2020 Temperatures

[bdgwx]

James Hansen says in his December update (just out today) that he thinks the warming may be accelerating as well.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2021/20210114_Temperature2020.pdf

[LibertyBell]

20 hours ago, rclab said:

I don’t believe that word has ever been aligned with a happy ending or for that matter has ever been reversed. As always ....

I have something for you to read, my friend, and I believe you will enjoy it (ps the formation of the universe is thought to have been a reversal of entropy starting on a very small scale inside a larger universe):

https://www.physics.princeton.edu//ph115/LQ.pdf

 

The Last Question By Isaac Asimov This is by far my favorite story of all those I have written. After all, I undertook to tell several trillion years of human history in the space of a short story and I leave it to you as to how well I succeeded. I also undertook another task, but I won't tell you what that was lest l spoil the story for you. It is a curious fact that innumerable readers have asked me if I wrote this story. They seem never to remember the title of the story or (for sure) the author, except for the vague thought it might be me. But, of course, they never forget the story itself especially the ending. The idea seems to drown out everything -- and I'm satisfied that it should.

[rclab]

11 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

I have something for you to read, my friend, and I believe you will enjoy it (ps the formation of the universe is thought to have been a reversal of entropy starting on a very small scale inside a larger universe):

https://www.physics.princeton.edu//ph115/LQ.pdf

 

The Last Question By Isaac Asimov This is by far my favorite story of all those I have written. After all, I undertook to tell several trillion years of human history in the space of a short story and I leave it to you as to how well I succeeded. I also undertook another task, but I won't tell you what that was lest l spoil the story for you. It is a curious fact that innumerable readers have asked me if I wrote this story. They seem never to remember the title of the story or (for sure) the author, except for the vague thought it might be me. But, of course, they never forget the story itself especially the ending. The idea seems to drown out everything -- and I'm satisfied that it should.

Thank you Liberty I read this as a young man, about 55 years ago. A time in my life, during my early college years, that I questioned everything. Two other quotes, I remember have stuck with me. One was in a pictorial religious tome showing a man standing and looking at the majesty of the stars/heavens. The quote under the picture stated; “The fool says in his heart, there is no God”. The second was in a science tome discussing when the bipedal animal that walked upright could actually be declared human. There was a similar illustration showing, instead, a primitive hominid staring up at the heavens with this quote underneath. Humanity began when the foraging creature stared up at the stars, paused and wondered. 
Science and religion are often shown in an adversarial context. Yet if their ever is to be a proof of an intelligence behind creation, it will be science or a product thereof that finds it. As always ....

[LibertyBell]

7 hours ago, rclab said:

Thank you Liberty I read this as a young man, about 55 years ago. A time in my life, during my early college years, that I questioned everything. Two other quotes, I remember have stuck with me. One was in a pictorial religious tome showing a man standing and looking at the majesty of the stars/heavens. The quote under the picture stated; “The fool says in his heart, there is no God”. The second was in a science tome discussing when the bipedal animal that walked upright could actually be declared human. There was a similar illustration showing, instead, a primitive hominid staring up at the heavens with this quote underneath. Humanity began when the foraging creature stared up at the stars, paused and wondered. 
Science and religion are often shown in an adversarial context. Yet if their ever is to be a proof of an intelligence behind creation, it will be science or a product thereof that finds it. As always ....

I have seen something amazing like this in a nature documentary.  It was a male bonobo who adopted a baby whose mother had died.  He took the baby up into a tree with him and when the baby fell asleep the older bonobo stayed awake looking at the stars and watching over his now adopted son.

From everything I've seen, animals have amazingly complex and evolved emotions, some even moreso than many humans.  Another one that I saw was the matriarch of an elephant family burying her dead and returning to the spot year after year and pausing there as if lost in thought.

 

 

[rclab]

10 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

I have seen something amazing like this in a nature documentary.  It was a male bonobo who adopted a baby whose mother had died.  He took the baby up into a tree with him and when the baby fell asleep the older bonobo stayed awake looking at the stars and watching over his now adopted son.

