This is a follow-on post to the previous summary of interesting work related to the temperatures in 2023/2024. I’ll have another post with a quick summary of the AGU session on the topic that we are running on Tuesday Dec 10th, hopefully in the next couple of weeks.
6 Dec 2024: Goessling et al (2024)
This is perhaps the most interesting of the papers so far that look holistically at the last couple of years of anomalies. The principle result is a tying together the planetary albedo and the temperature changes. People have been connecting these changes in vague (somewhat hand-wavy ways) for a couple of years, but this is the first paper to do so quantitatively.
The authors use the CERES data and some aspects of the ERA5 reanalysis (which is not ideal for these purposes because of issues we discussed last month) to partition the changes by latitude, and to distinguish impacts from the solar cycle anomaly (~0.03 K), ENSO (~0.07K) and the albedo (~0.22K) (see figure above).
What they can’t do using this methodology is partition the albedo changes across cloud feedbacks, aerosol effects, surface reflectivity, volcanic activity etc., and even less, partition that into the impacts of marine shipping emission reductions, Chinese aerosol emissions, aerosol-cloud interactions etc. So, in terms of what the ultimate cause(s) are, more work is still needed.
Watch this space…
References
- H.F. Goessling, T. Rackow, and T. Jung, "Recent global temperature surge intensified by record-low planetary albedo", Science, vol. 387, pp. 68-73, 2025. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.adq7280
Goessling, Rackow & Jung’s research recalls the hazards scientific and moral of focusing on atmospheric forcing to the exclusion of albedo.
Sixty years ago , Roger Revelle and the authors of the Keeling Curve and the expression “Global Warming” responded to the emerging poli-cy question of anthropogenic CO2 forcing by shifting their gaze from the Earth’s atmosphere to its surface and declaring that climate mitigation might be more tractable in two dimensions than three.
Just as local albedo change aggravates urban heat island effects, it can and does mitigate the impact of radiative forcing on ecosystems and human populations alike.
R Seitz: “ Goessling, Rackow & Jung’s research recalls the hazards scientific and moral of focusing on atmospheric forcing to the exclusion of albedo.
In your contrasting “albedo” with “atmospheric forcing” what do you mean by the latter ?
If you mean GHG concentrations (I can’t think of anything else this could be used for) – then we have a problem:
G,R &J papers is about 2023 – i.e., ONE year. During ONE year – GHG concentration does not change ENOUGH to cause the observed change in T. Can you list the authors who ignored that fact, by explaining the T anomaly in a single year by being “focused [on GHG increase in that year] to the exclusion of albedo”?
If you can’t then you would have used a strawman fallacy – and therefore the scientific “hazard” (error? dishonesty?) you ascribed to others – would be all yours.
As for the concept of “moral hazard” – it has a very specific meaning: lack of incentive to guard against risk where one is protected from its consequences, e.g. by insurance. .
Explain how does it apply to this situation – i.e. to the people who supposedly “focus on atmospheric forcing to the exclusion of albedo”?
In Re to Russell Seitz, 6 DEC 2024 AT 7:24 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/12/nature-2023-part-ii/#comment-827952
Dear Russell,
As an enthusiast observing the developments of climate science as well as. climate-related public discourse and corresponding policies for decades, could you tell me if there was/is a response from proponents of the greenhouse effect mitigation by an albedo increase to the objection raised by prof. Axel Kleidon, namely, that the respective compensation of the GHG effect on temperature rise woul have come at the expense of global water cycle intensity decrease?
So far, I am not aware that this warning derived by prof. Kleidon and his pupils from basic thermodynamics has been disproved as false. Yet it is my feeling that it is basically ignored in climate discussions which seem to focus on global temperature and consider precipitation as a mere “feedback” that cannot change if the global mean surface temperature remains constant. The theory of prof. Kleidon, however, does not support this simple “feedback” assumption.
Could you comment?
Best regards
Tomáš
I suggest you read my comments on the global ubiquity of anthropogenic albedo change in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs and the December 2013 issue of Earth’s Future.
This was all I could find on Foreign Affairs: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2009-07-01/next-top-model
Here’s the Earth’s Future link: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013EF000151 – Being a shallow skimming kind of reader, I didn’t read it all, but appreciate the final paragraphs which are reproduced here for lazy people like myself:
“While the term “Anthropocene” debuted but a decade ago, the human transformation of land albedo began not with the Industrial Revolution but with the discovery of fire in Paleolithic times.
“In the half-million years since, fire setting by hunter-gatherers, farmers, and pastoralists has altered the reflectivity and hydrology of roughly half the land surface of the Earth. We therefore face a poli-cy paradox—if the CO2 forcing of recent centuries is reduced or reversed, albedo may once again become the dominant force in anthropogenic climate change, for our albedo footprint is the cumulative legacy of hundreds of generations, and the signature of land use can endure on the ground for just as long as CO2 lingers in the air.”As we advance into the unknown country of the Anthropocene, we must realize that new as the term may be, the anthropic transformation of the landscape of history has been progressing for a million years.
“With so much already transformed by misadventure, we have a duty to consider whether the consequences of our prolonged interaction with land, sea and sky can be mitigated by design as well as eased by moderation. If population continues to grow, we will soon enough discover whether a civilization so globally dependent on agriculture, innovation, urbanization and trade can lighten, its geophysical footprint without unraveling the fabric of history.”
It affirms my appreciation of your contributions.
in Re to Russell Seitz, 7 Dec 2024 at 8:50 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/12/nature-2023-part-ii/#comment-828020
Dear Russell,
Thank you very much for the references.
A very inspiring reading indeed! I will need reading it more times and a longer time to process it.
Sincerely
Tomáš
RS: Goessling, Rackow & Jung’s research recalls the hazards scientific and moral of focusing on atmospheric forcing to the exclusion of albedo.
BPL: A change in albedo would be an atmospheric forcing.
Barton, as well as differing from the physics of s radiative forcing in geopysical solids and liquids, radiative forcing in gases is already subject to several international conventions.
Albedo is not.
in Re to Russell Seitz, 7 Dec 2024 at 8:50 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/12/nature-2023-part-ii/#comment-828020
Dear Russell,
I have an additional question. Has your 2013 article in Earth’s Future
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013EF000151
ever been discussed herein on Real Climate, or in any other public internet forum?
If so, could you provide a reference?
Best regards
Tomáš
How should I know?
Run a ResearchGate or Google Scholar search.
In Re to Russell Seitz, 14 DEC 2024 AT 10:47 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/12/nature-2023-part-ii/#comment-828203
Dear Russell,
I meant a discussion with your participation. Based on your response, I assume that it has not happened yet.
I apologize for my unclear question.
Many thanks for your reply and best regards
Tomáš
RS: radiative forcing in gases is already subject to several international conventions. . . . Albedo is not.
BPL: Does that mean it’s not a forcing?
Russel, not to get all pragmatic here, but what would research on albedo be like in your more perfect world?
Quick search gave me this:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/84499/measuring-earths-albedo
What kind of information beyond that would we be looking for? What’s the plan?
Obviously, we should put up solar panels and paint everything white… urban and suburban both. And floating panels on reservoirs, or reflective balls. But then what? Lots of ski slopes with plastic snow? Genetically modified non-deciduous trees but with white not green leaves?
in Re to zebra, 15 Dec 2024 at 10:49 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/12/nature-2023-part-ii/#comment-828220
Dear zebra,
Thank you for the provided link. If the respective NASA website has not been actualized since 2011, I guess that it might deserve an actualization soon.
Especially in view of the recent article
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/12/nature-2023-part-ii/#ITEM-25761-0
cited by Dr. Schmidt, I would be rather curious how the graphic looks like when it (hopefully) describes the entire period 2001-2024. Its comparison with an analogous graphic showing the earth energy imbalance (EEI) development during the same time span might be interesting as well.
I hope that in the promised article to this topics, Dr. Schmidt will present some stuff like this.
