The Crisis Report - 70
Biden, Xi and the “Moment in History” that’s rushing towards us.
It’s not obvious that we are at war with China, but we are. The winner of this war will control the global response to the Climate Crisis.
I am well aware that my climate analysis is still “fairly extreme”. The only “credible” scientist I agree with is James Hansen. And, I think he/s being “conservative”.
The NYT climate reporter Raymond Zhong certainly does not agree with either me or Hansen. His recent article makes that clear.
Earth Was Due for Another Year of Record Warmth. But This Warm?
-NYT Dec. 2023
“Scientists are already busy trying to understand whether 2023’s off-the-charts heat is a sign that global warming is accelerating.”
Here/s what’s important in that sentence. The use of the phrase “global warming is accelerating”. Until Zeke Hausfather came out and said “global warming may be accelerating” on October 13th 2023 for the NYT.
I Study Climate Change. The Data Is Telling Us Something New.
“While many experts have been cautious about acknowledging it, there is increasing evidence that global warming has accelerated over the past 15 years rather than continued at a gradual, steady pace. That acceleration means that the effects of climate change we are already seeing — extreme heat waves, wildfires, rainfall and sea level rise — will only grow more severe in the coming years.”
Saying “global warming is accelerating” would destroy your career and get you labeled a “Doomer”. It would make you a “fringe” voice.
SUDDENLY.
The BIGGEST question in Climate Science has become, “is global warming accelerating?” Because, if it is. We are in a LOT of trouble.
Here’s how Mr. Zhong frames this issue in his article.
“As extreme as this year’s temperatures were, they did not catch researchers off guard. Scientists’ computational models offer a range of projected temperatures, and 2023’s heat is still broadly within this range, albeit on the high end.”
This is masterclass spin.
That’s basically saying that scientists weren’t “caught off guard” because look at the chart. See those two “outlier” forecasts that are so much higher than the others. Be reassured, the “crazy heat” this past winter was “in the models”.
“2023’s heat is still broadly within this range of projected temperatures, albeit on the high end.”
Mr. Zhong goes on to interview a “Climate Scientist”. Who states.
“On its own, one exceptional year would not be enough to suggest something was faulty with the computer models. Your default position has to be, ‘The models are right.’”
Andrew Dessler, atmospheric scientist at Texas A&M University
Dr. Dessler goes on to state.
“I’m not willing to say that we’ve ‘broken the climate’ or there’s anything weird going on until more evidence comes in.”
Is it obvious that Dr. Dessler is a member of the “Moderate” faction in Climate Science?
Mr. Zhong then goes on to explain how anthropogenic aerosols cool the climate while CO2 steadily warms it. Which is PROGRESS. The Moderates have been downplaying this influence on the Climate System since the Pinatubo Eruption in 92'.
Mr. Zhong states.
“For much of the past 174 years, humans have been filling the skies with both greenhouse gases and aerosols, or tiny particles from smokestacks, tailpipes and other sources. These particles are harmful to the lungs when inhaled. But in the atmosphere, they reflect solar radiation, partly offsetting the heat-trapping effect of carbon dioxide.”
To me that is a shitty, misleading way of explaining what’s really happening. But hey, at least it/s in the ballpark.
A better explanation would be.
When we burn fossil fuels like coal or oil, it releases two main components into the atmosphere: CO2 and SOx (sulfur particulate aerosols). CO2 causes the Earth to warm, while SOx cools the Earth down. SOx is by FAR the stronger of the two influences, but its effect wears off in 3–5 years. CO2 is a much weaker force, but it accumulates and it lasts for thousands of years.
Zhong continues his discussion of aerosols and their effect on the Climate System.
“In recent decades, however, governments have begun reducing aerosol pollution for public-health reasons. This has already caused temperature increases to speed up since 2000, scientists estimate.”
This is weird. Because the link in the article takes you to this paper.
Is Anthropogenic Global Warming Accelerating?
Stuart Jenkins, Adam Povey, Andrew Gettelman, Roy Grainger, Philip Stier, and Myles Allen
Online Publication: 22 Nov 2022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-22–0081.1 Page(s): 7873–7890
Which, if you read just the abstract, is ALARMING.
Abstract:
“Estimates of the anthropogenic effective radiative forcing (ERF) trend have increased by 50% since 2000 (from +0.4 W m−2 decade−1 in 2000–09 to +0.6 W m−2 decade−1 in 2010–19), the majority of which is driven by changes in the aerosol ERF trend, as a result of aerosol emissions reductions.”
“Here we study the extent to which observations of the climate system agree with these ERF assumptions. We use a large ERF ensemble from the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) to attribute the anthropogenic contributions to global mean surface temperature (GMST), top-of-atmosphere radiative flux, and we use aerosol optical depth observations.”