From everything I've seen, animals have amazingly complex and evolved emotions, some even moreso than many humans.  Another one that I saw was the matriarch of an elephant family burying her dead and returning to the spot year after year and pausing there as if lost in thought.

 

 

I wonder if our species will ever come to a realization that we do not have a monopoly on sentience..... As always. 

[etudiant]

On 1/16/2021 at 10:53 AM, rclab said:

I wonder if our species will ever come to a realization that we do not have a monopoly on sentience..... As always. 

Judging by some of our own demonstrators, it may be argued whether our species is in fact sentient....

 

Who was it who said that people go mad in crowds and return to sanity one by one?

[rclab]

23 minutes ago, etudiant said:

Judging by some of our own demonstrators, it may be argued whether our species is in fact sentient....

 

Who was it who said that people go mad in crowds and return to sanity one by one?

In the case of mob mentality. the more minds you put together the less sense you end up having. As always ....

[LibertyBell]

On 1/17/2021 at 1:28 PM, etudiant said:

Judging by some of our own demonstrators, it may be argued whether our species is in fact sentient....

 

Who was it who said that people go mad in crowds and return to sanity one by one?

That reminds me of a study that was done which showed that people are more receptive to helping others in need when they are by themselves, but in a crowd they stand by and watch bad things happen....

 

[LibertyBell]

On 1/17/2021 at 1:55 PM, rclab said:

In the case of mob mentality. the more minds you put together the less sense you end up having. As always ....

https://sites.uni.edu/morgans/astro/course/nightfall.pdf

 

Another one for you to read by Asimov.  The mob burns down the entire civilization as they go mad when they see the stars once every thousand years.

 

Isaac Asimov - "Nightfall" (1941) If the stars should appear one night in a thousand years, how would men believe and adore, and preserve for many  generations the remembrance of the city of God?' EMERSON

[LibertyBell]

On 1/17/2021 at 1:55 PM, rclab said:

In the case of mob mentality. the more minds you put together the less sense you end up having. As always ....

bees do it far better.  Their hive intelligence leads to cooperation and their collective intelligence enables them to do complex astronomical calculations and use the sun to determine the direction to fly.  They even know meteorology and use the wind to tell their companions how long it will take to fly to the new hive.

 

[rclab]

4 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

bees do it far better.  Their hive intelligence leads to cooperation and their collective intelligence enables them to do complex astronomical calculations and use the sun to determine the direction to fly.  They even know meteorology and use the wind to tell their companions how long it will take to fly to the new hive.

 

The hive is a combined and practicing intelligence. The mob is a swarm without a positive/productive intelligence. “No man is an island” but for some of us and for the good of all we would be better off that way. As always ....

[rclab]

6 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

https://sites.uni.edu/morgans/astro/course/nightfall.pdf

 

Another one for you to read by Asimov.  The mob burns down the entire civilization as they go mad when they see the stars once every thousand years.

 

Isaac Asimov - "Nightfall" (1941) If the stars should appear one night in a thousand years, how would men believe and adore, and preserve for many  generations the remembrance of the city of God?' EMERSON

Thank you LB.  You’ve proven to be better than Kindle. Ignorance is bliss until knowledge/reality rips the door to your sanity right off it’s hinges. The balancing of the atmosphere may be ours. As always ....

[bluewave]

 

 

[rclab]

4 hours ago, bluewave said:

 

 

After enjoying the winter storm threads on several sub forums I came to this. What immediately came to mind, BW, was a 71 one year old recording of the Guy Lombardo Royal Canadian rendition of “Enjoy Yourself”. As always .....

