Zeke, one more, thanks for taking your time to do these analyses and sharing the results. First, re choosing variables to enter into your model--- PCA and Stepwise regression (forward/backward) might improve your choices. I've read most of the comments today, and will finish by saying that the variables commonly used in climate/environmental analyses can hardly be truly comprehensive. What we hope for is that they will be amongst the better "surrogates" for the broader spectrum of possible choices.
"To summarize, none of the mechanisms which facilitated previous climate change can explain the rapid rise in both CO2 and temperature observed over the past 150 years. However, human-released CO2 explains both!"
As many of us experience the recent calamities brought on by climate change: increased drought, flood, heat waves, wildfires, and stronger storms, we might ask where we are now because of our failure to halt climbing emissions (1), long before feeling the full effects of a rise in temperature of just over 1 °C, due to lags in the system.
We’ve been seeing numerous impacts catching many scientists by surprise with how soon they are occurring. In 2014 two independent teams of scientists reported that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is likely irreversibly retreating. 3.3 meters of sea level rise equivalent of ice there is being destabilized by a warming ocean and energy is going into the net melting of ice all over the planet.
The paleoclimate record indicates that increasing global temperature by just 1.5-2 °C above preindustrial temperature commits the system to an eventual 6-9 meters of sea level rise, a large fraction of which could arrive within the next 100 years.
Corals may not survive this century of warming and acidifying oceans, and droughts and floods linked to global warming—and conflict linked to those droughts—have already caused four countries to face famine.
Because of the decades to millennial long lag between a climate forcing and our feeling the full effect, due to the thermal inertia of the ocean and response time of the ice sheets, the effects we are feeling now are largely just the beginning of the result of emissions from the 20th century. And emissions have been increasing steadily for decades.
We are also seeing numerous amplifying feedbacks: loss of albedo (heat reflectivity) from ice melt, permafrost melt, methane release and massive wildfires; the Earth is starting to wrest any possible further human control of the climate away.
We're about out of time on this, if not already, and leaders are still acting as if this is not a planetary emergency.
It’s a least a comfort to know that 2023 may also set a record for a high in Total Solar Irradiance…at least since the Maunder Minimum. At some point kiddos, you’re going to have to take that into account.
Hey Al, if I understand you rightly you may be in the camp that solar activity is driving things... Maybe that's a part of the equation. BUT..at this point whether the warming is anthropogenic or solar is kind of irrelevant now- we've got to deal with the outcome. We can adjust to a warmer Earth (up to a point) but what's going to hurt us is the collapse of our agriculture..we can't survive that. So blame the sun or the fossil fuel industry as one pleases, that's yesterday's argument. We've got to adapt and mitigate as best we can with an eye to preserving our ag as the first priority. I'm an old midwesterner and I see the writing on the wall.
Obviously, I couldn't agree more. Where you live isn't a bad place to be actually. If I was a prepper then I'd lay in nonperishable medicinal supplies, connectors (nails, screws, twine, needles and thread, baling wire, wood glues) non electrical tools. And most importantly be sure I was in a geographicly close community of people with assorted skills. 🙂
I thought climate change brought greater unpredictability, and was more likely to cause floods and droughts. OK for us in the lucky latitudes but what about those in the overheating global south, much of whose land has been deforested for animal ag, trying to migrate north. Good luck with that. Thanks to energy inefficient animal agriculture, dustbowls, loss of pollinators, intensive farming and poor soil fertility; agriculture needed to feed 8 billion plus our pets, has never been so vulnerable and fragile.
I can't disagree with some of what you say. Not to mention dealing with those Ag dept guys who come and insist on erosion control , crop set asides and so forth. Ever miss Ezra Taft Benson?
At no point kiddo will you change the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming: a coherent and comprehensive explanation of the warming since industrialisation and perhaps the most scrutinised theory in all of science.
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes Earth to retain more energy from the Sun.
This is explained by atmospheric physics and verified by satellite.
90% of this extra energy in the climate system caused by human activity - including other GHGs like methane and nitrous oxide, and changes in land use - is heating the oceans.
Awaiting a grand theory of everything is not going to save us from our greed and stupidity.