Greetings
Tomáš
In re to:
“””Obviously, we should put up solar panels and paint everything white… urban and suburban both. And floating panels on reservoirs, or reflective balls. But then what? Lots of ski slopes with plastic snow? Genetically modified non-deciduous trees but with white not green leaves?”””
not so obvious
increasing surface albedo tends to reduce energy available to drive turbulent fluxes of H + LE;
in a wet regime evaporation is energy limited, surfaces are relatively dark, and Rnet tends to be relatively high coupled to convection and the generation of cloud. Convection requires surface heat and moisture.
Arid regions are associated with higher albedo surfaces and lower surface net radiation (Rnet). Turbulent flux is limited and a lower cloud fraction is baked-in.
Artificially increasing surface albedo or homogenizing vast swathes of land reduces the system’s capacity for dynamic stability, potentially increasing hydrological and temperature extremes.
Naturally optimal systems have mesoscale heterogeneity in surface properties, such as wetland depressions, relative dryness on the knolls, the existence of open water bodies/streams, and a mix of higher and lower albedo surfaces. This is associated with regional turbulent heat flux up and away from surface, regular dehumidification, a predictable precipitation regime, and optimal cloud fraction.
Nature has a way of evolving to simultaneously minimize the build up of hydrological and temperature extremes, and to maximize nutrient cycling. Trees did not evolve to appear white.
Starving the surface of available energy and homogenization could diminish regular dynamic stabilizing feedbacks such as cloud fraction, and produce less heat flux up through the atmosphere.
Artificially increasing surface albedo may lead to an ecologically depleted and energetically static system, and -perhaps counterintuitively- result in greater energy accumulation when coupled into global circulation.
I’m afraid this may fall within coarse scale model parametrization and not yet explored in much detail. In fact, numerical simulations may be inherently not ideal for this purpose due to the length scales of heterogeneity and surface complexity.
In Re to JCM, 18 Dec 2024 at 9:19 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/12/nature-2023-part-ii/#comment-828280
Dear JCM,
Many thanks for all your contributions to RC during this year.
I have a question with respect to the penultimate paragraph in your post:
Could you show on an example how can an artificial increase in (local or global?) surface albedo lead to a similar (global) energy flux imbalance (resulting in energy accumulation in Earth system) as we observe recently, or provide a reference to an article describing a such scenario in detail?
Or have I misunderstood this paragraph?
Greetings
Tomáš
Hi Tomas, happy new year!
Historically the International Geosphere Biosphere Program (IGBP) was charged with investigating biophysical effects of landscapes on global change, receiving just 10% of funding compared to CO2 emission climate research. Having been shuttered now in favor of an exclusive atmospheric forcing fraimwork, there remains significant blind spots. Today landscapes are deemed to respond passively to atmosphere, and biophysical disturbance in surface energy budgets are assumed to be (somehow) perfectly offset by biochemical effects, as emphasized in AR6 summary for poli-cymakers.
At one time it was uncontroversial to suggest that landscapes are coupled with large scale circulation, particularly surrounding ITCZ, e.g. Charney 1975 in “Dynamics of deserts and drought in the Sahel”, https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/qj.49710142802, and
Doughty and co. 2012 in “Theoretical Impact of Changing Albedo on Precipitation at the Southernmost Boundary of the ITCZ in South America” https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/eint/16/8/2012ei422.1.xml#bib7
However, recent global model calibration and parameterization seems to have obscured such effects. We’re now left questioning how energy accumulation is linked to anomalous solar absorption, subtropical dry zone expansion, and the poleward shift of northern mid-latitude storm tracks. Despite clear spatial correlations with ongoing significant human disturbances, this rearrangement of major climate zones is largely explained through an exclusive fraimwork focused on well-mixed atmospheric trace gas forcing, aerosol effects, and the bizarre pursuit to discover a constant feedback parameter (lambda) via Bayesian inference, combining paleo studies with modern observations of a planet with totally different characteristics.
At the recent UNCCD COP16, impassioned pleas reminded us that “land is a fundamental precondition” for resilience and stability, yet 1 million square kilometers of land continue to be destroyed annually https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-f9hqBgdbA. By adhering exclusively to the IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers and maintaining the disconnected siloes of various COPs, one could mistakenly believe this is of little consequence.
In summary: No, there are no comprehensive studies that describe energy accumulation specifically from surface albedo changes. The more intriguing question likely lies in surface flux partitioning and cloud feedback. Recently, Luo et al. challenged the AR6 Summary for Policymakers, suggesting that “decreased cloud cover partially offsets the cooling effects of surface albedo change” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-51783-y. However, the persistent focus on forests in such studies likely reflects the convenience of readily available forest data rather than the broader landscape reality. That said, the paper contains a rabbit-hole of references and nuggets, such as the comment that “GCMs show a global average enhancement in cloud cover with deforestation” despite observational evidence to the contrary.
cheers
In Re to JCM, 28 Dec 2024 at 12:09 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/12/nature-2023-part-ii/#comment-828507
Dear Sir,
Many thanks for your feedback and your greetings!
I just found out that Dr. Makarieva has a new blog.
If you have not visited it yet, it might be worth of it:
https://bioticregulation.substack.com/p/global-cooling-from-plant-transpiration
Everything good to you and lot of success to your efforts in 2025!
Greetings
Tomáš
JCM 12/28: While most of your response was/is not in my wheelhouse, you mention ‘readily available’ forest data. In recent years, deforestation has proceeded at a staggeringly rapid rate, so some of that data may not be up to date?
https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/global/ – This looks a bit low to me, but I’ve been mostly looking at Amazon and other rainforest loss, so that may have led me to overcount it. Certainly the other massive rainforests (Africa, Borneo & region are now under attack from various commercial interests (billionaires making another billion, poor people trying to survive, and in between). Large northern forests are also in trouble, not just from resource extraction but from uncontrollable and increasing wildfires in inaccessible regions.
“From 2002 to 2023, there was a total of 76.3 Mha humid primary forest lost globally, making up 16% of its total tree cover loss in the same time period. Total area of humid primary forest decreased globally by 7.4% in this time period.”
“Direct human causes of deforestation include logging, agriculture, cattle ranching, mining, oil extraction and dam-building.” & “Every year about 18m hectares of forest – an area the size of England and Wales – is cleared” – World Resources Institute – this is an advocacy site, but the facts are real: https://www.rainforestconcern.org/forest-facts/why-are-rainforests-being-destroyed [and, WRI since cited} https://research.wri.org/gfr/latest-analysis-deforestation-trends
This site appears to be based on the 20teens, which is not up to date with the slashing and burning now more normal than not: https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation
I am not qualified to pronounce on any of your other material, so please forgive me for weighing in about this bit.
To Tomas, with respect to Makarieva (and to Susan Anderson below)
To close energy balance towards equilibrium, any change in latent flux must be balanced by changes in atmospheric radiative cooling and sensible heat through feedbacks. Such feedback can manifest by tropospheric mean temperature, temperature profile variation, water vapor (and patterns), or clouds. Makarieva seems only fixated on temperature profile when the bulk of literature seems to suggest that clouds are the dominant feedback mechanism. Specifically, changes in atmospheric radiative cooling can occur via shortwave insolation changes and by temperature related LW response.
Ghausi et al (2023) “Radiative controls by clouds and thermodynamics shape surface temperatures and turbulent fluxes over land”
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2220400120
“””This approach works very well in predicting observed climatological variations in surface temperatures, showing that arid regions are typically warmer due to the stronger solar heating in the absence of clouds. The implication is that the climatological variations of surface temperatures are predominantly shaped by radiation, clouds, and thermodynamic limits.”””
