Uncharted Territory, rapid warming greatly exceeds models' forecasts

[rambot]

It could be that the Earth has been warming for the last 10,000 years and continues on the same course.

But not really.
The previous "trend" was closer to 10,000/Degree, kinda speed. REAAAAALLY slow.

Now we're doing a degree per 150 years or so. That is not the "same course".

 

[rambot]

Is it fair to say this is due to sloppy scientific work?

Is it fair to say this is due to science being myopic?

Is it fair to say you are just a bot?

 

[Halbhh]

Is it fair to say this is due to sloppy scientific work?

Is it fair to say this is due to science being myopic?

Well, from reading dozens of articles/reports over decades, we know that climate is very complex, and therefore models cannot be perfect....

So, it's not "sloppy" when a model doesn't predict a big change, but instead is the natural limitation on trying to model something so complex -- we can't always get it right perfectly every time (to within a close outcome near what we predict) -- but only often, at best.

Myopic though -- what would be the most myopic of all would be ignoring or discounting the powerful effects of man made CO2 emissions -- which are such a large and powerful primary factor.

Someone trying to suggest their climate model is better without CO2 as one of the predominate primary factors would be 'myopic'....

A good process is to make models with all the most powerful factors -- gradually improving the models over time. It's like designing a car engine -- gradually an engine can be made more and more reliable over decades of design and real life testing.

A model is like that: it's imperfect but can be improved over time with refinements.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

Land and sea temperatures have warmed much more than models forecast in the last year, and as of these articles various new factors being considered appear not enough to account for that spike. Relatively speaking it's quite large.

---------------
Nature
9 March 2024

Climate models can’t explain 2023’s huge heat anomaly — we could be in uncharted territory​

Taking into account all known factors, the planet warmed 0.2 °C more last year than climate scientists expected. More and better data are urgently needed.

For the past nine months, mean land and sea surface temperatures have overshot previous records each month by up to 0.2 °C — a huge margin at the planetary scale. A general warming trend is expected because of rising greenhouse-gas emissions, but this sudden heat spike greatly exceeds predictions made by statistical climate models that rely on past observations. Many reasons for this discrepancy have been proposed but, as yet, no combination of them has been able to reconcile our theories with what has happened.
...
So, what might have caused this heat spike? Atmospheric greenhouse-gas levels have continued to rise, but the extra load since 2022 can account for further warming of only about 0.02 °C. Other theories put forward by climate scientists include fallout from the January 2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai volcanic eruption in Tonga, which had both cooling effects from aerosols and warming ones from stratospheric water vapour, and the ramping up of solar activity in the run-up to a predicted solar maximum. But these factors explain, at most, a few hundredths of a degree in warming (Schoeberl, M. R. et al. Geophys. Res. Lett. 50, e2023GL104634; 2023). Even after taking all plausible explanations into account, the divergence between expected and observed annual mean temperatures in 2023 remains about 0.2 °C — roughly the gap between the previous and current annual record.

There is one more factor that could be playing a part. In 2020, new regulations required the shipping industry to use cleaner fuels that reduce sulfur emissions. Sulfur compounds in the atmosphere are reflective and influence several properties of clouds, thereby having an overall cooling effect. Preliminary estimates of the impact of these rules show a negligible effect on global mean temperatures — a change of only a few hundredths of a degree. ...

Climate models can’t explain 2023’s huge heat anomaly — we could be in uncharted territory

Taking into account all known factors, the planet warmed 0.2 °C more last year than climate scientists expected. More and better data are urgently needed.

www.nature.com

-----------

Also, related is more information about another factor that could turn the wrong way, increasing warming. Normally the Earth absorbs about 1/2 of emitted CO2 each year, but that might change in a bad way:


"That one-half figure is an approximation. It varies from year to year depending on weather conditions and other environmental factors, resulting in the jagged lines you see in the chart above. For example, in a warm and dry year with many wildfires, the land may absorb less carbon dioxide than usual.

As the Earth warms further, climate scientists expect the land and the ocean to absorb a smaller share of carbon dioxide emissions, causing a larger share to end up in the air, said Doug McNeall, who studies these effects at Britain’s Met Office.

Xin Lan, the lead scientist responsible for NOAA’s global carbon dioxide measurements, referred to the natural absorption as a “carbon discount.”

“We pay attention to it because we don't know at which point that this discount is gone,” she said.

