I definitely recommend that everyone take a look at the Carbon Brief article. I definitely see similar sawtooth-like temperature excursions for the 1998 and 2016 El Nino events. Only time will tell what the 2023-2024 El Nino temperature excursion looks like. Let’s just hope that the Multimodel forecast holds up.
One almost has to take a step back and remain a somewhat objective observer about the whole situation. We may need to approach this as many people approach the stock market, i.e., we are in this for the long haul and not worry so much about the short-term fluctuations.
In the end, these short-term excursions are already in the “pipeline” and there is very little we can do except record the data and try to understand it. In my opinion, it is only helpful if these “unnerving, mind-boggling” excursions drive a deeper sense of urgency about taking action.
I fully realize Jim Hansen does not recognize the importance of his admission. His attempt to limit it to 2015 is telling, as ASR clearly dominates warming for the entire CERES record. Nevertheless, for the godfather of CO2 to acknowledge the CERES attribution and admit that for any period CO2 is not the main driver of warming, indeed not even close, is an enormous step forward for science.
The reality is we have no reason to believe CO2 in aggregate, including sources larger than human combustion to the atmosphere, EVER controlled warming. Surely you will not argue the lower concentrations of the past controlled warming when the current levels, the highest is several million years, are unable to do so.
I would like to circle back to the discussion of natural gas. Maybe you can address this in a future post.
1. What is your latest thinking about natural gas as a bridge or transition fuel away from coal to renewables?
2. Zeke's 2015 study seems somewhat at odds with a recent paper by Deborah Gordon et al. where they claim that a leakage rate as low as 0.2% puts natural gas "on par with coal.' Thoughts?
3. I personally feel that we should be doing everything we can to leave coal behind up to and including exporting natural gas if that helps eliminate coal elsewhere in the world. I'm also willing to let Joe Manchin have his pipeline if it allows permitting reform for easing expansion of the national grid required for renewables. My thinking hinges somewhat on your answers to 1 and 2.
We live in an interglacial period of the Pleistocene ice age. The last 4 interglacials were warmer than today even without the ~5% boost from human CO2. Why are you surprised the planet is naturally warming?
I'm a newcomer on this blog, so I don't know what Prof. Dessler's policy is WRT blatantly denialist comments. Other pro-climate-science blogs are weighed down with them, and with the prolix replies of earnest science defenders. That said, since no one has yet replied to Mr. Lehman, I will, for the benefit of the hypothetical uncommitted lurker:
"We" (presumably, supporters of the climate-science consensus) are not surprised by natural warming, because the currently rising trend of global mean surface temperature isn't natural. Without anthropogenic greenhouse emissions, GMST would be slowly falling. The enhanced greenhouse effect is now expected to persist through the next natural cooling cycle, postponing the next glacial advance by 50,000 years. See the report on CarbonBrief: "Human emissions will delay next ice age by 50,000 years, study says" (https://www.carbonbrief.org/human-emissions-will-delay-next-ice-age-by-50000-years-study-says), and links therein.
Responding to stuff like this is a never ending waste of time. Our policy is that, as long as people are not accusing others of malfeasance, we basically let climate denial go. We reserve the right to change our policy at any time.
Thank you. I'll try to resist the SIWOTI impulse (https://xkcd.com/386). If I refer to Gordon Lehman's comment as "blatantly denialist", is that an accusation of malfeasance? I'm not trying to 'play the ref', I would just like to know the boundaries.
The blatant denial of the CERES measurements by the alarmist community is a grave disservice to science. These measurements show unequivocally that GHGs are not the primary driver of warming over the last 20 years. Even Dr. James Hansen writes:
“However, greenhouse gases are not the cause of increased EEI since 2015. How do we know? The (CERES) satellite instrument measures both the change of emitted heat radiation and the change of reflected solar radiation. The change since 2015 is a decrease of sunlight reflected by Earth, thus an increase of solar radiation absorbed by Earth”
Gordon: You don't have any idea what you're talking about or what Jim Hansen meant with his statement. I'm always amazed how people with zero understanding are willing to argue with experts.
I fully realize Jim Hansen does not understand the full implication of his admission. His attempt to limit it to 2015 is telling, as ASR clearly dominates warming for the entire CERES record. Nevertheless, for the godfather of CO2 to admit for any period that CO2 is not the driver of warming, indeed not even close, is a huge step forward for science.
The reality is that we have no reason to believe CO2 in aggregate, including sources to the atmosphere larger than human activity, have EVER controlled warming. Surely you will not argue the lower concentrations of the past controlled warming when the current level, the highest in several million years, is unable to do so.