This is “Science CYA” when you are reporting BAD NEWS. It basically says, “We looked at EVERYTHING before telling you this”.
“The GMST trend has increased from +0.18°C decade−1 in 2000–09 to +0.35°C decade−1 in 2010–19, coinciding with the anthropogenic warming trend rising from +0.19°C decade−1 in 2000–09 to +0.24°C decade−1 in 2010–19. This, as well as observed trends in top-of-atmosphere radiative fluxes and aerosol optical depths, supports the claim of an aerosol-induced temporary acceleration in the rate of warming.”
Ummm…. let's break that down.
“The GMST trend has increased from +0.18°C decade−1 in 2000–09 to +0.35°C decade−1 in 2010–19.”
This says that the RATE of WARMING (RoW) DOUBLED between 2010–2019. From +0.18C/decade to +0.35C/decade. That the RoW DOUBLED in a 10 year period.
“Coinciding with the anthropogenic warming trend rising from +0.19°C decade−1 in 2000–09 to +0.24°C decade−1 in 2010–19.”
The distinction here is subtle but important. The GMST represents an average of yearly mean surface temperature measurements for a 10 year period. It’s a “average of averages” representing the Global Mean Surface Temperature trend for those years.
So, for the 10 years between 2000–2009 the GMST trend was a warming tendency of +0.18C/decade. About +1C of warming over 50 years or +1.5C around 2060 and +2.3C around 2100 (assuming +0.5C of warming by 2009). Bad, but manageable over that timeframe with minimal (20%+/-5%) depopulation.
Then, between 2010 and 2019 the GMST trend DOUBLED to +0.35C/decade. About +1C of warming over 30 years or +1.5C around 2040, +2.5C around 2070, and +3.5C around 2100 (assuming +0.5C of warming by 2009). VERY BAD, but barely manageable in that time frame with moderate (40%+/-10%) depopulation.
However, “the anthropogenic warming trend rising from +0.19°C decade−1 in 2000–09 to +0.24°C decade−1 in 2010–19”
This is the “devil in the details”. “Anthropogenic Warming” is the KEY to understanding this deliberately opaque paper. Here's how I interpret this.
“While GMST trends show that the RoW doubled between 2010 and 2020 from +0.18C/decade to +0.35C/decade, our MODELS of “anthropogenic warming” are only able to explain an increase from +0.19C/decade to +0.24C/decade. The EXTRA +0.11C of warming is a MYSTERY”.
BTW- A RoW of +0.25C/decade is NOT GREAT. It’s About +1C of warming over 40 years or +1.5C around 2050, +2.5C around 2090, and +2.75C around 2100 (assuming +0.5C of warming by 2009). BAD, but manageable in that time frame with moderate (30%+/-10%) depopulation.
No matter how you look at it, these numbers are NOT GREAT, and they support the “suspicion” that Global Warming IS accelerating.
Did Mr. Zhong even read this paper? Why would he include it in his article when it so clearly supports a position he is MINIMIZING. Then come the “weasel words” in the Abstract.
“However, all three observation datasets additionally suggest that smaller aerosol ERF trend changes are compatible with observations since 2000, since radiative flux and GMST trends are significantly influenced by internal variability over this period.”
We might not be seeing what we think we are seeing, because some of it could just be “internal variability”.
“A zero-trend-change aerosol ERF scenario results in a much smaller anthropogenic warming acceleration since 2000 but is poorly represented in AR6’s ERF ensemble.”
OMG, I cannot believe they said that.
“Short-term ERF trends are difficult to verify using observations, so caution is required in predictions or policy judgments that depend on them, such as estimates of current anthropogenic warming trend, and the time remaining to, the outstanding carbon budget consistent with, 1.5°C warming.”
This is the KEY reason they are “reluctant” to speak clearly. “Predictions” and “policy judgments that depend on them”, such as the “time remaining to, the outstanding carbon budget consistent with, +1.5C warming”, might mean that we have to “quit fossil fuels” EARLIER THAN EXPECTED.
These “scientists” want NO PART of that.
“Further systematic research focused on quantifying trends and early identification of acceleration or deceleration is required.”
AND that’s the main takeaway Mr. Zhong apparently got from this paper. Because the very next paragraph mentions James Hansen in the following way.
“And in a much-discussed report last month, the climate researcher James E. Hansen argued that scientists had vastly underestimated how much more the planet would warm in the coming decades if nations cleaned up aerosols without cutting carbon emissions.”
SO, the link doesn’t take you to Hansen’s paper. It takes you to an NYT article.
35 Years After Addressing Congress, James Hansen Has More Climate Warnings — NYT Nov. 2023
The former NASA scientist James Hansen says in a new paper that global temperatures will pass a major milestone this decade, faster than other estimates predict.