[skierinvermont]

On 1/14/2021 at 1:18 PM, bdgwx said:

Yes I did. It was pretty nuanced though. The rules said 2020 had to exceed 2016 by 0.01 after rounding to 2 decimal places. The quirk was that 2016 had been getting reported as 1.01. But I (along with several other people) had figured out that the recent addition of observations into the GHCN repository was going to likely flip 2016 back to 1.02. And my model had predicted that GISS would revise Nov down to 1.11 and report 0.83 for Dec. GISS officially reported 1.11 and 0.81 respectively so I had already seen the 2020 round down to 1.02 coming as well. I exploited that situation as well. In the end I learned a lot from this exercise. First...I learned that prediction markets aren't that good. Second...I learned a lot of details about GHCN, ERSST, how the GISTEMP code works, and how to create a model for predicting GISS updates with publicly available information with up to 4 weeks lead time. It was really fun.

BTW...your comment above about 2010 being a good analog to 2020 kept me on my guard

Hey, I was on there too! Are you casimireffect? I was posting under MarkL mostly. I was kind of posting fake stuff about La Nina back in early Nov but then was posting for real just out of curiosity once I sold everything at .81c in Dec and folks like you started posting their models and the daily global temp sources. After that I never felt confident enough to take a position either way because I couldn't figure out the probability of 2016 rounding up and the market seemed close to fair price. It probably was a little slow to come down once Dec turned cold. I made a modest chunk on that market and some of the Trump markets using a couple accounts. I don't really believe in gambling but some of the markets were so obviously mis-priced (PA @ 55c before the election, Biden @ 15c around 10pm MT on election night, 2020 warmest year @ 45c in mid-Nov, MN and MI @ 65-70c before the election, CA, NY, MA @ 93c before the election, and Trump and the contested states @ 85c after Biden had won). I figured the moral thing to do would be to take money from the Trumpers and donate some of it.

I should have checked in here to discuss!

[bdgwx]

9 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

Hey, I was on there too! Are you casimireffect?

That was me!

[skierinvermont]

5 hours ago, bdgwx said:

That was me!

Haha I knew it, the posting style was so similar! What an interesting market that was. Great job with your model. I think I was the one who suggested removing UAH and RSS from the model. Might be remembering that wrong and I don't remember if that actually worked out for you. If I remember you had one model using early temp data like CFS/NCAR (and UAH/RSS) to predict the monthly result, but were you also running the GISS code on the GHCN files like 'takeyourmoney' was?

[bdgwx]

39 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

Haha I knew it, the posting style was so similar! What an interesting market that was. Great job with your model. I think I was the one who suggested removing UAH and RSS from the model. Might be remembering that wrong and I don't remember if that actually worked out for you. If I remember you had one model using early temp data like CFS/NCAR (and UAH/RSS) to predict the monthly result, but were you also running the GISS code on the GHCN files like 'takeyourmoney' was?

Oh yeah. I totally remember. I did remove UAH and RSS from my model...just didn't add any skill no matter what weighting I gave it. In fact once I started adding other inputs UAH and RSS became more of a liability than an asset. 

Yes. I was running the GISTEMP code on the GHCN files. The land only index from GISTEMP actually added some skill to my model with 20% weighting. Getting the ERSST data plugged in proved very difficult at least for me. I just didn't have the time to spend on doing it.

The input that mattered the most for me was Nick Stoke's TempLS dataset. I gave this input 50% weighting. When it was all said and done my model could predict the GISS update within 0.05 with 95% confidence. 

The guys posting as takeyourmoney and James Davis were clearly very smart. They had the modeling thing figured out long before I made my attempt. I wish those two would make an appearance on here. They were always respectful and their posts were packed full of relevant to the point information. They would be fun to engage with here.

[etudiant]

On 1/26/2021 at 5:52 PM, bluewave said:

 

 

That is quite a lot.

It says that since 1960, the ocean surface layer down to 2000 meters has absorbed 3.6x10**23 joules, enough to warm it (about 7x10**8 km**3) by about a tenth of a degree Centigrade.

The ray of light is that the paper suggests that this is pretty much in line with the current estimates of how much extra solar input is trapped by increased greenhouse effects, so the increase should stay fairly stable.

[bdgwx]

We are starting to see studies regarding just how much the pandemic influenced the global mean temperature in 2020.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091805

About +0.03C per the study above and is attributable to reduced aerosol optical depths.

