chubbs

Blog article on study. Including an update at the end that clarifies the implications of the model simulations. Update 10. February: In the reactions to the paper, I see some misunderstand this as an unrealistic model scenario for the future. It is not. This type of experiment is not a future projection at all, but rather done to trace the equilibrium stability curve (that’s the quasi-equlibrium approach mentioned above). In order to trace the equlibrium response, the freshwater input must be ramped up extremely slowly, which is why this experiment uses so much computer time. After the model’s tipping point was found in this way, it was used to identify precursors that could warn us before reaching the tipping point, so-called “early warning signals”. Then, the scientists turned to reanalysis data (observations-based products, shown in Fig. 6 of the paper) to check for an early warning signal. The headline conclusion that the AMOC is „on tipping course“ is based on these data. In other words: it’s observational data from the South Atlantic which suggest the AMOC is on tipping course. Not the model simulation, which is just there to get a better understanding of which early warning signals work, and why. https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/02/new-study-suggests-the-atlantic-overturning-circulation-amoc-is-on-tipping-course/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=new-study-suggests-the-atlantic-overturning-circulation-amoc-is-on-tipping-course

Yes, media is doing a lousy job informing the public on climate science. Science has a good handle on the likely temperature changes vs man-made CO2 emissions. There is no scientific debate than man-made emissions are changing the climate at a rapid rate. The big uncertainty is how will the Earth's systems respond. We are conducting a big science experiment in that regard. Nothing in nature or man-made is designed for the climate we are rapidly headed for. Change is going to continue to accelerate as we pull away from our historical climate. The funny thing is. A world without fossil fuels is looking better and better from an economic standpoint. We are giving ourselves climate angst for no reason, other than we are uncomfortable facing the facts.

Well you views are much different than mine. Fossil fuels are steadily losing competitive advantage. Wind, solar, EV are all much cheaper than they were a decade ago and growing rapidly on a global basis, often without subsidies. I think we will be kicking ourselves in a decade for not ditching fossil-fuels earlier.

I would love to see a conservative solution to climate change. For instance a carbon tax with the monies used to reduce income taxes or the deficit. Has been a no-brainer for decades. By letting the problem fester, conservatives are inviting a big government solution

This is a good comment. The 4-station average is not representative of the county. All 4 stations are at low elevation and the coldest, Coatesville, is the most centrally located. Others are on the warmer south and east side of the county. Below are the station bias adjustments for Coatesville (based on material downloaded from the GISS site a while ago). They are generally smaller than the ones Paul calculated and can be negative. The average is 0.8F. I have also shown the difference between NOAA County temps and the bias adjusted temperatures for Coatesville. The measured values for Coatesville with proper bias adjustment are close to the NOAA County values. On average NOAA is 0.1F warmer than the corrected observations. Remember that Coatesville best represents the county as a whole, albeit at lower elevation than most of the county. Pretty good job by NOAA I would say. This looks like a tempest in a teapot to me.

Here's a good blog article on time of observation bias. I've linked it for you before. https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/

Here is an example of problematic coop data that I have shown you before. Coatesville cooled by roughly 2F relative to other nearby stations after World War II and received a well-deserved bias adjustment. Crickets when I presented this to you previously and you are pleading ignorance today. Its not my job to justify NOAA's work to you. Everything is documented by NOAA and by others. If you want to criticize NOAA's work, educate yourself and provide technical arguments. Otherwise you are just handwaving or whining.

You shouldn't be surprised. I've told you repeatedly about large bias adjustments at Chester County coop stations. To be frank the raw Chesco coop data that you use is useless for climate purposes. All the data, methods, and bias adjustments that NOAA (and others) use are publicly available. I have showed you how to access the info before. Your response - crickets. Now you are suddenly up in arms. LOL

Burlington Vt, is having Philly-style winter temperatures. An extreme example, but this winter continues a decade+ long winter warming surge in the northeast.

Must be 2 Northeast Philly Airports

Good blog article. One thing that interested me is the differences in timing between Arctic and Antarctic. Hints of a see-saw, with the Antarctic having the bigger losses recently.

Roundy is providing a qualitative argument. I would need to see his argument developed further with quantification to give it some credence. I haven't seen any detailed analysis that indicates that enso has had any effect beyond the short-term, 0 to 3 years. There is plenty of evidence that warming has accelerated since the end of the hiatus independent of enso, not surprising since the rate of forcing has accelerated a bit also due to aerosol reductions. That said we need to wait a bit to understand the ramification of the current nino. Need to run enough clock to erase this nino's memory. Don't think we will have to wait long. This nino will probably be a faded memory by next winter, completely erased in two years.