Genuine curiosity: why is the legend "Degree C anomaly from 1850-1899" for half the charts, but "Degree C anomaly from 1981-2010" for the other half ? It seems that the charts show the same values, but with the "Performance..." charts adding the uncertainty intervals. Is that just a typo or is the computation different ?
You don't actually show the prediction for the anomaly over preindustrial temperatures. I recall Michael Mann estimating, at least for the northern hemisphere, that temperature had risen 0.2°C from pre-industrial to the 1850-1899 average. If that's right, isn't there a good chance of the anomaly reaching 1.5°C for the year?
That would depend on how we manage CO2 concentrations. How long do they continue to increases? When and for how long do concentrations fall after the (2050?) peak?
Yes indeed. What may kick us in the butt is methane emissions, a much worse greenhouse gas now bubbling away as the circumpolar regions warm up. Even if we get the ppm of the CO2 down to pre-industrial levels, we may be too late..having created some very large, self-reinforcing feedback loops, beyond our powers to mitigate. An infant can knock a bowl of food off the tray of its high chair, but be entirely unable to put it back in place.
The TempLS surface measure <a href="https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2023/08/july-global-surface-templs-up-0093-from.html">also had a record warm July</a>, ahead of 2019 by 0.225C. The year to date average is now ahead of any other full year.
Zeke, one more, thanks for taking your time to do these analyses and sharing the results. First, re choosing variables to enter into your model--- PCA and Stepwise regression (forward/backward) might improve your choices. I've read most of the comments today, and will finish by saying that the variables commonly used in climate/environmental analyses can hardly be truly comprehensive. What we hope for is that they will be amongst the better "surrogates" for the broader spectrum of possible choices.
"To summarize, none of the mechanisms which facilitated previous climate change can explain the rapid rise in both CO2 and temperature observed over the past 150 years. However, human-released CO2 explains both!"
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
As many of us experience the recent calamities brought on by climate change: increased drought, flood, heat waves, wildfires, and stronger storms, we might ask where we are now because of our failure to halt climbing emissions (1), long before feeling the full effects of a rise in temperature of just over 1 °C, due to lags in the system.
We’ve been seeing numerous impacts catching many scientists by surprise with how soon they are occurring. In 2014 two independent teams of scientists reported that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is likely irreversibly retreating. 3.3 meters of sea level rise equivalent of ice there is being destabilized by a warming ocean and energy is going into the net melting of ice all over the planet.
The paleoclimate record indicates that increasing global temperature by just 1.5-2 °C above preindustrial temperature commits the system to an eventual 6-9 meters of sea level rise, a large fraction of which could arrive within the next 100 years.
Corals may not survive this century of warming and acidifying oceans, and droughts and floods linked to global warming—and conflict linked to those droughts—have already caused four countries to face famine.
Because of the decades to millennial long lag between a climate forcing and our feeling the full effect, due to the thermal inertia of the ocean and response time of the ice sheets, the effects we are feeling now are largely just the beginning of the result of emissions from the 20th century. And emissions have been increasing steadily for decades.
We are also seeing numerous amplifying feedbacks: loss of albedo (heat reflectivity) from ice melt, permafrost melt, methane release and massive wildfires; the Earth is starting to wrest any possible further human control of the climate away.
We're about out of time on this, if not already, and leaders are still acting as if this is not a planetary emergency.
1. Keeling Curve of atmospheric CO2, https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu
Zeke, Here is an article from the conversation.com that supports your assessment but puts emphasis on the step wise nature of temperature increases, https://theconversation.com/global-temperature-rises-in-steps-heres-why-we-can-expect-a-steep-climb-this-year-and-next-209385 .
What do you think of this perspective?
It’s a least a comfort to know that 2023 may also set a record for a high in Total Solar Irradiance…at least since the Maunder Minimum. At some point kiddos, you’re going to have to take that into account.
