.47 Fahrenheit range
China's highest temperatures, referred to in the linked NYTimes headline have been recorded in the 154 meter deep Turpan depression , where the same calculation yields an increase of 1.46 C or 2.63 F
Record temperatures have likewise been reported along the lower Jordan River and the Dead Sea, present elevation -430 M, corresponding to a temperature increase of 4.08 C or 7.3 F