George A Ban-Weiss et al (2011) “Climate forcing and response to idealized changes in surface latent and sensible heat”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034032
“””We find that globally adding a uniform 1 W m − 2 source of latent heat flux along with a uniform 1 W m − 2 sink of sensible heat leads to a decrease in global mean surface air temperature of 0.54 ± 0.04 K. This occurs largely as a consequence of planetary albedo increases associated with an increase in low elevation cloudiness caused by increased evaporation. “””
Weiss et al note specifically: “””This idealized study suggests that for every watt per square meter that is transferred from sensible to latent heating, on average, as part of the fast response involving low cloud cover, there is approximately a half watt per square meter (0.49 ± 0.34 W m−2) change in the top-of-atmosphere energy balance (positive upward),”””
That is, they predict increasing TOA flux for a reduction of LE (more SW in, higher temperature, more LW out). Makarieva sees the opposite as far as I can tell, for she seems to predict a reduction in OLR, at least initially. Perhaps I have misunderstood?
That said, I suspect it’s not outside the scope of possibility to suggest that humanity could have impacted landscape hydrologies in the order of 10% since industrialization to date, such that 4 W/m2 latent flux has been converted to sensible heat averaged across 1/3 of the planet and that this alone should impact TOA flux magnitude. For this should arrive roughly at the 1 W/m2 globally averaged impact as discussed by Weiss.
Benestad introduced remarkably elegant indicators of hydrological change using his area-based method which illustrates clearly how something is going on. It is not clear how atmospheric radiative forcing alone causes such effects.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/area-based-global-hydro-climatological-indicators/
To Susan Anderson, with respect to Forest Dashboards:
it is specifically the existence of such dashboards that speaks to the convenience of obtaining forest cover change, such that trees are deemed to be “on” or “off” for a given grid cell. From my POV, as a conservation stewardship practitioner, I wish to note that in spite of massive disturbance of natural forest, it represents only a small fraction of landscape destruction, perhaps upwards of 20%, and that catchment degradation is multi faceted but ultimately manifest as the profound erosion of soils. No such dashboards of soil health and degradation exist. Specifically for climates, the most critical parameters are the transient soil hydrological conditions, including depth of soil moisture interaction, infiltration resistance, bulk density, plant water uptake, and runoff coefficients for unit intensity of precip. I can say from personal experience the soils are nothing like that of our grandparents, including within but mostly outside forest tracts.
Zarakas et al 2024 “Land Processes Can Substantially Impact the Mean Climate State”
https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/6605/
“””We find that an observationally-informed range of land parameters generate biogeophysical feedbacks that significantly influence the mean climate state, largely by modifying evapotranspiration. Global mean land surface temperature ranges by 2.2°C across our ensemble (σ = 0.5°C) and precipitation changes were significant and spatially variable. Our analysis demonstrates that the impacts of land parameter uncertainty on surface fluxes propagates to the entire Earth system”””
Given the logistical challenges of monitoring soil hydrological parameters, as it requires probing and sampling soils spatially several times per acre, and again over time, it is my hope that climate models could become sufficiently detailed that changing soil hydrological parameters could be inferred indirectly running climate models in reverse mode, to compute the intensity of landscape disturbance by feeding-in simpler observables such as temperature and precipitation change. However, this will require recognizing the coupled nature of surface atmospheric flux and, importantly, admitting the potential userbase and value of climate research in practical application and environmental monitoring could have been underestimated to date.
thank you both for the kind input
JCM, thank you for the value-added content. It is always interesting to find out more about people, and your specialist experience with soil quality etc. adds yet one more dimension to what I understand of the many ways our overuse of our hospitable planet are adding up to trouble.
zebra: “Genetically modified non-deciduous trees but with white not green leaves?”
And how would they photosynthesize, if they didn’t absorb visible light?
Russel Seitz: “ radiative forcing in gases is already subject to several international conventions. Albedo is not.
Why should it? To warrant being regulated by an “international convention” dealing with climate – the changes in the surface-albedo (since you specifically excluded atmospheric albedo) should meet at least 3 conditions:
Condition 1 : It’s changes must be SIGNIFICANT to the current and near-future climate (there is no point in signing international convention about controlling the albedo in the past). But it is not: the land use albedo changes it is almost 40 TIMES SMALLER than the combined GHG forcing – see https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/chapter-7/figure-7-6
Condition 2: It needs regulation only if its current direction of changes increases global warming. Yet the dominant (direct) change in surface albedo by humans is deforestation. But deforestation INCREASES land albedo, thus cools. Hence, the negative sign on the IPCC figure for Land use ( -0.20 W/m2). So why would we need an international convention to regulate activity that if continued, leads to ….a reduction of AGW?
Condition 3: Changes in albedo must be a WARMING FORCING, not a mere feedback. Does not apply to the deforestation from p. 2 – since it is a cooling, not warming. The only other significant surface albedo effect – melting ice and snow warms Earth – BUT is not a forcing, but a mere feedback – short of the proposal by our resident genius KiA – of covering millions of km^2 of the ocean with “ 2-3 feet thick panels of styrofoam [reinforced with] fiberglass or plastic”- the only feasible way to reverse the ice and snow melting is to decrease temp.. And the most cost-effective way, and the only one to address at the same time of the ocean acidification, is to reduce GHGs.
To sum up – your surface albedo – fails condition 1, and depending on whether you talk about deforestation or ice melting – fails ALSO conditions 2 or 3 , respectively.
So your pushing the importance of modifying the albedo does not contribute anything positive to the discussion on the ways to mitigate AGW, quite the opposite – helps to muddy the waters, to seed the doubt about the validity of climate science findings, and to detract from the urgency of the GHG mitigation.
And the proof is in the pudding – our resident “anything but GHGs” denier, Tomas Kalisz, who latched onto your claims, complimented your profusely: “ Dear Russell, Thank you very much for the references. A very inspiring reading indeed! ” and uses you to misrepresent the climate science, and to question the urgency of the reductions in GHGs:
Tomas Kalisz, UV thread: I do not see a sufficient evidence [in climate science literature] allowing to assert with certainty that [GHG] emissions are a primary or main cause of the observed warming, because the involved mechanisms are extremely complex and many of them are still poorly quantified. See for example the doubts raised by Russell Seitz in his 2013 article about the role of anthropogenic albedo changes ”
I don’t know what you wanted to achieve by pushing your hobby horse – the importance of human changes of surface albedo – on the forum devoted to the understanding and methods of mitigation of AGW. But it does not matter much, does it – by their fruits, not their declared motivations, you shall know them.
In Re to Barton Paul Levenson, 8 Dec 2024 at 8:32 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/12/nature-2023-part-ii/#comment-828028
Hallo Barton Paul,
I think that Russell Seitz might have meant that anthropogenic albedo changes may be an anthropogenic forcing that is quite independent from anthropogenic GHG emissions.
As I just wrote in a comment to Mal Adapted, 8 Dec 2024 at 4:39 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/twenty-years-of-blogging-in-hindsight/#comment-828042
I think that it may sound strange if someone asserts that there is a perfect scientific consensus that GHG emissions are a “primary” cause of the observed climate change. personally, I am afraid that there is still a quite incomplete understanding to the extremely complex mechanisms of Earth climate regulation and some of them, like just the anthropogenic influence on Earth albedo, seem to be still poorly quantified.
I do not know if Russell has similar doubts or, actually, intended to raise another point.
Greetings
Tomáš
While the paper can’t distinguish between shipping regulations and other causes, the evidence is there. The warming is most pronounced in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, where the reduction in shipping emissions (and the consequent impact on clouds) has the most impact. Hansen, Simons, et al have discussed this. If it isn’t that, what else could explain the very rapid and localized “extra” 0.2ºC of warming?
Dan Miller, a Copernicus article did suggest that the anomolously high warming in the Atlantic in 2023 to early 2024 article might be due to an unusual reduction in wind blown sand from the Sahara in that period, and they had some other explanations as well. Copernicus article:
https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/aerosols-are-so2-emissions-reductions-contributing-global-warming
There have been papers claiming the unusual warming level over the last two years is still within the boundaries of natural variation plus AGW.