In this article there is a link to Hansen’s paper and a bunch of people saying why they disagree with it. ALTHOUGH, all of them say that Hansen is right about +1.5C being crossed before 2030.
Here’s Hansen’s paper.
Global warming in the pipeline.
Oxford Open Climate Change, Volume 3, Issue 1, 2023, kgad008, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfclm/kgad008
Published: 02 November 2023
Zhong’s conclusion.
“Not all scientists are persuaded.”
Zhong then gives us an example of this.
“Arguments like Dr. Hansen’s have been hard to square with patterns in recent decades, said Reto Knutti, a climate physicist at the Swiss university ETH Zurich.”
Past warming trend constrains future warming in CMIP6 models.
Science Advances, 18 Mar 2020, Vol 6, Issue 12, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aaz9549
Which, I’m sorry. When a paper starts with.
“For an emergent constraint to be robust, there needs to be an underlying physical explanation of why the correlation between the two quantities should exist in the first place. Here, we use the simulated historical global mean temperature over recent decades as an emergent constraint for the future warming in response to increasing CO2 concentrations.”
It’s meaningless bullshit.
That doesn’t stop Mr. Zhong from “casting doubt” on Hansen’s work however. He finishes the article with this.
“Dr. Hansen’s argument for faster warming leans in part on reconstructions of climatic shifts between ice ages over the past 160,000 years. Using Earth’s distant past to make inferences about climate in the coming years and decades can be tricky.”
The CLIMATE CRISIS is HERE.
Right Now, this instant.
The LIFE you thought you were going to have, is GONE.
You might not understand that yet. It’s not obvious yet, the cracks are just starting to show. But, our global civilization, our “Anthroposphere”, is teetering on the EDGE of CRISIS, CHANGE, and possible COLLAPSE.
We are already AT WAR, to decide the shape of “what comes next”. To decide what life will be like for those who “pull through”.
The Global Elites are imagining it as being like the Fall of Rome.
They talk about how Climate Change might have killed half the population of Rome and caused a collapse of the central government. But, business and trade never stopped.
The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire by Kyle Harper (2017)
China doesn’t want to be a partner in an American led PAX AMERICANA during the Climate Crisis. Realistically, can you blame them?
They are trying to overturn the existing world order and force a realignment of power resulting in their control of the global market and global security. They want control of the world response to the Climate Crisis and they want the “Who’s in charge?” question answered sooner rather than later.
Again, Can you blame them?
US Generals are saying things like this.
U.S. General’s Prediction of War With China
US general’s ‘gut’ feeling of war with China sparks alarm over predictions
Leaked memo forecasting Taiwan strait conflict in 2025 triggers debate about ‘undisciplined’ comments
When China’s navy is now bigger than the US Navy.
The military labels China as a “pacing threat,” meaning its military is making strategic strides against the US. In fact, China’s navy has surpassed the US Navy in fleet size, and some experts have warned that an American technological advantage may not be enough to maintain superiority, particularly when the US is committing many of its munitions to Ukraine.
End Part One.
This is my analysis.
This is what I see.
This is my “Crisis Report”.
— rc 04262024
Personal Notes:
I know that for a lot of people it’s easier to accept the “Climate Crisis” part of my analysis than the geopolitical part. Some of you just don’t believe that ANY of the world's governments are doing anything about “Climate Change”.
This is a misperception.
Governments ARE beginning to understand the emerging CRISIS and they are beginning to take steps to prepare. They just aren’t being OPEN about what they are doing.
The US is at war with China, right now and is fighting an internal “Cold Civil War”. If things go BADLY, both of these wars could become HOT in 2025 after the US Elections.
No matter what is happening in the Anthroposphere, it’s going to get a LOT HOTTER and HUNGRIER over the rest of this decade.
Lastly, I set down with Max and we talked for over two hours. He got a lot of material for a video and it should be ready soon.
These denier scientists are not stupid people, they are terribly frightened people. They can see what you see Richard, then they go to work to "unsee" it.
I used to think they did it just to protect their careers, and in some cases maybe cash payments from the fossil fuel cartels. Not so much anymore. They're scared.
I'm a lawyer (when I feel like doing that) and I can tell you when my case is looking really bad based on the undisputed facts, I start to dispute the facts by covering them in "legalize" which is our own special way of telling lies by confusion.
I'm seeing that now in the abstracts you quote and what strikes me is the underlying sense of fear I feel reading them. How about something that has been an almost perfect correlation with global temperatures for 160,000 years now being questionable because it screams "disaster?" Nobody is influencing them to muddy the waters. They are too scared to face the obvious. Watching this I sense any hope of meaningful response to be gone. They will deny reality right into the ground.
Theres this fundamental flawed premise a lot of people have that is just wrong - the premise that governments are open, direct, and honest. They most definitely are not. You have to "read between the lines".