chubbs

Ceres net radiation data has been updated through January. As expected in a strong nino, the radiation imbalance has been shrinking since last summer, as the warmer atmosphere increases outgoing radiation. The downcycle should run for a while longer; but, we have a ways to go to return to 2015/16 conditions.

13 hours ago, bluewave said:

There seems to be a few issues at hand here not expressly stated In this most recent debate.

First, an acceleration of global warming makes it unlikely that we will be able to cap warming at +1.5C or perhaps even +2.0C. Some scientists believe this could cause people to give up on finding possible solutions if we already surpassed this level. It’s one of the risks that the climate community took when targeting specific temperature level like +1.5C in all these reports put out over the years.

Second, faster warming could cause some to doubt the climate models in general which make some scientists uneasy since they have come to rely so heavily on them.

But even if the answer lies somewhere in the middle between Hansen and others, any acceleration of the warming rate is problematic in a world where we are still so reliant on fossil fuels to drive out current civilization. 

There is confusion about whether the warming rate is accelerating and/or climate sensitivity is higher than expected. An acceleration in the warming rate starting around 2010 is expected due to reductions in aerosol emissions. Per a recent Real Climate blog, Hanson's yellow cone is inline with CMIP6 model predictions. There is a large body of work on climate sensitivity, so will need multiple studies and sustained warming above the red line to move the needle. We will see.

One final comment: increased forcing from aerosol reduction is better than increased forcing from CO2 emission increases. Aerosol emissions are going to zero anyway. The acceleration has a shelf life on the order of decades before aerosols are depleted.. By pulling the aerosol reductions forward in time due to air pollution control we are giving ourselves a preview of our climate future. Maybe it will spur action. Not that we have placed ourselves in a good position, with warming accelerating just as we approach 1.5C warming; which means we are leaving our comfortable Holocene climate.

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=much-ado-about-acceleration

Funny, Chesco is helping make the "alarmist" case. Googling indicates we have the same CO2 concentrations today as 14 million years ago. Only the ocean and cryosphere, which are slow to adjust to higher CO2, are keeping us close to our old climate. The good news is that the ocean will take up CO2 if we get emissions under control. We aren't committed yet to going back 14 million years. Its up to us to decide how far back in time we want to go. One thing is certain though. Ignoring the problem is going to make the future more alarming, not less.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2023/12/07/a-new-66-million-year-history-of-carbon-dioxide-offers-little-comfort-for-today/

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adi5177

15 hours ago, GaWx said:

 Charlie,

1) This chart was posted by Chris in his thread on the Midwest warming hole: note the reduced warming or even slight cooling in much of the MW during summer vs most other areas. This is despite large increases in crop sizes.

 2) From Midwest pro meteorologist Mike Maguire:

 “On the albedo of global greening absorbing more sunshine and warming the planet. I can debunk that myth quickly. 

We know that the MOST warming is taking place in the coldest places and at the coldest times (higher latitudes during the Winter and at night).

Those are also the times when albedo from the sun has the LEAST impact.”

“The nights (with no sun) have been warming the most, days the least. Also, the driest locations with the lowest humidity are warming the most.

 This is because of the radiation physics of CO2 and H2O and not albedo. In areas with the highest water vapor content, water vapor crowds out much of the CO2 absorption from the same bands of absorption. Some of the radiation absorption bands are already saturated from H2O in areas with very high dew points.

In drier areas........which includes ALL cold places, CO2 is able to absorb more long wave radiation because of the absence of H2O absorbing at the same bands. 

There's no disputing this proven law of  radiation physics!”

I agree that albedo effects from fertilization are not.as important as CO2 radiation effects or plant evapotranspiration, which is important in the case of midwest corn. On-the-other hand, don't think Maguire has debunked albedo effects either. CO2 fertilization has a relatively small climate effect that needs to be evaluated carefully to determine if it is positive or negative.