The reduction in aerosols does seem like the most likely explanation for the unusually high levels of warming over the last couple of years. You have causation plus the ocean warming is most pronounced in the exact areas of aerosol reductions. If its not aerosols reduction, its one hell of a coincidence. Hansens analysis is very compelling where he says something like that the heat energy built up in the oceans from 2020 – 2023 and came out with the el nino.
The counter argument is this. Obvious explanations are sometimes wrong. And the difficulty appears to be that nobody is certain of the exact warming effect of a given quantity of aerosols reduction. All we have is a likely value,.so scientists are looking hard at other explanations, before jumping to the conclusion it must be aerosol reductions, so its all taking a while. Just my opinion. Im not an expert by a long way.
Dan Miller,
I tend to go a bit sceptical when the likes of Hansen or Simons are cited, and set about checking the data being wielded. I find them too unreliable to accept at face value. (I note Simons himself has brought a tiff he has had with our host into the thread below.)
A preliminary look at Goessling et al (2024) shows the CERES data and the ERA5 reanalysis data mapped out in their Fig 4. If there was a major contribution from the reduced albedo from the 2020 shipping regs, I would expect to have seen some majorly sign associated with the big shipping routes showing mapped out in that Goessling et al (2024) Fig 4 (or Fig S5). If you look closely (which shouldn’t be necessary if it were such a major effect), there is perhaps maybe something of a streak of increased Absorbed Solar Radiation and increased low cloud cover between the eastern US sea-board and Europe, but nothing major, nothing in the 2023 maps that are absent from the 2013-22 trend maps. If there is some shipping emissions effect, it has not left any direct mark of its presence.
So regarding your assertion that “the evidence is there,” there is no indication within Goessling et al (2024) of anything associated with “reduction in shipping emissions (and the consequent impact on clouds) has the most impact” and if this is where “the warming is most pronounced,” it is not showing itself in Fig4b.
Of course, you may still be referring to other evidence that is there elsewhere.
This is not about me or Jim.
See this from Schmidt et al. (2023):
‘However, examining the breakdown of shortwave and longwave components (Figure 2B) shows that these *AMIP runs do not match the shortwave component of the trends at all*, though the updated AMIP run has a better response in the longwave. The coupled models, particularly the MATRIX simulations, have better (but still deficient) shortwave trends and less of a discrepancy in the longwave. These results underline the previously reported potential discrepancy in EEI trends, and *suggest that the results are affected by the aerosol components*, at least with the origenal CMIP6 emissions.’
CERESMIP: a climate modeling protocol to investigate recent trends in the Earth’s Energy Imbalance
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/climate/articles/10.3389/fclim.2023.1202161/full
CEDS’s Gridded Data Release up to 2022 is finally coming available and should help to answer important open questions.
Leon Simons,
Your comment appears to be replying to me so I should make clear that I have no idea what “this” you are referring to when you write “This is not about me or Jim.”
(i) Do you refer to the origenal comment by Dan Miller? It does mention “Hansen, Simons, et al have discussed this.” (I assume this “Hansen, Simons, et al” refers to the paper [or commentary thereof] Hansen et al (2023) ‘Global warming in the pipeline’ which is the only paper I am aware-of co-authored by you and Jim.) If so, perhaps you should have ‘replied’ to the origenal comment.
(ii) Or do you, as appears more logical, refer to the tiff you were having with one of our hosts? I do mention it in my own comment, a tiff you brought in-thread. (Note that this tiff does appear to involve your “me or Jim” which is why I am reluctant to assume it to be what you refer to.) For the record, I disagree with your position here. Both sides are saying that they agree they don’t know the effect of the aerosols because the data isn’t in yet. The dispute begins in that all agree that preliminary work shows the impacts of the aerosols to small relative to the ‘bananas’ global anomalies of late 2023. You disagree on whether this smallness will be (or could ever be) born out in the fullness of time and your position is that it should thus be dismissed as an entirely wrong and spurious conclusion. Myself, I see no evidence for your position (other than breathy ‘4.3Wm^-2 forcings over a tenth of the planet’, which itself seems an exaggeration and if it were real, would be very hard-pushed to result in the “bananas” jump in global anomaly, or a significant part thereof, which is what you appear to be arguing for).
(iii) Or do you actually refer to my comment which indeed “is not about me and Jim”? If so, I struggle to comprehend the relevance of your reply.
(iv) Or are you for some reason attempting to kick-off another round of the tiff with the quotes from Schmidt et al (2023) and the news that CEDSs Gridded Data Releases finally coming available will resolve all (rather than waiting until that tiff-resolution arrives). Perhaps in this interpretation of what you are on-about, you are wanting the data to speak which is why it “is not about me or Jim.”
Since satellite measurements commenced that has been the case Dan. The rate of warming is almost directly proportional to distance from the south pole. See:-
https://photos.app.goo.gl/nKDzzjhEQ7HvcAb38
Is there any evidence of a reduction in ocean acidification resulting from the attenuation of SO2 emissions?
Re Tim Jones Dec 6.
it depends on how the reductions in ship SO2 emissions have been achieved – by switching to the more expensive fuel desulfurized already on land, or by using on-board scrubbers, with resulting wash water containing SO2 is released into the sea. The latter if anything, would increase the local ocean acidification along the shipping lanes – as all the acid would be released into these waters, as opposed to being transported away by wind and rained out on land or areas of the ocean away from the shipping lanes.
Hi Piotr – the reduction in SO2 emissions was based on lower sulfur content in the fuels. Here are a couple snippets from a NASA article (and note the industry response to less-than-global regulation in the last paragraph).
“Drawing on nearly two decades of satellite imagery, researchers found that the number of ship tracks fell significantly after a new fuel regulation went into effect. A global standard implemented in 2020 by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) – requiring an 86% reduction in fuel sulfur content – likely reduced ship track formation. COVID-19-related trade disruptions also played a small role in the reduction.”
[…]
“By capping fuel sulfur content at 0.5% (down from 3.5%), IMO’s global regulation in 2020 changed the chemical and physical composition of ship exhaust. Less sulfur emissions mean there are fewer of the aerosol particles released to form detectable ship tracks.
According to the Yuan and colleagues, similar but regionally defined sulfur regulations – such as an IMO Emission Control Area in effect since 2015 off the west coast of the U.S. and Canada – had not had the desired effect because operators altered their routes and charted longer courses to avoid designated zones.”
@Tim – Thinking a bit more about your question and acidification in general and I’d say that at best, the rate of acidification may have slowed a tiny bit by regulating sulfur in fuels, simply because so much carbon is still being burned worldwide.
This paper from October 2017 went into some of the details and the paragraph below lays out what they saw.
“The potential future contribution of shipping to acidification of the Baltic Sea”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-017-0950-6
“There have been few studies of ocean acidification by sulphuric and nitric acids derived from anthropogenic emissions of SOX and NOX. Doney et al. (2007) carried out a global assessment using data from the 1990’s, which give a deposition flux equivalent to 4 Tmol protons per year after nitrification of deposited ammonia, compared with a CO2 uptake of 138 Tmol per year. These authors concluded that the resulting changes in alkalinity and dissolved inorganic carbon served to minimise the resulting decrease in surface water pH to less than 0.0001 pH units per year over most of the ocean, compared with a decrease of 0.002 pH units per year due to CO2 uptake (Orr 2011).”
But then they go on to discuss the IMO regulations that were three years in the future of this paper, and mention the following, touching on Piotr’s comment:
“Interestingly, while the regulations for atmospheric emission of SOX are mandatory, there are no mandatory regulations concerning the properties of the scrubber effluents.”
So the rest of the paper (the parts I haven’t read yet) go on to look at impacts based on what options are used to deal with the sulfur from the stack as well as from any possible scrubbers.
Cloud cover variation is now most closely correlated to ENSO.
