This month’s open thread for climate science related topics. The climate policy open thread is here.
Reader Interactions
307 Responses to "Unforced Variations: July 2018"
Al Bundysays
I’m confused. In the past I’ve heard that winter will warm faster than summer. Now I’m starting to hear, as Space.com said today, “The investigators found that our summers are warming more rapidly than the other seasons as Earth’s overall temperature rises”
Anybody have some insight?
Mike Roddysays
Mr. Know It All: Few countries in the world build most of their houses with lumber. The other outliers are Canada, Australia, and Japan, but in Japan it’s mostly reinforced concrete, and most people now live in apartments. I built 300 houses with light gauge steel after the Kobe earthquake in 1996.
We can easily use steel here, substituting for wood stick for stick. It will last for several centuries, due to galvanization advances. It costs more, as much as 30% more for framing, but framing is only about 17% of total hard construction costs, so it’s not critical to the budget except for low cost tract builders. Even there, many consumers will pay the premium- less flammable, less maintenance, and fewer toxic industrial chemicals that damage IAQ. Reinforced concrete or masonry also work, and are durable, but tend to cost slightly more than steel. Countries in Latin America and Europe use concrete or masonry, and won’t buy a wood framed house even if it costs less.
Karsten V. Johansensays
Does the IPCC underestimate the threat from methane-hydrates underneath rapidly degrading subsea permafrost?
According to a recent article in The Economist, researchers around the world are wondering what causes the recent rise in methane in the troposphere.
The article mentions a range of different hypotheses. But I think it makes the usual mistake of looking upon different hypotheses as if they must nescesarilly mutually exclude each other. And it also, I think, too easilly throws away one of the most worrying hypotheses:
The Economist: “One big worry is the Arctic. The soil there contains methane equivalent to 2.3 times all the carbon dioxide humanity has emitted since the 1800s. If it were released it could set off a vast new burst of global warming. But methane-rich Siberian air (see map of average atmospheric methane levels in January 2016, above) shows no sign of rising any faster than the rest of the world.”
This seems to me to be a somewhat strange argument: it is well known, that the atmospheric mixing is so fast, that the levels of greenhouse gasses does not differ significantly when measured on as different locations as on the Mauna-Loa-volcano in Hawaii and in the Antarctica, even if the annual cycle is dampened in the latter location because of lesser vegetation in the southern hemisphere.
Secondly the argument about the data on methane levels in the air above Siberia does not seem to be sure, according to this from the same article: “Such remote sensing could shed light on leaks in gas-rich but data-poor countries, such as Russia or Iraq, where inspectors are unwelcome or afraid to venture. But it cannot fully replace on-site sampling because carbon isotopes cannot be identified from afar.” As we all know, Siberia is in Russia…
Another fact: some research not mentioned by The Economist shows that the IPCC may be underestimating the rate of subsea permafrost thaw and thus the emerging climate threat from methane hydrates underneath degrading subsea permafrost:
“According to the model estimates of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), until the end of the 21st century the degradation of permafrost in the ESAS cannot exceed several meters and the formation of through taliks will take hundreds or thousands of years that eliminates the opportunity of massive methane (CH4) emissions from the bottom sediments of the ESAS into water column – atmosphere system due to the destruction of hydrates. Thus the IPCC considers the potential contribution of the ESAS into the emissions of CH4 as insignificant. The paper shows that the model is not really correct.
Basing on the repeated drilling of four wells performed by the Institute of Permafrost Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences in 1982-1983, scientists have proved that the rates of vertical degradation of subsea permafrost amount to18 cm a year over the last 30 years (the average is 14 cm a year) which is greater than it was assumed before.
‘New data obtained by complex biochemical, geophysical and geological studies conducted in 2011-2016 resulted in the conclusion that in some areas of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf the roof of the subsea permafrost had already reached the depth of hydrates’ stability the destruction of which may cause massive releases of bubble methane. According to our findings published earlier in Nature Geoscience, Science and Philosophical Transactions, Royal Society, the size of CH4 bubble flaw from the bottom sediments into the ESAS water can vary from milligrams to tens or hundreds of grams per square meter a day depending on the state of subsea permafrost, which leads to the concentration increase of atmospheric CH4 in the surface layer to values 2-4 times exceeding background concentrations measured in our planet,’ says the first author of the paper Professor Natalia Shakhova, the TPU Department of Geology and Minerals Prospecting.”
To say this must lead to raised eyebrows is an understatement. It seems to me deeply disturbing, knowing that the abrupt jump in global mean temperature 2016 could not just be explained by the El Nino of 2015, because that was not strong enough. This could maybe also be a factor behind the ongoing extreme heatwave around most of the northern hemisphere this spring an summer?
Interesting in this context:
“Massive remobilisation of permafrost carbon during postglacial warming
Recent hypotheses, based on atmospheric records and models, suggest that permafrost carbon (PF-C) accumulated during the last glaciation may have been an important source for the atmospheric CO2 rise during post-glacial warming. However, direct physical indications for such PF-C release have so far been absent. Here we use the Laptev Sea (Arctic Ocean) as an archive to investigate PF-C destabilization during the last glacial-interglacial period. Our results show evidence for massive supply of PF-C from Siberian soils as a result of severe active layer deepening in response to the warming.”
This is about CO2, but the question is if not some of the mentioned carbon could stem from methane hydrates underneath degrading subsea permafrost?
“The last glacial–interglacial transition represents a major climatic reorganization during which the Northern Hemisphere became warmer while the atmospheric CO2 rose from ca. 190 parts per million by volume (p.p.m.v.) to ca. 270 p.p.m.v. (5,6) (corresponding to ca. 190 Pg C)(2). This transition was not gradual, but characterized by abrupt fluctuations in temperature and atmospheric CO2 within the general post-glacial trend. A unique process to explain the CO2 variations has so far not been found. Upwelling of poorly ventilated abyssal water masses is one of the leading hypotheses (7,8), although the search for a 14C-depleted carbon reservoir in the deep ocean remains a matter of current debate (9,10.)” (Ibid.)
Comments?
Killiansays
#224 nigelj said I also recall reading that climate change itself may be causing changes in the jet stream so could well be an underlying cause of the slow moving anticyclones.
You say this like it is not already commonly known and accepted. Odd. I would consider any significant skepticism on this from a legit scientist a reason for concern re the quality of their work.