Found a paper (link below) which isolated the biophysical effects of CO2 fertilization on climate. CO2 fertilization had a net warming due to effect mainly due to the albedo effect of the northward advance of Boreal forests. Considered separately in the paper, increased CO2 sequestration would offset the albedo effect in the short-term but not in the long-term. In any case the climate effects of CO2 fertilization are small,and  the radiation effects of CO2 are dominating. Note also that increasing CO2, increases atmospheric water vapor leading to a radiation effect that is in the same ballpark as the effect of increased CO2 alone.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2006.00210.x

26 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

We are told by alarmists that warming of the climate is expected to increase the frequency and intensity of heavy rainfall events. One key measure of this used by climate models is the annual maximum 1 and 5-day maximum precipitation amounts (Rx1day and Rx5day, respectively). The results below indicate that while both the Rx1day and Rx5day have increased across the US since 1960....of course if we choose to go back far enough, rainfall extremes were higher than recent decades between 1901 and 1930 across both measures. Funny how weather history if we go back far enough....shows us all that is happening now has indeed occurred before. No climate emergency at all to see here!

I don't know Paul, I get a different picture after checking the reference. For one thing I couldn't find the chart you posted. It must be from the supporting material. As for the body of the paper, it showed clear evidence for climate change in temperature and heavy precipitation. Below is a text snippet, a couple of charts and the paper link. This leaves me wondering where you get your information from.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019JD032263

31 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

hey Charlie.....there is actually weather data before 1960.....some folks don't like that data - well unless we make some chilling adjustments as it does not support the non-stop warming story. The above charts I added do not omit the older data back in our last warming cycle that you likely forgot to add...

I have no problem going back before 1960. I'll go way back, but I'm not going to limit myself to a small slice of biased data. No. I want to look at all the data and use the best methods to analyze it. From the last IPCC report

50 minutes ago, Bhs1975 said:

So we would have to remove it using renewables and sequester it underground by using reactions to form limestone.


.

Don't get me wrong there are many reasons to plant trees and trees produce a net cooling in many parts of the world. Once it is in the atmosphere removing CO2 will be costly and slow.  Using renewables/batteries/electrification to not emit CO2 in the first place is by far the cheapest strategy, particularly with costs continuing to drop.

Related to the CO2 fertilization post above, the recent study below  accounted for the albedo effect of planting trees. In many places around the world, planting trees causes warming, as increases in absorbed sunlight offset the benefit from CO removal.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46577-1

13 hours ago, GaWx said:

 This reminds me of an important point, the CO2 fertilization effect. Increased atmospheric CO2 increases plant growth due to increased photosynthesis. Also, warmer higher latitudes can lead to an increase in vegetation at higher latitudes due to a longer growing season. This increased plant growth has increased the net greenness of the earth over the last few decades (see image below). That includes much of the US Midwest, which has lead to a cool down there in summer:

“Carbon dioxide is not only a pollutant but a fertilizer — a key ingredient in photosynthesis that helps plants grow. Some farmers inject CO2 into their greenhouses to accelerate plant growth. But now we’re fertilizing plants on a global scale: In the last two centuries, NASA reports, humans have increased the CO2 content in the air by roughly 50 percent. All that extra CO2 is accelerating leaf growth, and satellites can see it.”

 The above writeup and the image below are from here:

https://www.vox.com/down-to-earth/2024/2/7/24057308/earth-global-greening-climate-change-carbon

 

 So, this is a natural negative feedback to AGW. Between the cooling due to increased greenness blocking the sunlight as well as holding soil moisture better and an increase in the amount of CO2 being absorbed due to increased vegetation, there is an increase in uncertainty as to how much the globe will actually end up warming in total. Could it eventually cause an equilibrium and halt GW at some point? Is this negative feedback being properly modeled?

 Furthermore, the increase in crop sizes has been resulting in an increase in food supply. So, although I’m not trying to minimize the negative effects of increased CO2, I’m saying the effects of increased CO2 are not all bad and thus the good effects should be included in any discussion to give a more honest assessment of the effects of increased CO2.

Bad effects include:

- worse/more frequent land heat waves, which increases deaths from excess heat

- increased sea level due to melting land ice leading to increased coastal inundation

- increased energy usage for AC

- increased marine heatwaves/coral bleaching

- increased frequency/intensity of flooding events due to increased atmospheric moisture content that can be held by warmer air

- increased/stronger hurricanes due to warmer oceans

- increased flooding from hurricanes due to slower average movement speed due to slower average steering

 

Good effects include:

- increased food supply due to CO2 fertilizer effect

- less frequent/intense cold waves. There’s evidence that extreme cold has killed more people than extreme heat. Thus, more lives may be saved when netting out decreased cold related deaths vs increased heat related deaths:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/07/19/excessive-summer-heat-can-kill-but-extreme-cold-causes-more-fatalities/amp/

- decreased energy usage for heating. Current US natural gas storage is near record high levels for late March due largely to the warm winter.