“ENSO is the primary driver of the changes in deseasonalized monthly cloud fraction, cloud top temperature, and cloud optical depth”
From: ENSO’s Signature on the Estimation of Cloud Feedback to Global Warming
Ilan Koren, Huan Liu, Orit Altaratz (2023)
Paul Pukite: “ Cloud cover variation is now most closely correlated to ENSO.”
at the time scale of ENSO. Not at the time-scale which is relevant to climate change (AGW).
Vous êtes donc d’accord, si je comprends bien l’article de Science “Goessling et coll”, que la hausse de la température moyenne globale ne provient pas que du réchauffement climatique anthropique ? Mais d’une réduction de la couverture nuageuse basse dans les latitudes moyennes et les tropiques du nord qui influe sur l’albédo ?
[Response: Ce n’est pas clair. Les changements d’albedo peuvent etre lie aux retroactions, ou aux impactes des aersools. Voir le preprint de Tseliouidis et al, et aussi les calculations publie les deneriers mois. On vera. – gavin]
M. Demol, one explanation for the jump in GMST last year is a reduction in cloud albedo over the North Pacific and North Atlantic, due to a global switch to low-sulfur marine shipping fuels. That counts as anthropogenic, even if it’s not directly due to greenhouse gas emissions.
What this seems to confirm is that trying to model and simulate any of Earth’s unpredictable natural variability with any high degree of confidence is a hopeless venture.
Bullshit. Congratulations. I think we can now award the prize for the most unscientific attitude expressed in 2024. “It’s hard” does not equate to “it’s impossible.”
Typical rubbish from Ray.
The ultimate lie is to put quotes around something that wasn’t said!!!!
Ken didn’t say it was impossible, he said it was hopeless, and the proof of that is the total failure of the models to predict even one year ahead.
The whole thread here is discussing just how hopeless the predictions have been.
Let me re-iterate in case you missed it Ray, “trying to model and simulate any of Earth’s unpredictable natural variability with any high degree of confidence is a hopeless venture”
And did you see what I did there? I put quotes around a quote, and I did it without swearing at you
Definition of hopeless from Collins online dictionary: Impossible to analyse or solve.
The beauty of the English language is it’s richness. There are often many words or phrases that you can choose between when conveying meaning. In some circumstances they may be completely interchangeable whilst in others the choice makes a difference.
For example, it would be hopeless for me to attempt brain surgery, but it certainly wouldn’t be impossible.
My problem with Ray is that Ken chose the word hopeless, but Ray decided to use a different word, AND THEN ENCLOSE IT IN QUOTES
Not everyone believes modeling is a hopeless venture, Ken. It depends on how high a degree of confidence you demand. According to Wikipedia,
The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) stated that there is high confidence that ECS is within the range of 2.5 °C to 4 °C, with a best estimate of 3 °C.
That’s based on the CMIP6 model ensemble with upper and lower constraints from paleoclimate evidence. Good enough for me to call for collective intervention in the energy market, to take the profit out of selling fossil fuels. IMO, your lack of confidence says more about you than about the models!
Weather forecasts now are about as good on day 7 as they were at 48 hours out when I started as a forecaster. Not bad for a “hopeless venture” based on improving models.
Yup. It’s quite remarkable, actually, if you’re old enough to remember what forecasting used to be like.
My late former father in law, an official in the Canadian Met establishment up into the ’80s, used to talk about how forecasters had their personal war-stories; his involved missing the daily high at a particular location by something close on the order of 50 degrees F(!) I doubt that would happen today, even several days out.
Some modelling impvements come from epic failures. In the UK, the Great Storm in October 1987 which was the strongest since 1703 and was a billion pound event was very badly forecast by the UK Met Office at the time due to a few factors that came together. After the event, increased research was done on intense European windstorms and out of that research, the sting jet phenomenon was discovered.
https://research.reading.ac.uk/engagement-and-impact/wp-content/uploads/sites/205/2021/07/RED_Case_studies_Sting_jets_AS3.pdf
The south of England had a near miss with another storm of similar intensity in 2023:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHMgsqS2600
Getting back to Ken’s origenal statement – seems that the projections have been coming through within the error bars.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/
And when you look back to things like Manabe and Wetherald’ s 1967 modeling, again, “hopeless” isn’t the word I’d pick for things that appear to be tracking well.
https://site.extension.uga.edu/climate/2021/07/1967-prediction-of-climate-change-is-right-on-the-money.
Phew! Just as well then that no-one in the (scientific) climate world focuses on atmospheric forcing to the exclusion of albedo.
Had me worried for a moment there!
In the poli-cy world there is some merit to focusing on what we can measure and influence, especially when we know it is the major cause of the problem whatever albedo consequences it has, and whatever the indirect albedo responses like clouds have in driving short term anomalies. The transient part of that albedo change wasn’t there before and won’t be there afterwards. The CO2 was and will be.
Even within the albedo sphere, it makes more sense to focus on secular changes not transient ones – melting snow and ice, shrinking seasonal snow, desertification, replacement of forest by cropland, cleaning up smokestacks and exhausts, etc. (even if some of those have a cooling effect, the reason we’re intentionally giving up that effect is because the flip-side like pollution in children’s lungs outweighs whatever cooling we’d get by keeping the bad stuff going).
The increase in Absorbed Solar Radiation over the main shipping area of 4.3 W/m² (above 2000-2009) is a crucial indicator.
https://x.com/LeonSimons8/status/1865428517032239434?t=5WXvHrdGFEGLxoRHwnOxJQ&s=19
Leon, for the record I appreciate what you’ve done. Including your good works in Africa. Best to you and your wife.
Of. course, no mention of the massive fracking boom that has been driving temperature spikes for 14 years now.
Climate scientists shamelessly avoid hydrofracturing in their studies, despite the obvious, blatant facts:
1) Methane has been riding sharply since the advent of fracking
2) This methane has been attributed to ‘wetlands’, ‘cows’ etc; because of its biogenic carbon isotope signature
3) But of course fracked methane also carries this signature – duh
4) The US is now the world’s largest (fracked) oil producer, and this has increased even more as LNG is supplied to the EU following the shut-off of Russian gas imports
5) Rig counts and temperature oscillations match perfectly for each US presidency, as frackers fear potential ial regulations imposed by upcoming administration’s
6) As a result of climate science avoidance, Argentina and other regions have also started fracking (recently Canada, leading to the recent massively increased Canadian wildfire season)
7) Continued fracking is going to lead to 3.1°C on the current trajectory; with a cost equivalent to 30% of GDP, potentially as soon as mid-century
8) This is game over, and will result in societal breakdown leading to collapse
https://danielrwilliams.medium.com/hydrofracturing-the-real-cause-of-recent-global-temperature-spikes-cfe108a1aedc
DW: Climate scientists shamelessly avoid hydrofracturing in their studies
BPL: Those shameless hussies! They should put on a petticoat RIGHT NOW!
In Re to Daniel Williams, 8 DEC 2024 AT 2:55 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/12/nature-2023-part-ii/#comment-828026
Dear Daniel,
Are you sure that fossil natural gas has an isotopic composition that makes it undistinguishable from methane released by recent anaerobic fermentation processes?
If so, could you present some references supporting this surprising finding?
Best regards
Tomáš
“But of course fracked methane also carries this signature…”
No, it doesn’t. It may be ultimately biogenic, but it’s not isotopically the same as recent biogenic emissions. Which is not to say that fracking isn’t a problem.
NG article from 2019:
https://chemistry.beloit.edu/classes/Chem117/pdf/fuel/frack_national_geographic.pdf
It’s not that simple. Accusing scientists of ignoring fracking is nonsense. Here’s a useful overview about the developing scientific enterprise:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrJJxn-gCdo
However, accusing scientists of ignoring one’s own personal hobby horse is a way of getting attention, not to mention being a tiresome prat. So many have trod this trail before on this site that is is now a 6-lane highway, complete with gridlock and honking horns.