The sky is not mint green 24/7, and human nature is not a fact.
Uh – “yes” to the first clause, “huh?” to the second. Defined inductively, “human nature” is anything humans are or do. Our behavior, like our bodies, evolves by natural selection on individuals living in social groups. Our behavior also evolves by culture, i.e. adaptive behavior propagated by art and symbolic language (i.e. extra-genomically) among living persons who may be remote in time and space. And no matter how it evolved, your behavior is only adaptive enough AFAIK to place you at a keyboard. I might be underestimating you, but I’m pretty sure you won’t be able to keep yourself alive forever or leave more copies of your genome extant in 1000 years than Genghis Khan. Our capacity for cultural evolution is uniquely human, but still undeniably natural. We aren’t supernatural, after all. Call that a fact or not, as you please.
I see that Lord Willard of Wattsupia has been getting hot under the collar with Ed Hawkins’ Spiralling Global Temperature GIF. He didn’t think it up all on his own, mind. The start point was a similar piece of imagary from Antti Lipponen which good-old-boy Woy Spencer took objection to. According to Woy:-
“What this display technique does is cause a linear rate of warming to appear like it is non-linearly increasing, or accelerating. The perceived warming goes as the square of the actual temperature increase.”
Woy objects to the bar graph radiating out from a central point which, according to Woy, exaggerates the rate of warming at hotter temperatures as according to Woy it is the area of the bars that is the primary take-away for an observer, not the length of bars. And to fit all the two-hundred-odd nation states onto the graph the bars do overlap when their anomalies are below zero. Yet this hardily merits the hissy fit from Woy who considers Antti Lipponen’s imagery poor doings for a puka climate researcher. (We could at this point, counter Woy’s accusation by setting out all the misleading graphics Woy has employed in the past, but that would be implying that Woy is a ‘puka climate researcher’.)
It was Willard who then pointed out to Woy the spiral GIF from Ed Hawkins.
In their subsequent brainless-storming session described in Lord Willard’s blog posting, the two came up with four/five reasons why Ed Hawkins’ spiral ” isn’t good science” but “simple visual propaganda” and “very deceptive.”
(1) The graphic colour-choice exaggerates the warming. Yellow and green exaggerate their presence relative to the blue & magenta, thus exaggerating the presence of the warmer data.
(2) The radial trace at warmer temperatures is further from the origin and thus longer, exaggerating the significance of the warmer temperatures.
(3) Also because they are warmer, the length of line for each time interval requires an acceleration to draw the GIF for warmer temperatures at the same time-interval/month’s-worth-of-data, an acceleration that again exaggerates the rate of warming.
(4) The nice cool data plotted magenta and blue is covered over by all the nastey warm green and yellow data, exaggerating the warming.
(5) The GIF has “gotten a lot of notice” which is probably the basis for their describing Hawkins spiral as – “It’s basically “Mike’s Nature Trick” (ie the hockey stick graph) all over again.”
I think there is only one way to sum up that dollup of total tosh? ‘Nice one, Ed!!’
Karsten V. Johansensays
Corrected version of my last comment here (with apologies for my english).
Does the IPCC underestimate the threat from methane-hydrates underneath rapidly degrading subsea permafrost?
According to a recent article in The Economist, researchers around the world are wondering what causes the recent rise in methane in the troposphere.
The article mentions a range of different hypotheses. But I think it makes the usual mistake of looking upon different hypotheses as if they must nescessarilly mutually exclude each other. And it also, I think, too easily throws away one of the most worrying hypotheses:
The Economist: “One big worry is the Arctic. The soil there contains methane equivalent to 2.3 times all the carbon dioxide humanity has emitted since the 1800s. If it were released it could set off a vast new burst of global warming. But methane-rich Siberian air (see map of average atmospheric methane levels in January 2016, above) shows no sign of rising any faster than the rest of the world.”
This seems to me to be a somewhat strange argument: it is well known, that the atmospheric mixing is so fast, that the levels of greenhouse gasses does not differ significantly when measured on as different locations as on the Mauna-Loa-volcano in Hawaii and in the Antarctica, even if the annual cycle is dampened in the latter location because of lesser vegetation in the southern hemisphere. But this concerns CO2. I’m not quite sure if the same is the case with methane, but I do not see why not.
Secondly the argument about the data on methane levels in the air above Siberia does not seem to be correct, according to this from the same article: “Such remote sensing could shed light on leaks in gas-rich but data-poor countries, such as Russia or Iraq, where inspectors are unwelcome or afraid to venture. But it cannot fully replace on-site sampling because carbon isotopes cannot be identified from afar.” As we all know, Siberia is in Russia…And I do not see why methane from methane hydrates should be easier to trace above russian territory than methane from natural gas.
Another fact: some research not mentioned by The Economist shows that the IPCC may be underestimating the rate of subsea permafrost thaw and thus the emerging climate threat from methane hydrates underneath degrading subsea permafrost:
“According to the model estimates of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), until the end of the 21st century the degradation of permafrost in the ESAS cannot exceed several meters and the formation of through taliks will take hundreds or thousands of years that eliminates the opportunity of massive methane (CH4) emissions from the bottom sediments of the ESAS into water column – atmosphere system due to the destruction of hydrates. Thus the IPCC considers the potential contribution of the ESAS into the emissions of CH4 as insignificant. The paper shows that the model is not really correct.
Basing on the repeated drilling of four wells performed by the Institute of Permafrost Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences in 1982-1983, scientists have proved that the rates of vertical degradation of subsea permafrost amount to18 cm a year over the last 30 years (the average is 14 cm a year) which is greater than it was assumed before.
‘New data obtained by complex biochemical, geophysical and geological studies conducted in 2011-2016 resulted in the conclusion that in some areas of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf the roof of the subsea permafrost had already reached the depth of hydrates’ stability the destruction of which may cause massive releases of bubble methane. According to our findings published earlier in Nature Geoscience, Science and Philosophical Transactions, Royal Society, the size of CH4 bubble flaw from the bottom sediments into the ESAS water can vary from milligrams to tens or hundreds of grams per square meter a day depending on the state of subsea permafrost, which leads to the concentration increase of atmospheric CH4 in the surface layer to values 2-4 times exceeding background concentrations measured in our planet,’ says the first author of the paper Professor Natalia Shakhova, the TPU Department of Geology and Minerals Prospecting.”