 

 In summary, increased CO2 has many very detrimental effects. However, there are some beneficial effects that should also be acknowledged in an honest assessment even if we assume that CO2 increases are more harmful than beneficial. Also, is it possible that negative feedbacks due to increased vegetation eventually will halt GW and can climate models accurately account for this?
 

The article linked was more sanguine about CO2 effects than your write up. Not all of the greening is due to CO2 and increased greening is a mixed blessing. Your description of radiation effects isn't correct. Increased photosynthesis causes plants to absorb more sunlight, and reflect less, so greening generally causes warming. The effect is particularly large in the arctic where greening is mainly due to expansion of shrubs and trees northward. The greener surface absorbs much more sunlight than the snow or tundra surface it replaces. I believe these effects are included in models but am not familiar with the details.

Finally here's a short interview with an ag expert, who expects a negative impact from CO2 on agriculture in most areas.

https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/is-co2-plant-food

This recent study shows that global heat waves are becoming more frequent, lasting longer, covering larger areas, moving slower, and bringing higher temperatures.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adl1598

Compounding the effects of high temperature,  global dew point and wet bulb temperatures are also rising.

Chesco didn't show us Figure 1 and 2, must have been an oversight.

3 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Easy answer Charlie.....there is no proof that any weather events are impacted by climate change. There are no weather events happening today that have not already occurred in the past....kind of simple!!  Nothing alarming here at all!

You can't prove your assertions either. I can provide evidence of climate and weather change, reams of evidence. That's something you are short on..

10 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Love the typical alarmist talking points - as usual Charlie shows us no facts like dates and storms that are attributable to climate change in this alarmist answer. Just the tired old bullet points that are alarmist talking points with not one shred of evidence.... you know like an actual date, storm, observation or fact. I will wait for you to list events that anyone can directly attribute to our current period of cyclical warming.

Don't blame me for the "alarmist" talking points, those are Investopedia's points. In a similar vein here's a story on rising Insurance costs in Texas from the Texas Tribune. Hopefully you won't find the climate aspect too alarming.

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/11/30/texas-homeowner-insurance-climate-change-costs/

The science is simple and not controversial. Warmer air holds more water. Droughts, fires, storms etc., behave differently in a warmer world. Your talking point sounds good but misses the mark technically.  The fact that we have always had these events is a reason to be concerned, not relieved. In a warmer world, thunderstorms have more CAPE, hurricanes higher OHC, rain storms more water vapor, fires and droughts accelerated drying conditions. Per chart below, locally a 100-year flood is now a 20-year flood.  I am going to throw it back on you – What weather events aren't being impacted by climate change?

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

So are we sure that climate change is bad or a problem? Or is it simply the cyclical nature of our climate. What exactly is our correct appropriate temperature or even range of temperatures?  How much do you think we warm by the new climate regime in 2040? Can you or anyone identify even one catastrophic climate event in the world that has happened in the last 30 years due to our current cyclical warming cycle? Any one will do. Of course it must have never happened before. All weather events that we can measure to date have all happened before....what weather event has recently happened (last 50 years) that actually never took place before? Can you point to a solid real world actual event that you or anyone can attribute to man made climate change?

Love the denier talking point logic: The climate has always changed; but, storms, droughts, heat waves. etc. never change. Why bother Don, the information you are requesting is widely available. A google search brought a long list of articles on climate change impacts on insurance rates. Here's an example.

https://www.investopedia.com/the-costs-of-climate-change-are-already-here-in-your-insurance-bill-8414294

12 hours ago, bdgwx said:

The 2nd order polynomial regression on the UAH data shows an acceleration of the warming trend of +0.05 C/decade-2.

It's obvious that there is inconsistency in UAH during the NOAA 14 and 15 transition.  Warming is rapid now that enough data has accumulated after the transition for trend analysis. I can recall Spencer saying that climate change would be a concern if warming reached 0.2C per decade. Wonder how long it will take him to notice that UAH6 has blown by his own concern threshold.