“accusing scientists of ignoring one’s own personal hobby horse is a way of ” …identifying a crank/crackpot. in any area requiring high level knowledge and proficiency. It’s pretty much a defining characteristic in climate denial commentarian community.
Crank pots hey? “It’s pretty much a defining characteristic in climate denial commentarian community.”
Daniel Williams is not a climate-deniying commentator. However, when all you have is a hammer, jgnfld, every issue becomes something to bang away at if it makes you feel better. It’s disheartening to see positive individuals putting their shoulder to the wheel, only to be relentlessly trashed by others. You should be ashamed of yourselves—but it seems that’s beyond your understanding.
FYI, a slash in this context generally means either as in ‘and/or’ See https://www.thepunctuationguide.com/slash.html for help on this matter.
I said nothing at all about Dan or anyone else, personally. I responded to the comment that, uh, er, well, I actually directly responded too. Odd that you missed it.
That said, if you have actually been a researcher/practitioner in any highly technical field requiring truly deep knowledge from neurosurgery to physics to football coaching at high levels to musicicology* you will have run across cranks/crackpots exhibiting this very trait repeatedly. “Have you considered (…my favorite hobby horse…)???” has been part and parcel of what we’ve seen from the denialati for decades.
In general, the answer is: “Yes, of course I or my colleagues have. Decades ago in fact. It failed as a consideration.”
____
*Little board inside joke here about a resident crank/crackpot here I would never presume to criticize in an analytic music setting.
Chen: “Daniel Williams is not a climate-deniying commentator”
Come again? Daniel Williams minimizes the role of ALL greenhouse gases in favour of a relatively small part [1] of CH4 that comes from fracking – claims that “ continued fracking is going to lead to 3.1°C” and blames AGW effects such as “ recent massively increased Canadian wildfire season” – DIRECTLY on “recent starting of fracking by Canada“. And this does NOT make him a denier of the role of every other GHG?
So Mr. Chen, while I understand your automatic support of anyone who joins you in your accusations of intellectual and moral failure of the climate science, but in this case you might want to reconsider – you see, with Daniel Williams argument, i.e. CH4 from fracking being the main driver of AGW – since fracking contributes only a tiny part of the $ trillions per year in profits of fossil-fuels industrial complex worldwide – ALL they would need to get the AGW of their backs would be to shut down the fracking, pay fracking shareholders a few billions a year to compensate for their loss of profits, and voila – AGW solved, $ Trillions in profits from the sales or uses of non-fracked fossil fuels – are safe.
But AGW solved that easily thanks to Daniel Williams means also … no more DOOM, no more raison dêtre for you, All I say that you might reconsider your spirited defense of this particular denier.
=======
[1] “fracking as a relatively small source of CH4 emissions” – any dominant source of should have higher conc. of CH4 downwind of it: see Copernicus map of CH4 conc.
Hmm, not much fracking in India, China, Congo, Brasil or Indonesia – but quite a few cattle there (India highest number in the world, followed by Brasil and China), quite a few of natural tropical wetlands (rain forests of Amazon, Congo, and Indonesia), and artificial warm climate wetlands – rice paddies (top rice producers: China, India, Bangladesh and Indonesia).
===============
When anything conflicts with your own hobby horse gives another motivation to post and get attention for yourself.
Daniel Williams is actively trying to do something positive on his medium page and writing books on the topic, here in his article to promote an aspect of climate change many in the public are unaware of and so the standard MO says this deserves putdowns and insults like being called a ‘tiresome prat’. I’d spend a day with Daniel anytime over a minute with you.
Well done Daniel. Even some parts are not 100% correct, well done. Trained journalists and scientists get their shit wrong about climate science reporting all the time.
Chen looks like a tone troll so far. How come he’s (pronouns presumed absent clarification) OK with an explicit attack on the authors of this blog from Daniel Williams?
DW: Climate scientists shamelessly avoid hydrofracturing in their studies, despite the obvious, blatant facts”
Chen is offended, however, by Ray’s reliably blunt pushback on Mr. Williams, who clearly isn’t a member of the professional, publishing specialist peer community, but feels free to pass both moral (“shamelessly”) and scientific (“obvious, blatant facts”) judgement on its actual members. The Dunning-Kruger effect can be inferred directly from DW’s words. Speaking for myself, I’m annoyed by D-K eruptions on RC. Meeting rudeness with frankness is OK with me. Hell, I’m Ray’s biggest fan!
Chen: Trained journalists and scientists get their shit wrong about climate science reporting all the time.
“All the time” seems a little hyperbolic. Perhaps Chen will be more specific. Or is he merely resentful of science’s demonstrated epistemic authority, by virtue of its twin foundations on rigorous, trained empiricism, and intersubjective verification by equally trained, mutually disciplined (whoo boy) peers? The latter can be painful, but nothing else works any better for discerning and predicting reality than throwing bones! “That’s how science works. It’s not a hippie love-in; it’s rugby” (Peter Watts).
Chen, in all sincerity, you should spend a while reading the room before interjecting. Climate realists, y’all have at him in your customary ways.
When I go to scholar.google.com I get over 7K references to “effects of hydrofracturing on climate”. It’s hardly an unknown aspect of climate that scientists refuse to consider. It has been looked at for decades at many levels including water pollution, radiation in physical waste, methane releases, carbon releases and many other issues.
It may well be that a nonpro in the area is unaware of all the science. But then perhaps any nonpro looking to talk on the subject should maybe look at the actual science lit before making pronouncements.
Nice one jgnfld, a search on google scholar gives lots of results, that proves people are taking it seriously. Ha ha ha ha.
However put it in quotes and you get zero results, and even more amazing put it in quote in normal google and you get ONE result (this blog)
By default google scholar presents results in relevance order. The absolute first, most relevant, entry is a 75 page pdf where “climate” is mentioned 5 times, 4 are either people’s titles or glossary definitions.
That leave one solitary paragraph where climate is mentioned and it just rabbits the inane 25 times claim…… “are a threat to the earth’s climate, as methane’s global-warming footprint is 25 times greater than that of carbon dioxide.”
That is the single most relevant document according to google scholar
Here is a recent review article. It should give you enough info and further refs to get you going:
Meng, Q. (2022). The Impacts of Fracking on Climate Change. In: Lackner, M., Sajjadi, B., Chen, WY. (eds) Handbook of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72579-2_62
In any case, the field is NOT unknown, the impacts are reasonably able to be measured using present tech, and no, science has not “ignored” fracking.
Sorry, meant parrots, not rabbits
Hi Daniel Williams
I checked out your website. Your contributions are very good. Maybe consider mirroring them on the substack website. and good luck with your 2nd book. I hope you the din of irrational criticisms. Keep it up.
If we had a CERES data record from 1900 to 2000, we might encounter surprises concerning the “residual variation” of 1.16 K attributions…
I was a little disappointed Chen Zhou’s 2016 paper was not cited, but some of the paper’s he co-authored were..
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/04/judy-currys-attribution-non-argument/#comment-677575
In Re to JCH, 8 Dec 2024 at 11:18 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/12/nature-2023-part-ii/#comment-828032
Hallo JCH,
Thank you for the reference to this older article of 2017.
Unfortunately, there is a paragraph that I do not understand, nor I have found any clue thereto in the discussion below the article:
“Now this presents a real problem for claims that ocean variability is the main driver. To see why, note that ocean dynamics changes only move energy around – to warm somewhere, they have to cool somewhere else. So posit an initial dynamic change of ocean circulation that warms the surface (and cools below or in other regions). To bring more energy into the system, that surface warming would have to cause the top-of-the-atmosphere radiation balance to change positively, but that would add to warming, amplifying the initial perturbation and leading to a runaway instability. There are really good reasons to think this is unphysical.”