In addition to carbon dioxide, the levels of other potent greenhouse gases like methane and nitrous oxide are also on the rise, which further contribute to warming."

Carbon Dioxide Levels Have Passed a New Milestone

There’s 50 percent more carbon dioxide in the air than before the Industrial Revolution.

www.nytimes.com

I never understood how carbon dioxide representing a mere 0.04% of total atmospheric gases and having the lowest warming potential index of 1 could be responsible for warming. To me CO2 cannot be the main cause of warming at best a minor contributor.

I read recently that the measurement used in showing warming are situated on top ( flat tar roofs) of building within cities, the bulk of the measurements are are from these temperature recording devices... go figure why....

I noticed also that the trillions of dollars generated from carbon taxes go somewhere but where and in what proportions?...who pockets this money?

most of the carbon emissions are from China, Pakistan, India, yet they continue and no one intervenes.

CO2 has become a cult and is not based on science, now people think CO2 is toxic. Yet the minimum concentration of atmospheric CO2 for vegetation to grow is only half of the current value or about 200 PPM, we are close to that minimum.

since CO2 has increased in the atmosphere also vegetation coverage has increased in proportion, if you visit the greenhouse of some botanical gardens, they inject extra CO2 for a total of 1200 ppm or 3 x the current atmospheric values to promote vegetation growth.... no need to explain that without vegetation we would all die quickly.

All these facts I have researched and verified many years ago, I encourage people to do the same.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I never understood how carbon dioxide representing a mere 0.04% of total atmospheric gases and having the lowest warming potential index of 1 could be responsible for warming. To me CO2 cannot be the main cause of warming at best a minor contributor.

The physics of the surface warming caused by CO2 is fairly simple and well established. 400 ppm CO2 is quite sufficient.

I read recently that the measurement used in showing warming are situated on top ( flat tar roofs) of building within cities, the bulk of the measurements are are from these temperature recording devices... go figure why....

Urban heat islands are a thing, but the overall surface temperature increase is not limited to urban places with dark roofs.

I noticed also that the trillions of dollars generated from carbon taxes go somewhere but where and in what proportions?...who pockets this money?

What carbon taxes? Who has a carbon tax? The US doesn't have one.

most of the carbon emissions are from China, Pakistan, India, yet they continue and no one intervenes.

This is not true.

CO2 has become a cult and is not based on science, now people think CO2 is toxic. Yet the minimum concentration of atmospheric CO2 for vegetation to grow is only half of the current value or about 200 PPM, we are close to that minimum.

If you don't think CO2 is toxic (a separate question from the greenhouse gas property) then inhale high concentrations of it. Or rather don't. It will first knock you out and then you will suffocate. The atmospheric levels aren't anywhere near that point.

since CO2 has increased in the atmosphere also vegetation coverage has increased in proportion, if you visit the greenhouse of some botanical gardens, they inject extra CO2 for a total of 1200 ppm or 3 x the current atmospheric values to promote vegetation growth.... no need to explain that without vegetation we would all die quickly.

We don't have a deficit of CO2 problem for plant growth. Crops grew fine before the current increase in CO2.

All these facts I have researched and verified many years ago, I encourage people to do the same.

Your research has failed and found incorrect information. Most of these "facts" have been wrong for decades.

 

[Halbhh]

I never understood how carbon dioxide representing a mere 0.04% of total atmospheric gases and having the lowest warming potential index of 1 could be responsible for warming. To me CO2 cannot be the main cause of warming at best a minor contributor.

For determining how much a particular greenhouse gas contributes to heat retention, that's only about working out all the math of the physics side of it -- where of course you must use the relative abundance of various greenhouse gasses, such as the far more powerful greenhouse gas Methane -- and then including equations representing that factor into the model. Even if you do that well, of course that doesn't guarantee the model has every major factor -- it might not yet. Correct greenhouse gas factors are only one part of a good model.

And researchers continue working over time to better understand also and incorporate other factors, over time, gradually improving models.

And could still miss a major factor.

Also, you appear you might be wondering (as it seemed to my in my impression from the rest of your post) that researchers aren't aware (or taking into account?) how more CO2 would then be used by plants?

No, the opposite -- we know that CO2 is used/taken up by plants, like phytoplankton for example, in vast quantities -- and that very thing is also incorporated into good modeling such as by a factor of absorption (what % of new CO2 is absorbed out of the atmosphere)....

