June 2021: Earth’s fifth-warmest June on record, warmest over land areas

[longview]

Im analyzing in years bub, you know the trend.

That is better that pointing to a single month as an example of AGW, a single month means almost nothing.
Consider that the annual average is the average of all 12 months, what 2021 is going to look like now that we have 8 of the 12 months in the record.

2020 116 124 117 113 102 92 90 87 99 88 111 81 102 104 117 111 90 99 2020

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year
2021 81 64 89 76 79 85 92 81 **** **** **** **** **** *** 75 81 86 **** 2021

Notice anything different between 2020 and 2021, I think it is safe to say 2020 will be quite a bit cooler than 2020,
and perhaps the coolest year since 2014.

 

[watsup]

Notice anything different between 2020 and 2021, I think it is safe to say 2020 will be quite a bit cooler than 2020,
and perhaps the coolest year since 2014.

Which proves exactly NOTHING. I have no idea why you don’t realize that.

 

[longview]

Which proves exactly NOTHING. I have no idea why you don’t realize that.

Not in and of itself, but if 2020 is the anomaly, and we have been cooling since the high of 2016,
It could prove that the temperatures are finally catching up to the decrease in energy imbalance that has been observed since about year 2000.

 

[watsup]

Not in and of itself, but if 2020 is the anomaly, and we have been cooling since the high of 2016,
It could prove that the temperatures are finally catching up to the decrease in energy imbalance that has been observed since about year 2000.

“It could prove.....”. This sort of totally unsupported speculation is why no one really takes you seriously.

 

[longview]

“It could prove.....”. This sort of totally unsupported speculation is why no one really takes you seriously.

It could prove is the correct future tense for something that may be part of a future trend.

 

[bomberfox]

That is better that pointing to a single month as an example of AGW, a single month means almost nothing.
Consider that the annual average is the average of all 12 months, what 2021 is going to look like now that we have 8 of the 12 months in the record.

Notice anything different between 2020 and 2021, I think it is safe to say 2020 will be quite a bit cooler than 2020,
and perhaps the coolest year since 2014.

Yes i noticed two things different about 2019-2021 one of which was less CO2.

What part of a single point does not invalidate a long standing trend do you not comprehend?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Do you believe the science community has reasonably concluded, as they have concluded, ACC as the main driver of global warming?

As the observed warming, yes. Land use changes, soot, greenhouse gasses, pollution. We do quite a bit.

Do you believe we need to restrict CO2 emission?

Not yet. I believe CO2 is only a small part of the warming we have seen.

 

[bomberfox]

That is better that pointing to a single month as an example of AGW, a single month means almost nothing.
Consider that the annual average is the average of all 12 months, what 2021 is going to look like now that we have 8 of the 12 months in the record.

Notice anything different between 2020 and 2021, I think it is safe to say 2020 will be quite a bit cooler than 2020,
and perhaps the coolest year since 2014.

Speculation

 

[bomberfox]

Added CO2 causes warming, that is almost certain, the question is how much warming?
I suspect it is likely very close to the amount of warming CO2 has always caused.
NASA Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect
1880 Earth is 33C warmer than should be based on a 150 W/m2 energy imbalance, of that CO2 accounts for 20%.
20% of 33C is 6.6C, and it takes 8.09 doublings of CO2 to increase from 1 ppm to 280 ppm, so each doubling caused 6.6/8.09 = .82C of warming.
In addition the ratio of W/m2 to degrees C is 33/150 = .22C per W/m2.
This does not line up with the predicted 2XCO2 warming, with is that 3.71 W/m2 will cause 3C of warming.

Celsius means more degrees in Fahrenheit so a small change can mean a lot.

 

[bomberfox]

And man made hydrocarbon fuels would cut new CO2 emissions by about 1/3 globally, and could do so much faster than changing all the vehicles.
Imagine if 2026 number for emissions were 22 GTCO2, how close would we be to where the uptake equals the emissions?

Burning man made hydrocarbons will still give you a lot of waste especially if you are referring to synthetic oils…… along with still about 53% efficiency tops.

 

[bomberfox]

You guys are still stuck on combustion for energy, that wont get us out of this.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Burning man made hydrocarbons will still give you a lot of waste especially if you are referring to synthetic oils…… along with still about 53% efficiency tops.

The efficient doesn't matter as much as how cost effective it is.

Every type of power has an effeciency loss.

 

[longview]

Yes i noticed two things different about 2019-2021 one of which was less CO2.

What part of a single point does not invalidate a long standing trend do you not comprehend?

We have been in a warming trend for a while, but the proxy records lack the resolution for us to see what happens when the warming turns to cooling.
Will the trend continue? is CO2 effectively saturated? have we reached the top of the warming caused by aerosol clearing?
The answers to the above questions are not as clear cut as you would think.

 

[longview]

Celsius means more degrees in Fahrenheit so a small change can mean a lot.

Everything I stated was in Celsius, no need to muddy the water!

 

[bomberfox]

Everything I stated was in Celsius, no need to muddy the water!

Not muddying the water, celcius changes are nothing to scoff at. We are already experiencing climate change disasters. The earth is trying to radiate heat away but it cant because it keeps getting trapped by CO2

 

[bomberfox]

We have been in a warming trend for a while, but the proxy records lack the resolution for us to see what happens when the warming turns to cooling.
Will the trend continue? is CO2 effectively saturated? have we reached the top of the warming caused by aerosol clearing?
The answers to the above questions are not as clear cut as you would think.