The last 4 interglacials fall within period since the Mid-Pleistocene Transition where obliquity driven summer insolation at 65N, which paced the low amplitude warming cycles in the ocean core data extending back 5m years and glacial /interglacial cycles before the MPT; has lost half of its predictive value. Nobody understands this, and it is simply out of school to presume our current interglacial will be any cooler than the last 4, which experienced similar orbital factors.
Thank you for presenting your re-analyses. Obviously the 2023 trend is robust and appears to have lots of momentum. I'm pleased that your results are being published in the more widely circulated news media. Good information is required for making informed policy that is available to the voting public. Big Oil is consolidating via huge mergers and the US Congress is not the most hopeful source of "informed policy". Yet, hope reigns.
There is no accepted definition of 'regenerative' ag which can really mean anything. Undeniably some farming practices are much better than others but the key action anyone in the Global North can and should take is to shift away from meat, dairy, eggs and fish and towards more plant-based diets. This will have multiple cobenefits for pollution and health too. A recent meta-analysis of food production globally has confirmed what many other previous studies had found: the average carbon footprint of plant-based foods is 90% lower than animal-based foods (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652623030974#:~:). And this is without considering the 'carbon opportunity costs' of foods: how the land could otherwise be used to sequester more carbon and help biodiversity recovery (https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets). Hence NASA climate scientist and activist Peter Kalmus tweeting recently: "The sooner we end the fossil fuel and animal agriculture industries, the less we will lose" https://twitter.com/ClimateHuman/status/1711917645136544138. In terms of climate impact, buying local has a negligible effect: (https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local) though it is good for the local economy and indeed can help those farmers doing the right things!
I definitely recommend that everyone take a look at the Carbon Brief article. I definitely see similar sawtooth-like temperature excursions for the 1998 and 2016 El Nino events. Only time will tell what the 2023-2024 El Nino temperature excursion looks like. Let’s just hope that the Multimodel forecast holds up.
One almost has to take a step back and remain a somewhat objective observer about the whole situation. We may need to approach this as many people approach the stock market, i.e., we are in this for the long haul and not worry so much about the short-term fluctuations.
In the end, these short-term excursions are already in the “pipeline” and there is very little we can do except record the data and try to understand it. In my opinion, it is only helpful if these “unnerving, mind-boggling” excursions drive a deeper sense of urgency about taking action.
I for one wish the National Academies report released last week, https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2023/10/new-report-provides-comprehensive-plan-to-meet-u-s-net-zero-goals-and-ensure-fair-and-equitable-energy-transition, that provides a plan for meeting U.S. net-zero goals by 2050, was getting more press and attention from the media and the climate science community. I believe that is where we really need to be focusing our attention. We need to call on policymakers in Washington to adopt the recommendations laid out in that plan.
Loeb et al (2121):
ASR, .65 W/m2/decade 2002-2022
CO2 and all other trace GHGs, .22 W/m2/decade
Factually incorrect?
I fully realize Jim Hansen does not recognize the importance of his admission. His attempt to limit it to 2015 is telling, as ASR clearly dominates warming for the entire CERES record. Nevertheless, for the godfather of CO2 to acknowledge the CERES attribution and admit that for any period CO2 is not the main driver of warming, indeed not even close, is an enormous step forward for science.
The reality is we have no reason to believe CO2 in aggregate, including sources larger than human combustion to the atmosphere, EVER controlled warming. Surely you will not argue the lower concentrations of the past controlled warming when the current levels, the highest is several million years, are unable to do so.
Zeke and Andrew,
I would like to circle back to the discussion of natural gas. Maybe you can address this in a future post.
1. What is your latest thinking about natural gas as a bridge or transition fuel away from coal to renewables?
2. Zeke's 2015 study seems somewhat at odds with a recent paper by Deborah Gordon et al. where they claim that a leakage rate as low as 0.2% puts natural gas "on par with coal.' Thoughts?
3. I personally feel that we should be doing everything we can to leave coal behind up to and including exporting natural gas if that helps eliminate coal elsewhere in the world. I'm also willing to let Joe Manchin have his pipeline if it allows permitting reform for easing expansion of the national grid required for renewables. My thinking hinges somewhat on your answers to 1 and 2.
Thanks,
Dean
If it were possible, how much impact do you think removing all fossil fuels by 2030 would have?
Zeke discussed this in his Jun 26 article for theclimatebrink, https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-rapidly-shrinking-carbon-budget . It would give us a good chance of limit warming to 1.5 C with no overshoot.
We live in an interglacial period of the Pleistocene ice age. The last 4 interglacials were warmer than today even without the ~5% boost from human CO2. Why are you surprised the planet is naturally warming?