March was another record monthly anomaly on UAH. The temperature spike during this nino is unusually large in UAH, as large or larger than 97-98 judging by the 13-month running mean, which will continue to increase for a few months. Measurement inconsistency through the years likely contributing. Top 5 March's in UAH below:

1 2024 0.95
2 2016 0.65
3 2010 0.38
4 2020 0.35
5 1998 0.34

8 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

 

Another chart in Hanson's latest. Since 2010 max warming has shifted from arctic to mid-latitude in the NHemi (and to lesser extent in SHemi). Consistent with warm winters we have had recently.

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

Record air and sea surface temperatures continue.

 

 

Yes we are still breaking daily re-analysis records, but not by "gobsmacking" amounts like we were in the second half of last year. Anomalies are running closer to where you would expect them to be, above last year and moderately above 2016, the last strong nino. We have been in a rough anomaly plateau since last September. With la nina developing, and normal seasonal effects, would expect anomalies to begin to drop soon, similar to 2016, and to cool below 2023 later in the year. We'll see.

We are approaching 1.5C of warming, when climate change impacts ramp, and the global warming rate has increased. Not a good place to be, and we have no excuse, it was well predicted.

A number of relatively small items are aiding warming. We are near the peak of a solar cycle that is stronger than the last cycle (see chart below). Haven't seen a definitive accounting but the Hunga Tonga volcano is likely a small plus warming factor. Finally man-made forcing is increasing at a faster rate in the past 10 years as aerosol emissions come down due to air pollution control..

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Nah... not to sound dismissive (ha)  really but that doesn't explain why both air and sea from pole to pole unilaterally increased prior to the onset of the warm ENSO phase.

Related to the point I made above. Nino34 wasn't a good metric for this nino. Nino12+3 warmed fast and early, leading nino34, and triggering the global SST rise. Of course other factors played a role. The large radiation imbalance during the nina years warmed the subsurface, which primed the pump.

Think the Gavin S and other experts are underestimating the effect of this nino. The timing fits a nino response but with  faster onset and a larger overall warming than we have seen in the satellite era. Those features can be explained by the rapid warming in the east Pacific last spring. Global SST have peaked and are starting to fall. We'll see if this nino has a lasting impact on SST like the 15/16 nino.

12 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

In reality Charlie quite the opposite....as you add more stations you decrease variability when averaging. There is no need to "control" or change the actual data after the fact.  I have all available possible stations that should be in the NCEI Chester County average. Below is all available actual stations temps vs the post hoc adjusted averages just since 1970. You can as always see the significant cooling adjustments applied to the 1970's-1980's and 1990's....and then of course the gentle warming adjustments to the 2000's and 2010's. No wonder we only like to show the scary red after adjustments on TV and here....it clearly does a much better job supporting the climate alarmists agenda! If we showed the raw data it would not be alarming at all!! So Charlie we discussed earlier why we had to chill the 1920s/1930's/1940's (time of obs etc.) so what was the reason for the continued cooling after the fact adjustments from the 1970's thru 1990's and now the warming adjustments being applied over the last 20 years?? Was it time of obs bias? station siting? bad equipment?? If any of the above can you show us by station which ones were problematic and how the applied adjustments were calculated? 

I see why you like the "averaging" method. It shows less warming than the data collected in your own backyard

21 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

And again below is all stations with up to 17 actual reporting sites included in the most recent 2 decades. The same pattern of large chilling adjustments for 111 years and now increasing warming adjustments as you can clearly see during the past 2 decades. Why the post observation warming adjustments of 0.3 degrees in the 2010's? Is it time of obs? bad equipment? Do we know the exact answer??

 

Your county averaging method doesn't agree with your own Chescowx series and the year-to-year differences are probably even larger; smoothed somewhat by the decade averaging. Not surprising because you aren't controlling for differences in average temperature between stations. Every time you add or subtract a station you change the average.

NOAA on-the-other-hand agrees very well with the ERA5 re-analysis developed by EMWCF, both on year-to-year temperature changes and on the overall warming since 1950. NOAA and ERA5 are completely independent using different datasets and methods, so agreement at the County level increases confidence in both series. Bottom-line - scientists have a good handle on Chester County temperature trends. If you aren't matching NOAA or ERA5 you aren't getting an accurate depiction of our local climate.  Below is a link which provides background on ERA5, which has land temperature data back to 1950. Note that I can only get ERA data for a lat/long square that approximates Chesco.

https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-reanalysis