[Vice-Regent]

On 2/3/2021 at 4:51 PM, bdgwx said:

We are starting to see studies regarding just how much the pandemic influenced the global mean temperature in 2020.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091805

About +0.03C per the study above and is attributable to reduced aerosol optical depths.

Disappointing news if you thought aerosols could cool the Earth significantly via geoengineering.

[bdgwx]

On 2/6/2021 at 1:52 PM, Vice-Regent said:

Disappointing news if you thought aerosols could cool the Earth significantly via geoengineering.

I don't know. That 0.03C response was for a single year. I think it is at least consistent with the hypothesis that aerosols have a big impact and that at current levels they are likely masking a lot of the GHG warming potential. Imagine if that 0.03C rate of change persisted for 10 years. That'd be a cumulative 0.3C change.

I'm not really endorsing aerosols as a means of geoengineering here though. The safest thing to do would be to minimize human influence altogether. That way we aren't trying to fight one influencing factor with yet another influencing factor.

[skierinvermont]

On 2/6/2021 at 12:52 PM, Vice-Regent said:

Disappointing news if you thought aerosols could cool the Earth significantly via geoengineering.

As bdwx said, not really. The decrease in aerosols this year was very small. I know where I live, traffic has been normal all year except for a couple months around April. Global oil and coal consumption barely decreased (-5% for coal). If aerosols decreased 5%, as coal did, then the .03C would be 1/20th the total aerosol cooling (assuming the response is linear) and eliminating human aerosols would cause .6C of warming.

But as bdwx also said, using aerosols to geoengineer is also potentially dangerous. For starters, aerosols have caused global dimming and a reduction in plant growth. And most aerosols are associated with severe human health effects currently estimated to be in the millions of premature deaths per year.

[Vice-Regent]

On 2/9/2021 at 1:51 AM, skierinvermont said:

As bdwx said, not really. The decrease in aerosols this year was very small. I know where I live, traffic has been normal all year except for a couple months around April. Global oil and coal consumption barely decreased (-5% for coal). If aerosols decreased 5%, as coal did, then the .03C would be 1/20th the total aerosol cooling (assuming the response is linear) and eliminating human aerosols would cause .6C of warming.

But as bdwx also said, using aerosols to geoengineer is also potentially dangerous. For starters, aerosols have caused global dimming and a reduction in plant growth. And most aerosols are associated with severe human health effects currently estimated to be in the millions of premature deaths per year.

The idea in stratospheric radiation management is just that. To keep the damage and effects in the stratosphere but there is no clear incentive as we show no signs of abandoning technology and civilization.

Without such a stance there is only one path forward which is accelerationism which tends to favor more conservative minds. The current modus operandi is liberalism and technology and as a result you are right to be critical of the current world order and especially the massive censorship and battering of humanity now occurring.

Without a holistic perspective there is no hope of ever rallying the right people or "solving" the problems. IE weaponizing populism in order to destroy technological slavery and end overpopulation and resource exploitation. Technology may be able to stop a good chunk of us before it goes under but all of the batter. You tackle two problems simultaneously.

Nobody or any specific organization or corporation or government has any authority over the trajectory of this planet and we will make that known with time. This isn't 1930 or something where fascism and communism runs wild across the world and people are off doing their own thing. Young people are about to shake things up but all of the things were going to be destroyed anyways.

[rclab]

19 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

The idea in stratospheric radiation management is just that. To keep the damage and effects in the stratosphere but there is no clear incentive as we show no signs of abandoning technology and civilization.

Without such a stance there is only one path forward which is accelerationism which tends to favor more conservative minds. The current modus operandi is liberalism and technology and as a result you are right to be critical of the current world order and especially the massive censorship and battering of humanity now occurring.

Without a holistic perspective there is no hope of ever rallying the right people or "solving" the problems. IE weaponizing populism in order to destroy technological slavery and end overpopulation and resource exploitation. Technology may be able to stop a good chunk of us before it goes under but all of the batter. You tackle two problems simultaneously.