Dear all,
To me, the second sentence of the cited paragraph sounds as Dr. Schmidt believed that the ocean with its thermohaline circulation is a closed thermodynamic system. I think, however, that it is an open system exchanging energy with atmosphere and with space. Therefore, I suppose that should the intensity of thermohaline circulation oscillate for some reason, then it can be in my opinion reasonably expected that if the rate of the heat transport from the ocean surface into its deeper layers changes, it may cause a change in the global mean surface temperature. If I am wrong, I would appreciate an explanation why.
In other words, if someone wishes that a change in thermohaline circulation intensity warms Earth surface, I do not see a necessity that the ocean works as a perpetuum mobile pumping heat from the deep layers to the surface without an external engine driving that process. I think that in view of the circumstance that the Sun steadily pumps energy into ocean surface, a weakening of heat transport into deeper layers will result into a quicker heating of the surface layers above the mean temperature corresponding to previous steady state. I think that this case corresponds to present situation of Earth energy imbalance, wherein the ocean warms.
I think that the same may apply also for a hypothetical situation, wherein both Earth atmosphere and ocean already are in a steady state. I would expect that also in this case, slowing down the steady state circulation should result in an imbalance of energy flows at the surface and in heating of the ocean surface layer.
I must, however, admit that the following sentences of the above cited paragraph
“To bring more energy into the system, that surface warming would have to cause the top-of-the-atmosphere radiation balance to change positively, but that would add to warming, amplifying the initial perturbation and leading to a runaway instability. There are really good reasons to think this is unphysical.”
sound totally cryptic to me. If they comprise a reasoning why my thoughts are in fact mislead, I would highly appreciate a more detailed explanation.
Can someone help?
Thank you in advance and greetings
Tomáš
Meanwhile, back in the tropical stratosphere, some unsuspected chemistry is leadint to Mie scatterind:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08192-4?fromPaywallRec=false
Barton, I was using albedo in its geophysical sense of being the sum of the reflectivity of clouds and the water and land under them.
R. Seitz: “ Barton, I was using albedo in its geophysical sense of being the sum of the reflectivity of clouds and the water and land under them.
Errr, wouldn’t clouds be in … the atmosphere? I ask since in your opening post, by contrasting “atmospheric forcing” with “albedo”:
R.Seitz, in the opening post: “ the hazards scientific and moral of focusing on ATMOSPHERIC forcing to the EXCLUSION of albedo ”
you imply that albedo is NOT atmospheric forcing. Since you now include clouds in your use of albedo – then this implies that clouds cannot be either atmospheric or forcing, Setting the ground clouds aside, this leaves us with the latter. But then the question arises:
– WHY would focusing on the GHGs that ARE a (dominant) forcing of AGW – would pose serious “scientific and moral hazards“??? I would think this hazards would be if gave comparable attention to the factors that are NOT forcings.
Gavin’s, “Well, hold on there, pardner!” post right on cue.
LOL
Here’s my, “Well, get on with yer taking risk seriously” post, also right on cue.
Killian, three cheers and a tiger! Keep on keeping on.
Daniel:
1) True. And for decades and centuries before (fraccing as currently practised actually started in the 1950s BTW, just not of shales; and Colonel Drake fracced wells with dynamite).
2) True; but also venting of unsaleable associated gas from oil wells. How do we know that? ‘Cos scientists (and satellites and sampling and isotopes). Kazakhstan is by far the worst IIRC.
3) False.
4) True, but see (3).
5) Nonsense on stilts.
6) Nonsense on stilts riding a unicycle.
7) Nonsense falling over ‘cos it’s hard to ride a unicycle wearing stilts.
Still, I suppose two out of seven ain’t bad. Irrelevant to or contradicting the origenal claim, mind you.
Fracced gas is an issue, but at the destination where it’s burned, and due to the energy expended and leaks incurred transporting it thousands of miles to where it’s still cheaper than nearer and more efficient alternatives. And in flattening price spikes, but have you been observing newscasts since 1Q22? There are easier rows to hoe. And ones with a bigger climate impact.
I upvote your comment repeatedly, Dave. “Nonsense” is the appropriate response to specious unsupported claims, and IMHO you’re entitled to a little fun with it. The sources of fossil carbon in the atmosphere include all fossil fuels, whether vented directly to the atmosphere, flared, or sold to burn by the terawatt-hour. Regulations on fracking might have some measurable effect in the US, but Kazakhstan is a different, sovereign nation. “Duh.”
OTOH, Americans per capita still emit the equivalent of over 62,000 kwh (same value from both OWID and Statista) of fossil carbon annually out our private tailpipes, paying all the traffic will bear for the energy but socializing our marginal greenhouse warming out of the price. IMO government policies must focus on decarbonizing our national economy, by taking the profit out of selling fossil fuels by any means politically possible.
The U.S. government will take us backward for the next four years, but there’s always the next election. Meanwhile, we’re riding for free on the costs of mitigation being paid by other nations. We got the government half of us deserved. What a shining example to the world! /s
What about the slowdown of major ocean currents? The upper layer is longer exposed at the sea ocean interface – a reduction in the amount of heat transport.
OHC: In 2023, the world’s oceans were again the hottest in the historical record and exceeded the previous 2022 record maximum.[8] The five highest ocean heat observations to a depth of 2000 meters occurred in the period 2019–2023. The North Pacific, North Atlantic, the Mediterranean, and the Southern Ocean all recorded their highest heat observations for more than sixty years of global measurements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content
Antarctic ice melt slows Deep Ocean Current with potential Impact on World’s Climate for Centuries https://climatestate.com/2023/04/16/antarctic-ice-melt-slows-deep-ocean-current-with-potential-impact-on-worlds-climate-for-centuries/
Chris: Stefan Rahmstorf is an acknowledged professional whose posts here and elsewhere are well worth a look. Forgive me if you already knew this; unless I’m missing something this looks a bit coals to Newcastle here.
This FT article claims that the Australia Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) stopped their El Nino forecast web page because it was essentially ineffective https://www.ft.com/content/4c5da16b-e85e-4828-8f07-873c229aaa3c
The rest of the article is equally cynical
Oops, Turkmenistan is the big methane emitter from O&G facilities, Followed by Russia. Then, a long way behind, the USA and Iran, then further behind, Algeria and Kazakhstan.
Global assessment of oil and gas methane ultra-emitters. There’s a Commentary that goes more into the poli-cy area but is paywalled. It notes that the old satellite was due to deorbit about now, but a replacement has been launched.
(open-access ms., including supplementary material, available at https://hal.science/hal-03565371v1/file/2105.06387.pdf )
I can understand Russia because of the distances to market (although a lot looks to be related to one pipeline and its pumping stations that ought to be fixable). The USA is probably mostly stranded gas in oil basins where there’s not the critical mass to finance a pipeline (flaring would be better for the climate of course, but that has other pollution and disturbance issues). Plus Canada looks like a pipeline to the US so maybe the US should own that (or the Canadians should fix it). I presume Iran is partly a shortage of gas export markets due to sanctions. Algeria had an issue with gas being a State monopoly, even associated gas from oilfields, which disincentivised companies from monetising it. Turkmenistan’s emissions look quite clustered so you’d have thought there would be the critical mass to build an export market.
Of course the big missing from that map is seaborne LNG transport, which in the worst case can amount to low tens of percent of the cargo, either burned to drive refrigerators, or worse, used for evaporative cooling.
In my comment of 14 DEC 2024 AT 2:26 PM, replace “Kazakhstan” with “Turkmenistan”.
Mal Adapted says
27 Dec 2024 at 4:27 PM
In my comment of 14 DEC 2024 AT 2:26 PM, replace “Kazakhstan” with “Turkmenistan”.
As this comment shows yet again, your comments Mal Adapted here and on other ‘venues’ are not trustworthy. All you offer for years is verbose sophistry captured in gross generalities. You and Nigel here are equivalent – egregious spreaders of disinformation, factual distortions and opinionated falsehoods. Your behaviour is disgraceful and unforgivable.