And also studied in research -- how that can change over time, etc.

For example: Phytoplankton Dynamics Under Climate Change

 

[AV1611VET]

Is it fair to say you are just a bot?

You're the bot.

I'm a magazine.

 

[rambot]

I never understood how carbon dioxide representing a mere 0.04% of total atmospheric gases and having the lowest warming potential index of 1 could be responsible for warming. To me CO2 cannot be the main cause of warming at best a minor contributor.

Ok. But understand that is a "you" problem and not a fundamental problem with CO2 as a warming gas

I read recently that the measurement used in showing warming are situated on top ( flat tar roofs) of building within cities, the bulk of the measurements are are from these temperature recording devices... go figure why....

If you "Read it recently" can you find it and post it here? Because that sounds more like a comment from the peanut gallery than a well informed comment about weather instrumentation. There are VERY few thermometers around the globe that fit that description of placement and maybe you shouldn't then presume they are all like that and that they are all like that for nefarious purposes.

I noticed also that the trillions of dollars generated from carbon taxes go somewhere but where and in what proportions?...who pockets this money?

In Canada, 100% of our money goes into feeding other carbon lowering schemes; window/insulation/furnace replacement; solar power. All those kinda things.

most of the carbon emissions are from China, Pakistan, India, yet they continue and no one intervenes.

If you talk about per capita, that isn't correct.
Also, China is embarrassing the US with it's Solar capacity development.

CO2 has become a cult and is not based on science, now people think CO2 is toxic. Yet the minimum concentration of atmospheric CO2 for vegetation to grow is only half of the current value or about 200 PPM, we are close to that minimum.

The response to CO2 being a greenhouse gas is characterized by Dunning Kruger.

since CO2 has increased in the atmosphere also vegetation coverage has increased in proportion, if you visit the greenhouse of some botanical gardens, they inject extra CO2 for a total of 1200 ppm or 3 x the current atmospheric values to promote vegetation growth.... no need to explain that without vegetation we would all die quickly.

All of this to say, of course, who cares? Everyone knows co2 helps plans and more co2 helps plants grow. That does not then follow, that CO2 is a good thing to have in our atmosphere.

That guy can show you an experiment that CO2 captures heat.

All these facts I have researched and verified many years ago, I encourage people to do the same.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but if you verified this "many years ago" your information is weak and old and in time for an update. Let me know if I can help point you to stronger sources than what you've been reading.

 

[sjastro]

I never understood how carbon dioxide representing a mere 0.04% of total atmospheric gases and having the lowest warming potential index of 1 could be responsible for warming. To me CO2 cannot be the main cause of warming at best a minor contributor.

I read recently that the measurement used in showing warming are situated on top ( flat tar roofs) of building within cities, the bulk of the measurements are are from these temperature recording devices... go figure why....

I noticed also that the trillions of dollars generated from carbon taxes go somewhere but where and in what proportions?...who pockets this money?

most of the carbon emissions are from China, Pakistan, India, yet they continue and no one intervenes.

CO2 has become a cult and is not based on science, now people think CO2 is toxic. Yet the minimum concentration of atmospheric CO2 for vegetation to grow is only half of the current value or about 200 PPM, we are close to that minimum.

since CO2 has increased in the atmosphere also vegetation coverage has increased in proportion, if you visit the greenhouse of some botanical gardens, they inject extra CO2 for a total of 1200 ppm or 3 x the current atmospheric values to promote vegetation growth.... no need to explain that without vegetation we would all die quickly.

All these facts I have researched and verified many years ago, I encourage people to do the same.

I leave it as an exercise to the reader how many psychological "Dragons of Inaction" mentioned in the The psychology behind climate change denial. thread apply to this post.

"We are hindered by seven categories of psychological barriers, also known as dragons of inaction: limited cognition about the problem, ideological worldviews that tend to preclude pro-environmental attitudes and behavior, comparisons with other key people, sunk costs and behavioral momentum, discordance toward experts and authorities, perceived risk of change, and positive but inadequate behavior change"

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

The physics of the surface warming caused by CO2 is fairly simple and well established. 400 ppm CO2 is quite sufficient.

Urban heat islands are a thing, but the overall surface temperature increase is not limited to urban places with dark roofs.

What carbon taxes? Who has a carbon tax? The US doesn't have one.