Nobody or any specific organization or corporation or government has any authority over the trajectory of this planet and we will make that known with time. This isn't 1930 or something where fascism and communism runs wild across the world and people are off doing their own thing. Young people are about to shake things up but all of the things were going to be destroyed anyways.

Even if the young people fall short a natural balancing will not  ... ... .. ... ...... .... ..... .. .. ......... anyways. As always ......

[LibertyBell]

On 2/10/2021 at 11:08 PM, Vice-Regent said:

The idea in stratospheric radiation management is just that. To keep the damage and effects in the stratosphere but there is no clear incentive as we show no signs of abandoning technology and civilization.

Without such a stance there is only one path forward which is accelerationism which tends to favor more conservative minds. The current modus operandi is liberalism and technology and as a result you are right to be critical of the current world order and especially the massive censorship and battering of humanity now occurring.

Without a holistic perspective there is no hope of ever rallying the right people or "solving" the problems. IE weaponizing populism in order to destroy technological slavery and end overpopulation and resource exploitation. Technology may be able to stop a good chunk of us before it goes under but all of the batter. You tackle two problems simultaneously.

Nobody or any specific organization or corporation or government has any authority over the trajectory of this planet and we will make that known with time. This isn't 1930 or something where fascism and communism runs wild across the world and people are off doing their own thing. Young people are about to shake things up but all of the things were going to be destroyed anyways.

I have news for you, corporatism is just as bad as communism ever was.

[LibertyBell]

On 2/9/2021 at 1:51 AM, skierinvermont said:

As bdwx said, not really. The decrease in aerosols this year was very small. I know where I live, traffic has been normal all year except for a couple months around April. Global oil and coal consumption barely decreased (-5% for coal). If aerosols decreased 5%, as coal did, then the .03C would be 1/20th the total aerosol cooling (assuming the response is linear) and eliminating human aerosols would cause .6C of warming.

But as bdwx also said, using aerosols to geoengineer is also potentially dangerous. For starters, aerosols have caused global dimming and a reduction in plant growth. And most aerosols are associated with severe human health effects currently estimated to be in the millions of premature deaths per year.

the idea of increasing air pollution isn't one that I find particularly exciting lol....also what do aerosols do to the ozone layer?

 

[LibertyBell]

On 2/9/2021 at 1:51 AM, skierinvermont said:

As bdwx said, not really. The decrease in aerosols this year was very small. I know where I live, traffic has been normal all year except for a couple months around April. Global oil and coal consumption barely decreased (-5% for coal). If aerosols decreased 5%, as coal did, then the .03C would be 1/20th the total aerosol cooling (assuming the response is linear) and eliminating human aerosols would cause .6C of warming.

But as bdwx also said, using aerosols to geoengineer is also potentially dangerous. For starters, aerosols have caused global dimming and a reduction in plant growth. And most aerosols are associated with severe human health effects currently estimated to be in the millions of premature deaths per year.

by the way some are mistakenly thinking the 10% reduction in fossil fuels is actually causing the abnormal cold we are seeing this month LOL  I'm sure many in Texas will be thinking that when Dallas goes below zero next week.

 

[Vice-Regent]

14 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

by the way some are mistakenly thinking the 10% reduction in fossil fuels is actually causing the abnormal cold we are seeing this month LOL  I'm sure many in Texas will be thinking that when Dallas goes below zero next week.

 

If you can dry the air adiabatically it doesn't matter how much GHG forcing is loaded into the system. The sun doesn't shine up there it's that simple but at some point the ocean and persistent cloud cover will completely overwhelm the system.

 

[chubbs]

Chart from Hanson's January update. January was only 6'th warmest due to nina. This years nina is very similar in strength to 2010/11. As Hanson points out, if warming is steady, 12-month running average should drop below the trend line, similar to 2011. If not, there has been an acceleration probably due to forcing picking up.

http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/Emails/January2021.pdf