If you look at all the enso regions, this year doesn't look as unusual and enso can explain more of the warming. Charts from blog article I posted above, that looked at temperatures through October. Nice job by an amateur. https://dmn613.wordpress.com/2023/11/20/more-details-on-sep-oct/

Ocean heat data is out for 2023. Overall the data is similar to recent years. The oceans continue to warm at a steady clip. Found this twitter exchange interesting. There is considerable uncertainty in short-term trends making it hard to determine how much acceleration is occurring. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-024-3378-5

Let me put it this way. I believe it is possible to peak around 2C without hurting the economy but we will need to pick up the pace of global policy implementation. Temperatures are proportional to cumulative CO2 emissions. To stop warming, net emissions must go to zero, hence net zero is the goal. If we cut emissions in half the warming rate will drop by roughly 50%. Because emissions are cumulative it is much better to reduce emissions today than 10 years from now. That's the problem, we've procrastinated so long our options are more limited.

You are asking some complicated questions. I can only give a brief response. It has taken decades of government support to allow solar/wind/EV to compete in the marketplace. However capitalism can claim some credit also. Pushing these technologies into the marketplace, where they were able to learn by doing, before they were competitive was key for their development. Its complicated to compare countries at different stages of development. Europe and the US are de-industrializing so its easier to reduce emissions. We have exported our emissions to the countries that supply our imports. China is closer to peaking emissions than India due to heavy investment and government policies supporting solar/EV/batteries etc.. While China has been building coal plants, coal use isn't increasing very fast as newer plants often just replace old in-efficient plants. Solar/batteries/EV have become big commercial successes in China. China dominates world production both for internal use and export. Recently these technologies have made up a large fraction of China's export growth. The IRA program adopted by the US last year is our attempt to catch up. Already IRA has spurred big investment in the US, more than doubling US manufacturing investment. Big investments around world, spurred by government policy, is why emissions are likely to peak this decade.

Agree on the 1.5C, we are not acting fast enough. Note that even if Hanson is wrong about climate sensitivity, some acceleration in warming is expected because forcing is increasing at a faster rate as aerosols are reduced. The only way to slow down warming is to reduce CO2+CH4 emissions, fortunately there is some hope of peaking and starting to turn down emissions this decade as fossil fuels continue to lose competitive advantage and the need to do more slowly gains proponents.

I think the yellow-cone is too high but at least he is giving a testable prediction. We should have an indication by the end of this year if he is right. In the Climate Brink's year-end podcast, Zeke Hausfather said that Hanson's yellow-cone predictions were similar to the CMIP6 ensemble mean.

The 3-year nina was probably also a factor. The 2023 projections were based on the weak nina conditions that existed in the 34 region at the start of the year and 2022 temps (in Hausfather's method - Schmidt uses a 20-year Loess) which were held down by the 3-year nina. The rapid onset of east-based nino flipped the script. Large areas in the EPac went from cool which favors inversions and low clouds to warm which favors mixing and sunshine. There are other factors also. Like you say will take a while to unpack. 2022 10 19.23 -1.78 23.88 -1.11 27.64 -1.12 25.73 -0.99 2022 11 20.52 -1.13 24.16 -0.94 27.71 -0.99 25.80 -0.90 2022 12 22.35 -0.46 24.41 -0.82 27.70 -0.84 25.75 -0.85 2023 1 24.00 -0.56 25.10 -0.56 27.66 -0.66 25.83 -0.72 2023 2 26.58 0.48 26.31 -0.10 27.65 -0.55 26.29 -0.46 2023 3 27.98 1.49 27.50 0.30 28.07 -0.25 27.17 -0.11 2023 4 28.16 2.62 28.05 0.47 28.75 0.13 27.96 0.14 2023 5 26.64 2.22 28.09 0.84 29.22 0.30 28.39 0.46 2023 6 25.63 2.50 27.88 1.26 29.55 0.58 28.57 0.84

2024 in unchartered SST territory out of the gate.

Neither come out and say it, but one source of error in the predictions at the beginning of 2023 was the rapid shift to strong el nino. Will make following this year more interesting. If the predictions for 2024 are good then we can probably give el nino or natural variability most of the blame since the other factors are still in play (Hunga-Tonga, shipping and other aerosols, high climate sensitivity).

Unfortunately study doesn't cover last couple of years, when Ceres energy balance estimates have continued to spike higher. There is brief discussion in the paper comparing Ceres to the ocean heat data. Ceres is running higher than OHC at the end of the study period, (ending in 2020). There are large error bars though and the difference is not statistically significant. They mention that the ocean heat data only covers 60S to 60N and 0-2000m and could be missing some heat content increase. Bottom-line confirming the recent Ceres spike with ocean heat content data is still an open question.

NOAA climate analysis uses all the local station data and corrects for bias including heat island effects. My understanding is that currently official NWS data is collected at Metro Airport. The Metro data lines up well the NOAA analysis. Starting the regression in 1959 (as far back as I can obtain data) instead of 1970 doesn't appear to make much difference. Bottom-line: I don't see any evidence that your winter temperature trend experience is much different from mine.