Apologies to all who came here earlier. I mistakenly published this yesterday before it was finished.
I don’t read denialist blogs very often. Life is too short. And there are more interesting scientific and policy problems to grapple with than trying to figure out where some guy on Watt’s Up With That, with no background in climate science, gets his facts and reasoning all wrong.
Luckily, dipping into Sou’s excellent blog, Hot Whopper, saves me a lot of time and keeps me up to date on all the craziness. A recent article of Sou’s: Desperate Deniers Part 2: David Middleton fakes satellite data “Just for grins” does an excellent job of debunking a WUWT post by David Middleton (archived here). Sou mainly focuses on a graph that Middleton drew comparing contiguous US land surface temperatures with global lower troposphere temperatures. Fish in a barrel.
Sou does show that NOAA’s corrected annual land surface temperature anomalies for the CONUS actually compare quite nicely with the lower troposphere data above the same region as prepared by the University of Alabama Huntsville. Thus:
What caught my eye about David Middleton’s post was this: Continue reading
The 2015 data are now in for Nasa’s GISTEMP surface temperature record. (News release, slides, data.) As expected, 2015 is the warmest year in the series. By far. The two warmest years in recorded global history were 2014 and 2015. Fifteen of the sixteen warmest years on record have occurred since 2001. December 2015 was the warmest month ever recorded.
The smooth lines are 42-point and 12-point Loess filter calculations. I defy anyone to identify the much-ballyhooed “pause”.
According to Britain’s Met Office, 2016 is likely to be warmer still. The increase from 2015 t0 2016 is likely to be as big as the jump from 2014 to 2015.
If this happens, it will be the first time ever in the history of global surface thermometer records that there were three years of consecutive new records. Even if 2016 turns out to be a little cooler than the Met Office forecast, it is very likely that by this time next year the three warmest years since global measurements began will be 2014, 2015 and 2016, in some order or other. Continue reading
This article was originally published online at Corporate Knights and will appear in the hard copy Winter 2016 Edition of the Corporate Knights Magazine, which is to be included as a supplement to the Globe and Mail and Washington Post later in January 2016. The photograph used in the original was changed for copyright reasons. Also reposted at Skeptical Science.
Human civilization developed over a period of 10,000 years during which global average surface temperatures remained remarkably stable, hovering within one degree Celsius of where they are today.
If we are to keep future temperatures from getting far outside that range, humanity will be forced to reduce fossil fuel emissions to zero by 2050. Halving our emissions is not good enough: we need to get down to zero to stay under the 2 C target that scientists and policy makers have identified as the limit beyond which global warming becomes dangerous.
Shell boasting about its government-funded Quest CCS project, on a Toronto bus. “Shell Quest captures one-third of our oil sands upgrader emissions”
Many scenarios have been proposed to get us there. Some of these involve rapid deployment of solar and wind power in conjunction with significant reductions in the amount of energy we consume.
Originally posted at Skeptical Science on December 31, 2015
On Sunday November 22nd, 2015, Alberta’s new centre-left Premier, Rachel Notley, announced that the province would be introducing an economy-wide carbon tax priced at $30 per tonne of CO2 equivalent, to be phased in in 2016 and 2017. Observers had been expecting new efforts to mitigate emissions since Notley’s election in May 2015, but the scope and ambition of this policy took many by surprise.
Alberta, of course, is the home of the Athabasca oil sands and is one of the largest per-capita GHG emitters of any jurisdiction in the world. The new plan was nevertheless endorsed by environmental groups, First Nations and by the biggest oil companies, an extraordinary consensus that many would not have thought possible.
How was this done? I will try and explain the new policy as far as I can (the details are not all available yet), but the short answer is that a huge amount of credit is due to the panel of experts led by University of Alberta energy economist Andrew Leach and his fellow panelists. Not only did they listen to what all Albertans had to say, but they were thoughtful in framing a policy that is acceptable to almost everyone.