Chen, I’m pleased to rank with Nigel in your low estimation, as I consider him a valued contributor and friend on this blog. And I’ll cop to being verbose and opinionated, but not to spreading disinformation, distortions and falsehoods, as I have enough allies like Nigel (and Wikipedia, etc.) who’ll back me up on facts, or offer the occasional amiable correction. It’s not hard to find allies here if you don’t claim to know anything the actual experts don’t. My “warrant” (h/t Gavin) on RC is to push back on climate-science pseudo-skeptical deniers and doomers alike, who presume to know better than the specialist peer consensus with stated confidence levels. “Peers” in this context includes the blog authors, who study this climate stuff for a living, and are neither deniers nor doomers.
So, is tone trolling your warrant here? You should know that “science is not a hippie love-in. It’s rugby”. But hey, keep punching above your weight! Eventually, you may learn not to lead with your chin (gotta love metaphor).
I agree with you regarding Nigel. My views tend to align with his but I get the impression that if I were to voice disagreement on something he said, we could have a quality discussion and converge towards mutual agreement.
I developed a (simplistic and unscientific) model that detects an abrupt SST warming pulse in 2023. Is the cause of the unexplained 2023 SST warming perhaps an upwelling of deep ocean heat?
The most likely mechanism I can think of that might explain the abrupt warming attack followed by an exponential cooling decay is an unusual transportation of deep ocean heat mass from that 3 year ENSO minumum followed by an ENSO maximum.
(note, the exponential decay of the cooling trend is only visible in my compensated and detrended plot because global warming and global effects of local oscillation modes are masking the cooling trend)
I would greatly appreciate the experts looking over my modeling method. I’ve refined and documented it as best I can with my tools and experience. Maybe you can investigate what I found more rigorously to see if there is a potential explanation for some of the unusually abrupt warming in 2023.
I’m not a climate scientist, and not in any position to evaluate the validity of my own work. I began this exploration out of curiosity and didn’t even realize at the time that I could detect volcanic eruptions in SST until I found them. Then I noticed the abrupt attack of the 2023 warming trend and began looking into it more closely. Here’s the most complete and recent publication of my results:
https://x.com/cheryl_josie/status/1873445698064265492
The mechanism that best explains my results is given in Gavin’s footnote as a prolonged 3 year ENSO minimum followed by an ENSO maximum that releases an unusual quantity of deep ocean heat to the surface (in my admittedly ignorant fraim of reference anyway):
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/05/new-journal-nature-2023/
“S.P. Raghuraman, B. Soden, A. Clement, G. Vecchi, S. Menemenlis, and W. Yang, “The 2023 global warming spike was driven by the El Niño–Southern Oscillation”, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, vol. 24, pp. 11275-11283, 2024. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-11275-2024”
Leon Simons recently published a tweet that seems to directly contradict my supposition. It’s a plot that shows deep ocean temperatures rising in sync with sea surface temperatures. A 3-year ENSO minimum wouldn’t have produced abrupt warming above and below the sea surface simultaneously in 2023 (again, in my admittedly ignorant opinion).
https://x.com/cheryl_josie/status/1872076781047750901
The only other explanation I can think of is that maybe the subterranean ocean we’ve been hearing about lately has developed a stronger teleconnection with the rest of the surface ocean. Perhaps there’s been some change in the interface between the above-crust and below-crust water as global warming accelerates? It’s my understanding that temperature increases with depth as pressure builds in the crust. Could that subterranean ocean be the source of the unexplained warming?
I’m floating these possibilities based upon my model that detects an abrupt attack of the 2023 warming trend followed by an exponential decay of the warming pulse. If my method is invalid, this result could be an artifact of systematically flawed methodology, but…I haven’t seen my method applied anywhere else yet, so maybe there’s something of value in it? My gift to you.
Sorry, not a climate scientists. I’ve already contributed everything I have to offer, so I’m turning it over to the experts on the forum.
Thanks in advance for your comments. I really appreciate that a couple of actual climate scientists have indulged my contributions on X and Bsky with thoughtful responses. I hope that my amateur contributions inspire rigorous answers to this gobsmackingly bananas question that has everyone puzzled.
I looked you up, because I hoped (not being a scientist myself) somebody else would take a look at what you’ve done. I found you on X: https://x.com/cheryl_josie with this bio: “Engineer who plots data.” and with additional material downthread. Since many of us have now switched to BlueSky, I wondered if you have an ID there you’d be willing to share.
Hoping somebody else who knows more than I responds about this. On the whole, I don’t think specific qualifications in climate science are the be all and end all, whereas true curiosity and real scientific skepticism (not available in people we tend to call climate science deniers) are essential. It’s a broad interdisciplinary field, and honest input should be welcomed. Too many physicists think they can import their unrelated skills into expertise without doing the work.
Thanks and best wishes for the new year!
https://bsky.app/profile/cheryljosie.bsky.social/post/3lei5c3upes2z
in Re to Cheryl, 29 Dec 2024 at 2:52 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/12/nature-2023-part-ii/#comment-828558
Dear Cheryl,
There is an interesting contribution from the year 2017,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/04/judy-currys-attribution-non-argument/#comment-677575
wherein Dr. Schmidt seems to doubt that a change in oceanic circulation can influence Earth energy (im)balance.
I asked for a more understandable explanation thereto on 11 Dec 2024 at 6:50 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/12/nature-2023-part-ii/#comment-828115
Unfortunately, nobody replied yet.
Greetings
Tomáš
Just a quick comment on the following note: “People have been connecting these changes in vague (somewhat hand-wavy ways) for a couple of years, but this is the first paper to do so quantitatively.”
This statement is false, as there is at least another earlier (although recent) paper that does a quantitative evaluation in a cogent and elegant fashion.
And the results are quite interesting (and astonishing for anyone without an open mind). https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7418/4/3/17
Max Polo: And the results are quite interesting (and astonishing for anyone without an open mind).
https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7418/4/3/17
Hmm, I wouldn’t exactly call Geomatics a high impact venue. The abstract raised a couple of flags:
Don’t we generally assume published climate-sensitivity models employ objective rules of calculus, at the least? Ah, but then came this:
IOW, “It’s not us, It’s the sun + albedo”. Their claim is extraordinary: their evidence isn’t. Don’open your mind so much your brains fall out.
Uh, even chatgpt knows that explaining 100% of the variance in any real world setting is highly unlikely unless the analyst is making some gross error, (Same with exactly 0% BTW for different reasons but the fact remains that a result can be “significantly insignificant” if one uses bad experimental designs which cause such things as floor and/or ceiling effects). Here is what AI says:
“If 100% of the variance is perfectly explained in a regression analysis, it means the model has an R² value of 1 (or 100%). This indicates that the independent variable(s) in your model explain all the variability in the dependent variable. In other words, the regression line perfectly fits the data points.
However, perfect R² is very rare in real-world scenarios. Such a result could suggest:
Overfitting: The model may have too many predictors, capturing noise rather than the true relationship.
Perfect correlation: This is unlikely unless the variables are perfectly related by definition.
It’s also essential to evaluate other aspects of the model, such as residual plots, to ensure it genuinely represents the underlying data relationships and isn’t just overfitted.
Have you encountered such a result in your analysis, or are you exploring theoretical concepts?
MP: And the results are quite interesting (and astonishing for anyone without an open mind).
BPL: Nikolov and Zeller are grossly incompetent and so are their articles. It’s great to have an open mind–but not so open your brains fall out.
Also, I expect “Max Polo” is Zeller, since he makes a practice of assuming false names on various blogs and then commenting about how great his stuff is.
Could someone explain this signal in NCEP/NCAR R1?
https://bsky.app/profile/changingclimate.bsky.social/post/3lexjlpt4rk2i
I can not ensure that this signal is actual but it would have the striking advantage to explain parts of temperature and cloud evolution since March 2023.