To say this must lead to raised eyebrows is an understatement. It seems to me deeply disturbing, knowing that the abrupt jump in global mean temperature 2016 could not just be explained by the El Nino of 2015, because that was not strong enough. This could maybe also be a factor behind the ongoing extreme heatwave around most of the northern hemisphere this spring an summer?
Interesting in this context:
“Massive remobilisation of permafrost carbon during postglacial warming
Recent hypotheses, based on atmospheric records and models, suggest that permafrost carbon (PF-C) accumulated during the last glaciation may have been an important source for the atmospheric CO2 rise during post-glacial warming. However, direct physical indications for such PF-C release have so far been absent. Here we use the Laptev Sea (Arctic Ocean) as an archive to investigate PF-C destabilization during the last glacial-interglacial period. Our results show evidence for massive supply of PF-C from Siberian soils as a result of severe active layer deepening in response to the warming.”
Of course I do realize that this is about CO2,and not methane, but the question is if not some of the mentioned carbon could stem from methane hydrates underneath degrading subsea permafrost? Does the isotopic signatures differ?
“The last glacial–interglacial transition represents a major climatic reorganization during which the Northern Hemisphere became warmer while the atmospheric CO2 rose from ca. 190 parts per million by volume (p.p.m.v.) to ca. 270 p.p.m.v. (5,6) (corresponding to ca. 190 Pg C)(2). This transition was not gradual, but characterized by abrupt fluctuations in temperature and atmospheric CO2 within the general post-glacial trend. A unique process to explain the CO2 variations has so far not been found. Upwelling of poorly ventilated abyssal water masses is one of the leading hypotheses (7,8), although the search for a 14C-depleted carbon reservoir in the deep ocean remains a matter of current debate (9,10.)” (Ibid.)
Maybe my amateuristic reasoning (regarding this field in organic chemistry) is completely off the track, but anyway it would be interesting with some comments.
according to research presented at an academic conference in Montreal this week. The findings estimate that within 15 years, thousands of miles of what should be land-bound cables in the United States will be submerged underwater.
“Most of the climate change-related impacts are going to happen very soon,” says Paul Barford, a computer scientist at the University of Wisconsin and lead author of the paper.
The immediacy of the threat stems from an unfortunate coinciding of location — much of the infrastructure that supports the internet just so happens to be situated in places most prone to rising waters. Internet traffic from our devices pings through fiber optic cables bound up in tubes that lie in shallow trenches underground. Although these cables are designed to be weather-resistant, they were never meant to be waterproof, Barford says. He predicts over 4000 miles of these cables running along the coast will flood within 15 years.
And rounding off the reporting of last month’s temperature anomalies, HadCRUT has posted for June with an anomaly of +0.57ºC, down on recent months and like NOAA (but unlike GISTEMP & BEST) sitting above Jan & Feb so not the lowest anomaly of the year-so-far. It is the 7th warmest June in the NOAA record (=3rd in GISTEMP, 3rd in BEST, 5th in NOAA) sitting behind June 2016 (+0.74ºC), 2015 (+0.72ºC), 2017 (+0.64ºC), 2014 (+0.62ºC), 1998 (+0.59ºC) & 2010 (+0.58ºC) – this identical to NOAA except with the addition of 1998 & 2010. June 2018 is =76th warmest anomaly in the full all-month HadCRUT record.
A graph of monthly temperature anomalies for the various SAT & TLT records since 2010 can be found here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’).
Now halfway though 2018, in the HadCRUT year-to-date table below, 2018 currently sits in 6th place (3rd in GISTEMMP & BEST, 4th in NOAA).
…….. Jan-Jun Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.92ºC … … … +0.80ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +0.75ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 3rd
2015 .. +0.70ºC … … … +0.76ºC … … … 2nd
2010 .. +0.62ºC … … … +0.56ºC … … … 5th
1998 .. +0.60ºC … … … +0.54ºC … … … 7th
2018 .. +0.58ºC
2002 .. +0.57ºC … … … +0.50ºC … … … 12th
2007 .. +0.56ºC … … … +0.49ºC … … … 13th
2014 .. +0.56ºC … … … +0.58ºC … … … 4th
2005 .. +0.53ºC … … … +0.55ºC … … … 6th
2003 .. +0.48ºC … … … +0.51ºC … … … 9th
Codysays
In about a fortnight, the Fergusen Fire has burned its way to Closing Yosemite Park, & onto the Front Page of Thursday’s New York Times. Observing the smoke-filtered colorful sunrises daily, across this interval, whilst wrapping up my investigations of pore-collapse degradation of the California Central Valley’s underlying Aquifer (due to “Francis-Shifting“ of the Boreal Jet Stream/Circumpolar Vortex/Planetary Wave), I was startled by the scuttlebutt I overheard @ a local McDonalds yesterday. “On the Black,” is a Hot Shot term for personnel being positioned atop previously burned–‘Blackened’—terrain, either The Subject Fire’s or perimeter (so-called “Controlled”) burns. So, word was that as the city of Fresno anticipates setting the All-Time record for longest consecutive streak of 100 F. + days, early afternoon temps ‘On-the-Black’ @ the Ferguson were running 154 Fahrenheit. And, last night, a chance encounter W/3 resting CalFire crewmen in the parking lot of a Target store here in Clovis, permitted me to CONFIRM that datum, straight from the ‘Horses Mouth.’ Needless to add, when Minimalists such as Drs. Judith Curry or M.I.T.’s Richard Lindzen wind into their “mox nix” spiels, they also but minimally stress this aspect of The Warming: That requirement for truly Heroic men to report for Work, where temperatures exceed 153 Degrees, Fahrenheit.
Al Bundysays
A better way to communicate attribution?
List the ten worst recent weather-related disasters in the USA. Then confidently claim that without man-made climate change at least four of those disasters would not have happened and most or all of the rest would have been significantly less disastrous.
Adjust the numbers if ya like. But remember, there’s absolutely no way your statement can be falsified, especially since it’s actually an impossible alternative that merely serves as an illustration. The truth is that none of those disasters would have happened on AlternativeEarth because AlternativeEarth would have a completely different set of disasters. Instead of Sandy nuking New York and Katrina drowning NOLA, for example, perhaps Hurricane Joe would have damaged Miami.
The maps – originally tweeted by Simon Lee, a PhD student in meteorology at the University of Reading – were subsequently shared more than 10,000 times on social media and featured in news stories published by the Metro, Express, Daily Mail, Mirror and Independent.