Hey Al, if I understand you rightly you may be in the camp that solar activity is driving things... Maybe that's a part of the equation. BUT..at this point whether the warming is anthropogenic or solar is kind of irrelevant now- we've got to deal with the outcome. We can adjust to a warmer Earth (up to a point) but what's going to hurt us is the collapse of our agriculture..we can't survive that. So blame the sun or the fossil fuel industry as one pleases, that's yesterday's argument. We've got to adapt and mitigate as best we can with an eye to preserving our ag as the first priority. I'm an old midwesterner and I see the writing on the wall.
Well said, Michael. It is yesterday's argument. Adaptation and food security should be the biggest thing on everyone's minds right now
Obviously, I couldn't agree more. Where you live isn't a bad place to be actually. If I was a prepper then I'd lay in nonperishable medicinal supplies, connectors (nails, screws, twine, needles and thread, baling wire, wood glues) non electrical tools. And most importantly be sure I was in a geographicly close community of people with assorted skills. 🙂
Both of which are certainly on mine, inc pushing the concept. Peace, Maurice
I thought climate change brought greater unpredictability, and was more likely to cause floods and droughts. OK for us in the lucky latitudes but what about those in the overheating global south, much of whose land has been deforested for animal ag, trying to migrate north. Good luck with that. Thanks to energy inefficient animal agriculture, dustbowls, loss of pollinators, intensive farming and poor soil fertility; agriculture needed to feed 8 billion plus our pets, has never been so vulnerable and fragile.
I believe the green revolution, stealing tomorrows fertility and genetic potential for today has been a disaster https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/what-were-the-results-of-the-green and I hope we don't have another one.
Jo
I can't disagree with some of what you say. Not to mention dealing with those Ag dept guys who come and insist on erosion control , crop set asides and so forth. Ever miss Ezra Taft Benson?
At no point kiddo will you change the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming: a coherent and comprehensive explanation of the warming since industrialisation and perhaps the most scrutinised theory in all of science.
Copy that. The cool aid has been drunk and the Group Think is doing all the thinking.
Of course, the consensus of experts with a track record of publishing in the area is wrong and the cranks are right. It's so obvious!
Wait a minute ... all their garbage is easily debunked even if desperate deniers can't face the truth.
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes Earth to retain more energy from the Sun.
This is explained by atmospheric physics and verified by satellite.
90% of this extra energy in the climate system caused by human activity - including other GHGs like methane and nitrous oxide, and changes in land use - is heating the oceans.
Awaiting a grand theory of everything is not going to save us from our greed and stupidity.
I do not know what you're talking about - I am talking about science. Tell me what's wrong in this book (you can open and read some):
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Principles-Planetary-Climate-Raymond-Pierrehumbert/dp/0521865565
Climate cycles. Just like always. You're a fear mongering climate alarmist.
As predicted the Earth is warming rapidly (1), ice is melting (2) and the rate of sea level rise is accelerating (3).
1. Graph of global surface temperature 1880-2021 http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2022/Temperature2021.13January2022.pdf
2. Ice sheet mass loss http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/IceSheet/IceMass.png
3. Graph of the rate of sea level rise 1880-2020
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
Climate cycles. Just like always. You're a fear mongering climate alarmist.
Genuine curiosity: why is the legend "Degree C anomaly from 1850-1899" for half the charts, but "Degree C anomaly from 1981-2010" for the other half ? It seems that the charts show the same values, but with the "Performance..." charts adding the uncertainty intervals. Is that just a typo or is the computation different ?
Just a typo (and should be fixed now).
You don't actually show the prediction for the anomaly over preindustrial temperatures. I recall Michael Mann estimating, at least for the northern hemisphere, that temperature had risen 0.2°C from pre-industrial to the 1850-1899 average. If that's right, isn't there a good chance of the anomaly reaching 1.5°C for the year?
Try looking at the world and not Fox News.
TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP!
That would depend on how we manage CO2 concentrations. How long do they continue to increases? When and for how long do concentrations fall after the (2050?) peak?
Yes indeed. What may kick us in the butt is methane emissions, a much worse greenhouse gas now bubbling away as the circumpolar regions warm up. Even if we get the ppm of the CO2 down to pre-industrial levels, we may be too late..having created some very large, self-reinforcing feedback loops, beyond our powers to mitigate. An infant can knock a bowl of food off the tray of its high chair, but be entirely unable to put it back in place.