Alberta is the wealthiest province in Canada, with a population of 4.1 million. In 2013, greenhouse gas emissions were 267 Mt CO2 equivalent, about 65 tonnes per capita, which compares with the average for the rest of Canada of about 15 tonnes. Among US states only North Dakota and Wyoming are worse. Alberta’s fugitive emissions of methane alone amount to 29 Mt CO2e, about 7 tonnes per person, which is a little more than the average for all GHGs per-capita emissions in the world.
The most-read piece of the year on Critical Angle was The history of emissions and the Great Acceleration where I looked at data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center and in which I discovered some surprising (at least to me) factoids about emissions. For example:
- Cumulative emissions from land-use changes since 1750 were bigger than cumulative emissions from all fossil fuels combined up to 1978.
- Using an ultra-simple 40% atmospheric fraction carbon-cycle model yields a good match between observations of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and emissions statistics.
- The Great Acceleration in almost everything, which happened in the years after 1950, brought forward the climate crisis by 20 years. That’s a shorter time than the world has wasted since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.
I must like trilogies, since I wrote two of them this year. In January I did a series on fracking, focussing mainly on the UK:
- Spot the charlatan
- There’s no endorsement of fracking from Skeptical Science or climate experts
- Quantity has a quality all of its own.
Later in the year I wrote about the road to the two degrees target:
- Feasible emissions pathways, burying our carbon and bioenergy
- Are the experts being candid about our chances?
- Equity, inertia and fairly sharing our carbon budget.
I was pleased to be asked by the Corporate Knights Magazine to provide some pieces for their website and for the quarterly hardcopy magazine that is distributed with the Globe and Mail and the Washington Post: Why the 97% consensus on climate change still gets challenged (Summer 2015 Issue); Are we overestimating our global carbon budget? (website only) and; B.C. lowballing fugitive methane emissions from natural gas industry (Fall 2015 Issue). There’s another article (on CCS) scheduled for the Winter 2015 issue of the magazine, due out in January 2016.
All of this pales beside the combined output of my colleagues at Skeptical Science who have contributed hugely with numerous academic articles, conference presentations, pieces in the mainstream and social media, as well as a University of Queensland supported Massive Open Online Course.
Skeptical Science is run without significant funding, except for a tip jar to pay for Internet hosting. Everyone who contributes there does so as a volunteer, mostly in spare time from day jobs.There are a lot of valuable supporters whose names don’t appear on articles, but who keep the website running and the comments moderated.
I should add that much of what I write benefits from reviews and comments made by my Skeptical Science colleagues.
Last week, presenter Doug Bennett asked me to do an interview on KKRN Community Radio based in Round Mountain, California. It was supposed to be a phone-in show as well, but in the event they only put one caller through. The main subject of the conversation was the 2°C target and what we have to do to get there, especially with regard to carbon capture and storage, and bioenergy carbon capture and storage. We also ranged a little off-topic onto population growth.
You can listen to it here or on the KKRN site linked above.
Apparently, I say “um” a lot. I’m going to have to work on that.
There has been little doubt for several months, but now it is certain: 2015 will be the hottest year on record by far.
Data from NASA, with my guesswork from July 2015 shown in dashed and dotted lines.
November would have set another monthly record, except that October was revised upwards by two-hundredths of a degree. As it is, this is the hottest November on record. For 2015 not to be a record year, December would have to come in with a below-zero anomaly and that is not happening.
Note to readers: my guesswork is not an expert forecast, but a what-if exercise I did a few months ago in an attempt to predict average anomalies for 2015 and 2016. I will not be updating my guesses as reality proves them wrong. But I would welcome improved forecasts from readers who understand the El Niño and surface temperature dynamics better than I do.
The annual anomaly chart below shows the projection (which assumes that December is as warm as November) by the red x, 0.862 °C above the 1951-1980 baseline. My guess from July 2015 for 2015 is shown as the red square and for 2016 by the orange dot.
It is now certain that we have set two record years in a row, something that last happened in 1980-1981. It is even possible, given a persistent El Niño, that 2016 will be hotter than 2015, which would give three record years in a row, something that has not happened since at least 1880. Continue reading