The big difference between the heatwaves of 1976 and 2018.
June 1976: the UK was one of the warmest places relative to normal across the globe, with most areas cooler than average.
June 2018: the UK was just another warm blob in a mostly warmer than normal world.#GlobalHeatwave. pic.twitter.com/eIsj7glEiE
— Simon Lee (@SimonLeeWx) July 22, 2018
Rising global average temperatures mean when these weather patterns do occur, they are more likely to bring very hot conditions, noted Belcher:
“Since 1976, the global mean temperature has risen by more than half a degree [Celsius], so any extremes we get are superimposed upon that warming. So it makes it more likely that these extreme events are going to give us higher temperatures.”
This point has been echoed throughout media reports in recent days by other scientists. Speaking to the Guardian, Prof Myles Allen from the University of Oxford said that “there’s no question human influence on climate is playing a huge role in this heatwave”.
In the same article, Prof Peter Stott, who leads the climate monitoring and attribution team at the Met Office Hadley Centre, pointed out that human-caused warming since the pre-industrial times “is increasing quite significantly the risk of such a heatwave”:
“The temperatures of 30C and above this week have gone from being a very rare occurrence to, not a frequent occurrence, but much more likely.”
Mr. Know It All says:
24 Jul 2018 at 4:05 AM ….more drivel.
You’ve been posting claptrap for a long time and haven’t learned one damn thing. You really should try to get your money back from Trump University. There was a settlement awarded to some of the victims. You may be entitled to a percentage of it.
The results of the attribution study are not a surprise, since the increasing frequency and intensity of heat waves are among the most obvious and well-documented effects of climate change. If we continue to avoid making a concerted effort to reduce our emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, heat waves as extreme as this one will simply be ordinary summer weather a few decades from now. …The great northern European heat wave of 2018 continued to set all-time records.
–Dr. Jeff Masters
It argues that even if we stop all anthropgenic emissions right now, forever, the CO2 concentration in 1000 years will still be way above pre-industrial levels. It also looks at a method of removing CO2 from the atmosphere, and uses cost per ton removal and estimated total anthropogenic emissions to show that it is not feasible in todays economy (i.e. too expensive). To my not completely informed mind, the arguments seem logical, but maybe (hopefully) there is something that has been missed.
There is also this excellent vides by David Mackay (author of Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air), which demonstrates, using facts and figures, the difficulties with renewables when it comes to powering a whole country, and that it is not as simple to switch over to a renewable energy economy as some would like to believe, although he doesn’t go as far as saying it is impossible or unfeasible.
Extreme temperatures (especially in Europe) and deforestation
Did anyone comment on Lejeune et al, Nature Climate Change, May 2018 “Historical deforestation locally increased the intensity of hot days in northern mid-latitudes” ? It is interesting but some results seem surprising at first, eg. a (too quick ?) reading of Fig 3 right panel could suggest that in Eurasia, climate forcings *other* than deforestation caused a *cooling* over 1960-80… (result of limitations in the method ? or real ?). A key aspect might be that it focuses on daily maximum (or extreme) solely in summer, while extremes may also increase in winter (cold extremes) following deforestation (Cherubini et al 2018 Environ. Res. Lett. 13 ) ?
WRT. recent heat waves, one might also note that based on Lejeune et al. fig 1, there is almost no TXx increase attributed to deforestation over Western Europe countries – and same over California, etc.
The first four weeks-worth of MLO CO2 levels have been published by NOAA ESRL and they average 408.84ppm. That’s a CO2-rise of +1.7ppm over the same period a year ago. With just three days of July left, this makes the average annual CO2-rise for all July certainly below +2ppm and over the period Aug2017-Jul2018 the CO2-rise is also certainly below +2ppm, thus below the level that was being described as the norm up-thread @149 by Carrie/Thomas.
The 12-month CO2-rise 2015-18 (and a comparison with 1997-2000) is plotted out here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’)
We still need to wait another 11 months to see if Carrie/Thomas’s prediction of a monthly CO2 rise above +3ppm will arrive “within the next twelve months.” Yet we will probably never know why Carrie/Thomas considers such a +3ppm increase important enough to feature in a future IPCC AR.
killiansays
Hmmm… wondering if the summer heat wave will boost 2018’s ranking.
Any sense whether this heat will bleed into the Arctic and give us an early August melt rate increase? The AO is going negative right now, meaning the circumpolar winds will be weakening.
Carriesays
Weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa steadily falling, more importantly YoY growth rate is falling even faster than 2017.
Week beginning on July 8, 2018: 409.16 ppm +2.18
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 406.98 ppm
Week beginning on July 15, 2018: 408.54 ppm +1.69
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 406.85 ppm
Many places nth hemisphere still making new temp records, including central NL which broke a record high then jumped another 2C higher a cpl days later.
Arctic Sea about 6 weeks away from it’s annual minimum again though it’s still a mystery how that will unfold. Have to wait and see won’t we.
Hmmm… wondering if the summer heat wave will boost 2018’s ranking.
One can ballpark the possible effects on the annual 2018 ranking. Assume that both July and August have (outlandishly high, for now) GISTEMP anomalies of 150 (ie., 1.5 C, larger than the record high monthly anomaly of 135, from February of 2016). The June anomaly was 77, so rounding off you could say that the difference in *total* 2018 monthly anomalies due to the assumed heatwave would be ~1.4. Divide by 6 (since a 2-month heatwave is assumed) and voila, you have a bump in the yearly ranking of 0.23 C or so.
The top 4 GISTEMP anomalies are 100 (2016), 90 (2017), 87 (2015) and 74 (2014)–all given for calendar, not meteorological, years–and the current YTD anomaly is ~83, which would obviously put 2018 in 4th place, bumping 2014 down to 5th. So, add 0.23 to that, and you’d see 2018 surge into first, with a yearly anomaly of 106.
Of course, the assumption made at the start was, as I said, “outlandish.” So let’s try something more likely, though still probably on the high side, and say that the July and August anomalies turn out to be just 100. (Only nine months to date have posted anomalies above 100.) Then you’re dividing 0.4, not 1.4, by 6, and your annual anomaly would be higher by just ~0.07 C, for a final number of 90. That would produce a tie for second place with 2017.