I'm a newcomer on this blog, so I don't know what Prof. Dessler's policy is WRT blatantly denialist comments. Other pro-climate-science blogs are weighed down with them, and with the prolix replies of earnest science defenders. That said, since no one has yet replied to Mr. Lehman, I will, for the benefit of the hypothetical uncommitted lurker:
"We" (presumably, supporters of the climate-science consensus) are not surprised by natural warming, because the currently rising trend of global mean surface temperature isn't natural. Without anthropogenic greenhouse emissions, GMST would be slowly falling. The enhanced greenhouse effect is now expected to persist through the next natural cooling cycle, postponing the next glacial advance by 50,000 years. See the report on CarbonBrief: "Human emissions will delay next ice age by 50,000 years, study says" (https://www.carbonbrief.org/human-emissions-will-delay-next-ice-age-by-50000-years-study-says), and links therein.
Genuine skeptics who wish to know more should see Dr. Hausfather's analysis on CarbonBrief, "Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans" (https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans). The science around Pleistocene glacial cycles is documented in "The Discovery of Global Warming" (https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm) by Spencer Weart, who occasionally comments here.
Responding to stuff like this is a never ending waste of time. Our policy is that, as long as people are not accusing others of malfeasance, we basically let climate denial go. We reserve the right to change our policy at any time.
Thank you. I'll try to resist the SIWOTI impulse (https://xkcd.com/386). If I refer to Gordon Lehman's comment as "blatantly denialist", is that an accusation of malfeasance? I'm not trying to 'play the ref', I would just like to know the boundaries.
The blatant denial of the CERES measurements by the alarmist community is a grave disservice to science. These measurements show unequivocally that GHGs are not the primary driver of warming over the last 20 years. Even Dr. James Hansen writes:
“However, greenhouse gases are not the cause of increased EEI since 2015. How do we know? The (CERES) satellite instrument measures both the change of emitted heat radiation and the change of reflected solar radiation. The change since 2015 is a decrease of sunlight reflected by Earth, thus an increase of solar radiation absorbed by Earth”
Gordon: You don't have any idea what you're talking about or what Jim Hansen meant with his statement. I'm always amazed how people with zero understanding are willing to argue with experts.
I fully realize Jim Hansen does not understand the full implication of his admission. His attempt to limit it to 2015 is telling, as ASR clearly dominates warming for the entire CERES record. Nevertheless, for the godfather of CO2 to admit for any period that CO2 is not the driver of warming, indeed not even close, is a huge step forward for science.
The reality is that we have no reason to believe CO2 in aggregate, including sources to the atmosphere larger than human activity, have EVER controlled warming. Surely you will not argue the lower concentrations of the past controlled warming when the current level, the highest in several million years, is unable to do so.
The last 4 interglacials fall within period since the Mid-Pleistocene Transition where obliquity driven summer insolation at 65N, which paced the low amplitude warming cycles in the ocean core data extending back 5m years and glacial /interglacial cycles before the MPT; has lost half of its predictive value. Nobody understands this, and it is simply out of school to presume our current interglacial will be any cooler than the last 4, which experienced similar orbital factors.
Great information. I found you through Climate and Economy which posted a link to your post today https://climateandeconomy.com/2023/10/24/24th-october-2023-todays-round-up-of-climate-news/
Thank you for presenting your re-analyses. Obviously the 2023 trend is robust and appears to have lots of momentum. I'm pleased that your results are being published in the more widely circulated news media. Good information is required for making informed policy that is available to the voting public. Big Oil is consolidating via huge mergers and the US Congress is not the most hopeful source of "informed policy". Yet, hope reigns.
rainfall, impacts of drought on global breadbaskets/
"a picture is worth a thousand words" and your graphs tell the horrible truth so completely.
There is no accepted definition of 'regenerative' ag which can really mean anything. Undeniably some farming practices are much better than others but the key action anyone in the Global North can and should take is to shift away from meat, dairy, eggs and fish and towards more plant-based diets. This will have multiple cobenefits for pollution and health too. A recent meta-analysis of food production globally has confirmed what many other previous studies had found: the average carbon footprint of plant-based foods is 90% lower than animal-based foods (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652623030974#:~:). And this is without considering the 'carbon opportunity costs' of foods: how the land could otherwise be used to sequester more carbon and help biodiversity recovery (https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets). Hence NASA climate scientist and activist Peter Kalmus tweeting recently: "The sooner we end the fossil fuel and animal agriculture industries, the less we will lose" https://twitter.com/ClimateHuman/status/1711917645136544138. In terms of climate impact, buying local has a negligible effect: (https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local) though it is good for the local economy and indeed can help those farmers doing the right things!