This is not true.

If you don't think CO2 is toxic (a separate question from the greenhouse gas property) then inhale high concentrations of it. Or rather don't. It will first knock you out and then you will suffocate. The atmospheric levels aren't anywhere near that point.

We don't have a deficit of CO2 problem for plant growth. Crops grew fine before the current increase in CO2.

Your research has failed and found incorrect information. Most of these "facts" have been wrong for decades.

I am a scientist all i said is true and verified.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

Ok. But understand that is a "you" problem and not a fundamental problem with CO2 as a warming gas



If you "Read it recently" can you find it and post it here? Because that sounds more like a comment from the peanut gallery than a well informed comment about weather instrumentation. There are VERY few thermometers around the globe that fit that description of placement and maybe you shouldn't then presume they are all like that and that they are all like that for nefarious purposes.


In Canada, 100% of our money goes into feeding other carbon lowering schemes; window/insulation/furnace replacement; solar power. All those kinda things.


If you talk about per capita, that isn't correct.
Also, China is embarrassing the US with it's Solar capacity development.


The response to CO2 being a greenhouse gas is characterized by Dunning Kruger.



All of this to say, of course, who cares? Everyone knows co2 helps plans and more co2 helps plants grow. That does not then follow, that CO2 is a good thing to have in our atmosphere.

That guy can show you an experiment that CO2 captures heat.



I hate to be the bearer of bad news but if you verified this "many years ago" your information is weak and old and in time for an update. Let me know if I can help point you to stronger sources than what you've been reading.

atmospheric water vapour also captures heat in the warming potential index it is 300 times more than co2, it represents abut 2.3 to 5% of total atmospheric gas depending on humidity levels.

 

[Paulos23]

I am a scientist all i said is true and verified.

What is your field of study?

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

like i said pakistan china india.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

I leave it as an exercise to the reader how many psychological "Dragons of Inaction" mentioned in the The psychology behind climate change denial. thread apply to this post.

I do not deny climate change it has been going on since the earth existed.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

What is your field of study?

biochemistry post doc, physics (msc), and plant physiology Doc.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

I know people prefer to believe the narrative from the news medias but sometimes the truth is elsewhere;

The "Great Zero Carbon" Conspiracy and the WEF's "Great Reset" - Global Research

The globalist Davos World Economic Forum is proclaiming the necessity of reaching a worldwide goal of “net zero carbon” by 2050. Yet transformations underway from Germany to the USA, are setting the stage for creation of what is called the New Word Order. In reality it is a blueprint for a...

www.globalresearch.ca

the person writing this article above is to be trusted.

 

[AV1611VET]

View attachment 346817
like i said pakistan china india.
View attachment 346817

Factoring the OP into this post:

Land and sea temperatures have warmed much more than models forecast in the last year, and as of these articles various new factors being considered appear not enough to account for that spike. Relatively speaking it's quite large.

... it would appear we now need a much, much deeper shade of red, don't we?

And if it's "quite large," apparently this "deeper red" needs to be spread out further?

 

[Paulos23]

biochemistry post doc, physics (msc), and plant physiology Doc.

So not atmospheric science or chemistry. Don't think you have the training for me to accept your claims without more evidence.

 

[eclipsenow]

I never understood how carbon dioxide representing a mere 0.04% of total atmospheric gases and having the lowest warming potential index of 1 could be responsible for warming. To me CO2 cannot be the main cause of warming at best a minor contributor.

That's like saying "I never understood how a tiny funnel web bite could kill someone. To me it would have to be MUCH more venom...."

Dude - science is not about what makes sense "to you".
It's not about "your opinion."
It's about the demonstrable, repeatable heating forcing of CO2. Any decent physics lab can demonstrate it. Then some maths.
Mythbusters even demonstrated it.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

So not atmospheric science or chemistry. Don't think you have the training for me to accept your claims without more evidence.

the evidence is in the data just look for it, i did not believe it myself until in canada they announced a carbon tax on gasoline, our P.M. Trudeau said he would plant 200 million trees, well, years later only 20 thousads, yes we still cut the trees for wood like decimate forest in french it is called coupe a blanc, I dont know the correct way to say it in English, sorry but it means to raze completely leaving nothing standing.

i posted for everyone to look for themselves it is o.k not to trust someone on the internet i get that no problem.

Blessings.