Bottom line? 2018 won’t come close to 2016, of course, and even 2017 will, I think, be too much of a stretch, at least for the heatwave to accomplish alone. But I think that it’s possible that the heatwave could push 2018 past 2015 into a solid third place–though if this year does exceed 2015, it will more probably be on the strength of the heatwave *plus* a late El Nino, not the heatwave alone.
(2015’s YTD anomaly at this point was ~82, virtually tied with 2018’s 83, which sounds promising if you want 2018 to ‘win’. But 2015 proved a strong finisher, with the last 6 months posting a mean anomaly of ~93. The big El Nino really kicked in in October–that’s actually the first 100+ month in the GISTEMP record. 2018 would need to match that 6-month mean.)
Any sense whether this heat will bleed into the Arctic and give us an early August melt rate increase?
Harder yet to say, I think. If you look at DMI N80, it’s still showing a cooler-than-usual central Arctic, but the Climate Reanalyzer has been showing what seem to me warmish anomalies for the wider Arctic. One indicator will be when the GISTEMP zonal map is updated for July, which will be what? A couple of weeks yet?
V: Very amusing. I’m assuming you’re not serious. But just in case you are: The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report is neither a fact, nor a reality (other than its status as a huge chunk of paper), nor a proof. This is the sort of response one would expect from a child. The request was for something “specific.” You might want to look up that word.
Interesting. And here I thought the IPCC report was full of facts.
Do you have any references to the peer-reviewed scientific literature that it’s not?
I talked Dr. Campbell, and as it turns out, he feels people like Mr. Bast are drawing the wrong lessons from his research. Here are four reasons he believes nobody should be celebrating “global greening.”
Carriesays
@199 and in other places MA Rodger says among other silly things: your statement “Sweden doesn’t seem to be a major exception to the rest of the Nth hemisphere either,” ( posted on the 17th July btw ) and that shows the exact opposite – Sweden is the major exception in the NH for July 17th….. but it would be far better if you learned not to spew nonsense down this thread in the first place.
I heard that – Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.
so said Robert A. Heinlein – look it up! (smile)
“A couple of interesting factoids in the local press:
“Early in July, Quriyat, Oman, recorded an overnight low of 108.7 degrees, the highest “low” temperature in world history.””
If only it were true, but, it is not. That record was whooped by 2.9 degrees in 2017. So much in the press is fake news. Just 2 day ago someone read out of the local paper that it had recently hit 90 degrees in Sweden for the first time. I had just reviewed the records a couple of days previously after reading comments here about fires north of the Arctic Circle, and I knew that was not the case. Thus, I went to Al Gore’s internet and produced the facts that refute the fake news – read ’em and weep:
“Highest overnight low temperature: 44.2 °C (111.6 °F) at the Khasab weather station (WMO Index = 41241) in Oman on June 17, 2017.[150][a]”
“A new study has warned that unless we mitigate current levels of carbon dioxide emissions, Western Europe and New Zealand could revert to the hot tropical climate of the early Paleogene period — 56-48 million years ago.”
Mr. Know It Allsays
236 – Hank
A 200 year drought 4,200 years ago? How could this be? Who was driving SUV’s back then? Where was Trump? :)
240 – Ric
I’m not a denier. It’s hotter than it used to be, but I do want to understand the radiation physics calcs, but my time is limited and it’s been 35 years since I studied it in school, so I’m rusty.
2 deg C per century over 4 decades is 1.44 deg F. I doubt scientists can determine the global temperature to +/- 1.44 deg F, but I know they claim to have that capability. Ordinary folks could not distinguish an average of 1.44 deg F rise even over just 1 year. That’s nothing. I will say this – it FEELS like it’s gone up an average of at least 10 deg F in the past 10 years! What caused it? Maybe AGW, maybe the phenomenon described in #236 by Hank. I want to see a detailed, complete presentation showing the calculations for air temperature rise versus CO2 concentration, with all the details of every atmospheric layer from the surface to outer space. Many here have provided good links and I thank them, but the man on the street hasn’t seen a thorough explanation, and if we are asked to change our entire society and infrastructure, if our electected leader is ridiculed, slandered, threatened, because he doesn’t believe in AGW, then I think the scientific community owes the ENTIRE WORLD, a thorough scientific presentation, on at least the CO2 warming part – not necessarily the future effects on atmospheric circulation between poles/equator, melting ice and SLR. But we deserve to see the math laid out plainly on CO2 and the air temperature. Is this an unreasonable request? AGW may be real – it feels real right now. :)
You folks voted ’em into office – not me. :) :) :)
Killiansays
Re #233 Kevin McKinney said “1941 when CO2 was barely higher than pre-industrial levels.”
To be precise, 310.8 ppm, according to the Vostok core data, or 10% above pre-Industrial, give or take. And three years after Guy Callendar published the first paper documenting a global warming trend and attributing it to human activity–almost certainly erroneously, as it turned out, but the paper was seminal in multiple ways.
And about 12 years before Arctic Sea Ice melt starts to show up @ 1953, at about 315ppm or so. I remind all there is a lag in the climate system between GHGs and temps. I suggest paying attention to the fact this indicates passing 300 ppm seems to have triggered significant climate changes.
I repeat my call for a sub-300 ppm world and repeat my claim this can only be done in a (relatively) safe time frame WRT tipping points by both sequestering carbon and simplifying.
*************************
Re #236 Hank Roberts said hat tip tp Soylent News:
| The Latest Chapter in Earth’s History: The Meghalayan Age
[0]takyon writes:
[1]Welcome to the Meghalayan Age – a new phase in history
The official history of Earth has a new chapter – and we are in it. Geologists have classified the last 4,200 years as being a distinct age in the story of our planet. They are calling it the Meghalayan Age, the onset of which was marked by a mega-drought that crushed a number of civilisations worldwide.
Interesting. Thanks.
*********************
Re #239 Bill Duncan said Are we starting to see the new normal?
Starting to? Really? Perhaps a better question would be from what point one would say the new normal started. I vote for the beginning of ASI melt around 1953.
*********************
Re #244 Al Bundy said AB: Gosh, so many options. I like SIPs, which are thin engineered wood panels sandwiching thick foam. They’re incredibly strong, insulate like nothing else, totally air and moisture tight, and erect in a jiffy.
Cool. Utterly unsustainable.
Steel is a decent option since it’s recyclable and doesn’t rot
Is the process, and all else in the life cycle? And what is rust? Shouldn’t it be thought of as rot for the intents and purposes of how long a building will exist?