This is nonsensical. We have data showing the trends are following CO2 levels and we have had less activity over the past 2 years almost. What do you think will happen when activity picks up?

 

[watsup]

It could prove is the correct future tense for something that may be part of a future trend.

Could prove may be blah blah blah. I have no idea of you are truly dense or if you just play dense as a part of your bias confirmation.

 

[longview]

Burning man made hydrocarbons will still give you a lot of waste especially if you are referring to synthetic oils…… along with still about 53% efficiency tops.

Again, the problem is that when we get our energy from long stored hydrocarbons.
If we recycle the CO2, we are not adding any new CO2!
As far as Carnot efficiencies, it is a necessary evil if we want the high energy densities we get from hydrocarbon fuels,
burning in a heat engine. (also it is closer to 20%).
Consider that 6 lbs of gasoline holds 33 Kwh of energy, of which 6.6 Kwh can likely be used,
but 6 lbs of Lithium-ion battery would hold about .6 Kwh of energy,
So even accounting for the horrible Carnot losses, gasoline still has ten times the energy density than a Lithium-ion battery.

 

[longview]

This is nonsensical. We have data showing the trends are following CO2 levels and we have had less activity over the past 2 years almost. What do you think will happen when activity picks up?

CO2 and temperature are not exactly in lockstep, CO2 levels were increasing from 1944 to 1978, yet there was minimal warming in that time window.
(it is likely from the massive aerosol increases, but then we have to count the aerosol clearing as well.)
Because we do not know all the variables which caused the warming since 1978, our control of only one variable
will likely have very limited success.

 

[watsup]

CO2 and temperature are not exactly in lockstep, CO2 levels were increasing from 1944 to 1978, yet there was minimal warming in that time window.
(it is likely from the massive aerosol increases, but then we have to count the aerosol clearing as well.)
Because we do not know all the variables which caused the warming since 1978, our control of only one variable
will likely have very limited success.

You’re really not controlling “only one variable”. That is mistaken, You are also controlling at least some of the positive feedbacks as a result of that variable, which means that’s controlling it has a greater affect than it alone is causing.

 

[bomberfox]

CO2 and temperature are not exactly in lockstep, CO2 levels were increasing from 1944 to 1978, yet there was minimal warming in that time window.
(it is likely from the massive aerosol increases, but then we have to count the aerosol clearing as well.)
Because we do not know all the variables which caused the warming since 1978, our control of only one variable
will likely have very limited success.

The graphs ive posted show much further back, a more complete picture. Doesnt have to be in lockstep either.

 

[bomberfox]

Again, the problem is that when we get our energy from long stored hydrocarbons.
If we recycle the CO2, we are not adding any new CO2!
As far as Carnot efficiencies, it is a necessary evil if we want the high energy densities we get from hydrocarbon fuels,
burning in a heat engine. (also it is closer to 20%).
Consider that 6 lbs of gasoline holds 33 Kwh of energy, of which 6.6 Kwh can likely be used,
but 6 lbs of Lithium-ion battery would hold about .6 Kwh of energy,
So even accounting for the horrible Carnot losses, gasoline still has ten times the energy density than a Lithium-ion battery.

We are not at the point we can recycle enough. You dont need ten times the density for most trips via car. Fossil fuels are on the way out, save for fossil fuel company interests. Its a luddite’s game and time to find another, your fixation on fossil fuels and hydrocarbons put you behind the times.

 

[longview]

The graphs ive posted show much further back, a more complete picture. Doesnt have to be in lockstep either.

If it is not in lockstep then there are other variables involved!
The formula is that each doubling of CO2 will force 3.71 W/m2 of energy imbalance, which corresponds to a certain amount of warming.

 

[bomberfox]

If it is not in lockstep then there are other variables involved!
The formula is that each doubling of CO2 will force 3.71 W/m2 of energy imbalance, which corresponds to a certain amount of warming.

Nobody said otherwise, CO2 is the main driver because it creates a blanket that prevents heat from escaping and reflects it back on earth and creates a feedback loop. We can fix this as the tipping point hasnt come but we have to fix it. You being a total luddite with muh coal durrrr! Isnt going to fix this.

 

[longview]

We are not at the point we can recycle enough. You dont need ten times the density for most trips via car. Fossil fuels are on the way out, save for fossil fuel company interests. Its a luddite’s game and time to find another, your fixation on fossil fuels and hydrocarbons put you behind the times.

I do not care about fossil fuels, they are not sustainable! What I do care about is the current level of lifestyle.
The only way to maintain our current lifestyle is to have an energy carrying device with as much energy density as what we get from hydrocarbon fuels.
Cars are not really the issue, but the right solution is one that will solve all of our transport issues, not just private cars!
Nature evolved a way to store high density energy for long periods, it uses hydrocarbons!
If the world were truly in a hurry to reduce CO2 emissions, they would not be waiting around for all the private cars to become battery electric,
as that will take decades, and it is inferior in capability.
The best change is one that is largely transparent. By changing the fuel to carbon neutral fuels, ALL of the existing liquid fuels transport forms (Jets, Ships, Cars, ect),
will be just as carbon neutral as the battery electric cars claim to be.
Also the change will not be because of one governments regulation, but simple market shift.
People everywhere will pick carbon neutral fuels, because they will be the cheapest choice available.