If wood is used then engineered wood is vastly superior to dimension lumber. It can be made of inferior stock and is always true. Plus, it uses less of wood since joists and rafters can be thick on edge and thin in the middle. Thus, you can thin out a tract while leaving all the decent trees and end up with fuel and building material. Once you’re done, you simply spread the ash back in the forest.
Aaaaand… what else is in that special wood… and is any of it, or the process, sustainable and non-toxic?
Just making the point to all: We must think differently. Cool is not good enough anymore.
*******************
Re #245 Carrie said Thanks.
You’re welcome. He was out of line and spouting nonsense. Literally.
Killiansays
Re #271 Adam Lea said A somewhat depressing video on YouTube which states that climate change is now irreversible and has been locked in for the next 1000 years at least.
It argues that even if we stop all anthropgenic emissions right now, forever, the CO2 concentration in 1000 years will still be way above pre-industrial levels…
Let me fix it for you: “…if we do nothing.”
That study is, I believe, the same one McPherson has been lying about for years, presenting atmospheric GHG levels as permanent. However, the study, or whichever one it was, only considers geologic/Earth system factors. It addresses only one geoengineering possibility, a tech-based one.
In other words, the study doesn’t say what you think it says. That is, if we sequester carbon in various ways, preferably regenerative ways, and simplify, we can get back to pre-industrial levels within a human lifetime, and certainly a lot faster than a millennia or two.
Killiansays
Re #277 Kevin McKinney said Killian, #263–
Hmmm… wondering if the summer heat wave will boost 2018’s ranking.
So let’s try something more likely, though still probably on the high side, and say that the July and August anomalies turn out to be just 100. (Only nine months to date have posted anomalies above 100.) Then you’re dividing 0.4, not 1.4, by 6, and your annual anomaly would be higher by just ~0.07 C, for a final number of 90. That would produce a tie for second place with 2017.
Bottom line? 2018 won’t come close to 2016 …I think that it’s possible that the heatwave could push 2018 past 2015 into a solid third place–though if this year does exceed 2015, it will more probably be on the strength of the heatwave *plus* a late El Nino, not the heatwave alone.
2. The AO is negative at the moment, and will be for at least another week. This would explain the forecast you mentioned. The AO being negative means the circumpolar winds – another jet stream – are weaker and air can both escape from and enter the Arctic more easily than in the positive, or stronger, phase.
Any maths on the effect of the AO on Arctic temps, anyone?
Al Bundy @251,
The Space.com item is reporting on the paywalled paper Santer et al (2018) but it isn’t the best coverage of the paper. CarbonBrief have a better version.
The paper looked at TLT & TMT satelite records for the patterns of warming shown in CMIP5 models under AGW and found them in the TMT data both for the mean temperature and for the size of the annual cycle. The paper tells us the TLT did not show a discernible “fingerprint” of AGW but didn’t explain what was missing.
As for “our” summers warming quicker or slower than winters, that depends on where you find yourself. The map in the CarbonBrief item applies to RSS TMT v4.0 data 1979-2016 and shows summers warming quicker over temperate latitudes but warming more slowly over the poles. At OpenMind, Tamino has tested this latitude effect but using GISS SAT data and found a similar effect – 40ºN-6º0N winters are warming more slowly, 70ºN-90ºN summers are warming more slowly. But this is not a strong signal if you start ignoring it as being a pattern. For the NH as a whole, an OLS through GISS SAT data 1979-2017 shows NH winters warming at 0.229ºC/decade and NH summers at 0.243ºC/decade. There is a difference (0.014ºC/decade) but not robust enough to rate as a “fingerprint”.
Thomas/Carrie @283.
I suppose it is a positive thing that you have re-visited my comment @199 and do not leave the string of vaccuous adjectives @205 as your final judgement. Your reply @283 is thankfully less adjective-laden than that @205. Indeed, it comprises naught but a seemingly pithy saying from Robert Heinlein. Yet it is actually more Humpty Dumpty than pithy in that the saying “means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” Then, the comprehensibility of your multitudinous comments here at RealClimate has mainly been very poor.
Of course, Heinlein did offer advice to stupid people who struggle with the scientific to-&-fro, folk like Thomas/Carrie.
Of stupidity born of closed minds he said:-
“The hardest part about gaining any new idea is sweeping out the false idea occupying that niche. As long as that niche is occupied, evidence and proof and logical demonstration get nowhere. But once the niche is emptied of the wrong idea that has been filling it – once you can honestly say, I don’t know, then it becomes possible to get at the truth.”
The simplistic logic of this saying of course relies on an idea that there is such a thing as an immutable truth that can be ‘got’ to replace falsehood, a rather simplisitic interpretation of reality. The important point is that the “niche” should not become too sticky to ‘sweep’.
But of innate stupidity Heinlein wrote:-
“Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not make messes in the house. “
and also wrote:-
“Never try and teach a pig to sing: it’s a waste of time, and it annoys the pig.”
So which applies to you Thomas/Carrie? Up-thread @59, you said (without subsequent explanation) of the scientifically-based IPCC AR5 “‘Twas BS in 2013 and it’s still BS in 2018.” yet by that choice of Heinlein quote @283 you appear to be telling us that your own evident stupidity is entirely precient and will be vindicated by posterity. I fear such arrogance continues to be more ‘squeal’ than ‘song’.
Killiansays
Re #271 Adam Lea said There is also this excellent vides by David Mackay (author of Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air), which demonstrates, using facts and figures, the difficulties with renewables when it comes to powering a whole country, and that it is not as simple to switch over to a renewable energy economy as some would like to believe, although he doesn’t go as far as saying it is impossible or unfeasible.
Welllllll, but he does. In another video he said each of the “renewables” came out to 2kwh/person/day. We currently use way over 100kwh/person/day. And that’s if each were optimized, but clearly you can’t optimize them all because they will share locations, limit each other in funding, etc. But, still, best case scenario:
W+S+Tidal+H= 8kwh/person/day. Again, we currently use well over 100 in OECD countries. Americans seem to use over 200. Brits would be 125 to 150-ish, I’d guess.
Let me take a moment to tweak the noses of those who have scoffed at my statements regarding reducing demand 80-90%…
Simplicity. There is but one choice.
Killiansays
Arctic Sea Ice melt season note:
Lost about 2.18k sq km of sea ice in record time: 18 days.
Went from 9k sq km to less than 6.9k sq km.
If the current rate holds, we will see another record for 9k to 6k as we might go from 7 to 6 in as little as 6 days. Probably more but this momentum seems strong. Would be very surprised if as much as 9 or 10 days. 6-8 seems the target range.
Why? AO is somewhat negative. Some energy coming in from Siberia, a few other places.
mikesays
Thanks to Carrie at 284 for the link to Neven’s Arctic ice report. If you have not read Neven’s ice reports, please read or at least skim/scan this one. It is full of significant analysis about the arctic ice mass.
I am on hold pattern with CO2 analysis at this time because the yoy increase comparison numbers appear to have fallen under 2.0 ppm. It would be great news to claim that the upward acceleration of CO2 increase has stopped, but it is too soon to make such a claim. The baseline trend is only apparent to me in blocks of 5 or 10 year numbers or longer. Still, it is so encouraging to see yoy numbers under 2.0 ppm increase. We have to get to zero, as in 0.00 ppm increase in yoy numbers and we need to get there sooner, rather than later unless we want to try living in Carr fire conditions in expanding areas of the globe. Maybe it will happen, then we have to figure out how to live on a significantly warmed planet or how to cool it off. The Trump administration is hoping that reductions in capital gain taxation will make things go smooth. It’s so shameful and embarrassing to be a US citizen these days.
Detection of continental-scale intensification of hourly rainfall extremes
Temperature scaling studies suggest that hourly rainfall magnitudes might increase beyond thermodynamic expectations with global warming1,2,3; that is, above the Clausius–Clapeyron (CC) rate of ~6.5% °C−1. However, there is limited evidence of such increases in long-term observations. Here, we calculate continental-average changes in the magnitude and frequency of extreme hourly and daily rainfall observations from Australia over the years 1990–2013 and 1966–1989. Observed changes are compared with the uncertainty from natural variability and expected changes from CC scaling as a result of global mean surface temperature change. We show that increases in daily rainfall extremes are consistent with CC scaling, but are within the range of natural variability. In contrast, changes in the magnitude of hourly rainfall extremes are close to or exceed double the expected CC scaling, and are above the range of natural variability, exceeding CC × 3 in the tropical region (north of 23° S). These continental-scale changes in extreme rainfall are not explained by changes in the El Niño–Southern Oscillation or changes in the seasonality of extremes. Our results indicate that CC scaling on temperature provides a severe underestimate of observed changes in hourly rainfall extremes in Australia, with implications for assessing the impacts of extreme rainfall.
“The gigantic carbon sink below New Zealand that is the Southern Ocean might come to quicken the effects of climate change, due to a worrying feedback loop just identified by scientists.”
I’m confused. In the past I’ve heard that winter will warm faster than summer. Now I’m starting to hear, as Space.com said today, “The investigators found that our summers are warming more rapidly than the other seasons as Earth’s overall temperature rises”
Anybody have some insight?
Mr. Know It All: Few countries in the world build most of their houses with lumber. The other outliers are Canada, Australia, and Japan, but in Japan it’s mostly reinforced concrete, and most people now live in apartments. I built 300 houses with light gauge steel after the Kobe earthquake in 1996.
We can easily use steel here, substituting for wood stick for stick. It will last for several centuries, due to galvanization advances. It costs more, as much as 30% more for framing, but framing is only about 17% of total hard construction costs, so it’s not critical to the budget except for low cost tract builders. Even there, many consumers will pay the premium- less flammable, less maintenance, and fewer toxic industrial chemicals that damage IAQ. Reinforced concrete or masonry also work, and are durable, but tend to cost slightly more than steel. Countries in Latin America and Europe use concrete or masonry, and won’t buy a wood framed house even if it costs less.
Does the IPCC underestimate the threat from methane-hydrates underneath rapidly degrading subsea permafrost?
According to a recent article in The Economist, researchers around the world are wondering what causes the recent rise in methane in the troposphere.
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/04/28/scientists-struggle-to-explain-a-worrying-rise-in-atmospheric-methane
The article mentions a range of different hypotheses. But I think it makes the usual mistake of looking upon different hypotheses as if they must nescesarilly mutually exclude each other. And it also, I think, too easilly throws away one of the most worrying hypotheses:
The Economist: “One big worry is the Arctic. The soil there contains methane equivalent to 2.3 times all the carbon dioxide humanity has emitted since the 1800s. If it were released it could set off a vast new burst of global warming. But methane-rich Siberian air (see map of average atmospheric methane levels in January 2016, above) shows no sign of rising any faster than the rest of the world.”
This seems to me to be a somewhat strange argument: it is well known, that the atmospheric mixing is so fast, that the levels of greenhouse gasses does not differ significantly when measured on as different locations as on the Mauna-Loa-volcano in Hawaii and in the Antarctica, even if the annual cycle is dampened in the latter location because of lesser vegetation in the southern hemisphere.
Secondly the argument about the data on methane levels in the air above Siberia does not seem to be sure, according to this from the same article: “Such remote sensing could shed light on leaks in gas-rich but data-poor countries, such as Russia or Iraq, where inspectors are unwelcome or afraid to venture. But it cannot fully replace on-site sampling because carbon isotopes cannot be identified from afar.” As we all know, Siberia is in Russia…
Another fact: some research not mentioned by The Economist shows that the IPCC may be underestimating the rate of subsea permafrost thaw and thus the emerging climate threat from methane hydrates underneath degrading subsea permafrost:
“According to the model estimates of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), until the end of the 21st century the degradation of permafrost in the ESAS cannot exceed several meters and the formation of through taliks will take hundreds or thousands of years that eliminates the opportunity of massive methane (CH4) emissions from the bottom sediments of the ESAS into water column – atmosphere system due to the destruction of hydrates. Thus the IPCC considers the potential contribution of the ESAS into the emissions of CH4 as insignificant. The paper shows that the model is not really correct.
Basing on the repeated drilling of four wells performed by the Institute of Permafrost Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences in 1982-1983, scientists have proved that the rates of vertical degradation of subsea permafrost amount to18 cm a year over the last 30 years (the average is 14 cm a year) which is greater than it was assumed before.
‘New data obtained by complex biochemical, geophysical and geological studies conducted in 2011-2016 resulted in the conclusion that in some areas of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf the roof of the subsea permafrost had already reached the depth of hydrates’ stability the destruction of which may cause massive releases of bubble methane. According to our findings published earlier in Nature Geoscience, Science and Philosophical Transactions, Royal Society, the size of CH4 bubble flaw from the bottom sediments into the ESAS water can vary from milligrams to tens or hundreds of grams per square meter a day depending on the state of subsea permafrost, which leads to the concentration increase of atmospheric CH4 in the surface layer to values 2-4 times exceeding background concentrations measured in our planet,’ says the first author of the paper Professor Natalia Shakhova, the TPU Department of Geology and Minerals Prospecting.”
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-08/tpu-rsd081517.php
To say this must lead to raised eyebrows is an understatement. It seems to me deeply disturbing, knowing that the abrupt jump in global mean temperature 2016 could not just be explained by the El Nino of 2015, because that was not strong enough. This could maybe also be a factor behind the ongoing extreme heatwave around most of the northern hemisphere this spring an summer?
Interesting in this context:
“Massive remobilisation of permafrost carbon during postglacial warming
Recent hypotheses, based on atmospheric records and models, suggest that permafrost carbon (PF-C) accumulated during the last glaciation may have been an important source for the atmospheric CO2 rise during post-glacial warming. However, direct physical indications for such PF-C release have so far been absent. Here we use the Laptev Sea (Arctic Ocean) as an archive to investigate PF-C destabilization during the last glacial-interglacial period. Our results show evidence for massive supply of PF-C from Siberian soils as a result of severe active layer deepening in response to the warming.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27897191
This is about CO2, but the question is if not some of the mentioned carbon could stem from methane hydrates underneath degrading subsea permafrost?
“The last glacial–interglacial transition represents a major climatic reorganization during which the Northern Hemisphere became warmer while the atmospheric CO2 rose from ca. 190 parts per million by volume (p.p.m.v.) to ca. 270 p.p.m.v. (5,6) (corresponding to ca. 190 Pg C)(2). This transition was not gradual, but characterized by abrupt fluctuations in temperature and atmospheric CO2 within the general post-glacial trend. A unique process to explain the CO2 variations has so far not been found. Upwelling of poorly ventilated abyssal water masses is one of the leading hypotheses (7,8), although the search for a 14C-depleted carbon reservoir in the deep ocean remains a matter of current debate (9,10.)” (Ibid.)
Comments?
#224 nigelj said I also recall reading that climate change itself may be causing changes in the jet stream so could well be an underlying cause of the slow moving anticyclones.
You say this like it is not already commonly known and accepted. Odd. I would consider any significant skepticism on this from a legit scientist a reason for concern re the quality of their work.
See: Jennifer Francis, Rutgers University.
Killian:
Uh – “yes” to the first clause, “huh?” to the second. Defined inductively, “human nature” is anything humans are or do. Our behavior, like our bodies, evolves by natural selection on individuals living in social groups. Our behavior also evolves by culture, i.e. adaptive behavior propagated by art and symbolic language (i.e. extra-genomically) among living persons who may be remote in time and space. And no matter how it evolved, your behavior is only adaptive enough AFAIK to place you at a keyboard. I might be underestimating you, but I’m pretty sure you won’t be able to keep yourself alive forever or leave more copies of your genome extant in 1000 years than Genghis Khan. Our capacity for cultural evolution is uniquely human, but still undeniably natural. We aren’t supernatural, after all. Call that a fact or not, as you please.
I see that Lord Willard of Wattsupia has been getting hot under the collar with Ed Hawkins’ Spiralling Global Temperature GIF. He didn’t think it up all on his own, mind. The start point was a similar piece of imagary from Antti Lipponen which good-old-boy Woy Spencer took objection to. According to Woy:-
Woy objects to the bar graph radiating out from a central point which, according to Woy, exaggerates the rate of warming at hotter temperatures as according to Woy it is the area of the bars that is the primary take-away for an observer, not the length of bars. And to fit all the two-hundred-odd nation states onto the graph the bars do overlap when their anomalies are below zero. Yet this hardily merits the hissy fit from Woy who considers Antti Lipponen’s imagery poor doings for a puka climate researcher. (We could at this point, counter Woy’s accusation by setting out all the misleading graphics Woy has employed in the past, but that would be implying that Woy is a ‘puka climate researcher’.)
It was Willard who then pointed out to Woy the spiral GIF from Ed Hawkins.
In their subsequent brainless-storming session described in Lord Willard’s blog posting, the two came up with four/five reasons why Ed Hawkins’ spiral ” isn’t good science” but “simple visual propaganda” and “very deceptive.”
(1) The graphic colour-choice exaggerates the warming. Yellow and green exaggerate their presence relative to the blue & magenta, thus exaggerating the presence of the warmer data.
(2) The radial trace at warmer temperatures is further from the origin and thus longer, exaggerating the significance of the warmer temperatures.
(3) Also because they are warmer, the length of line for each time interval requires an acceleration to draw the GIF for warmer temperatures at the same time-interval/month’s-worth-of-data, an acceleration that again exaggerates the rate of warming.
(4) The nice cool data plotted magenta and blue is covered over by all the nastey warm green and yellow data, exaggerating the warming.
(5) The GIF has “gotten a lot of notice” which is probably the basis for their describing Hawkins spiral as – “It’s basically “Mike’s Nature Trick” (ie the hockey stick graph) all over again.”
I think there is only one way to sum up that dollup of total tosh?
‘Nice one, Ed!!’
Corrected version of my last comment here (with apologies for my english).
Does the IPCC underestimate the threat from methane-hydrates underneath rapidly degrading subsea permafrost?
According to a recent article in The Economist, researchers around the world are wondering what causes the recent rise in methane in the troposphere.
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/04/28/scientists-struggle-to-explain-a-worrying-rise-in-atmospheric-methane
The article mentions a range of different hypotheses. But I think it makes the usual mistake of looking upon different hypotheses as if they must nescessarilly mutually exclude each other. And it also, I think, too easily throws away one of the most worrying hypotheses:
The Economist: “One big worry is the Arctic. The soil there contains methane equivalent to 2.3 times all the carbon dioxide humanity has emitted since the 1800s. If it were released it could set off a vast new burst of global warming. But methane-rich Siberian air (see map of average atmospheric methane levels in January 2016, above) shows no sign of rising any faster than the rest of the world.”
This seems to me to be a somewhat strange argument: it is well known, that the atmospheric mixing is so fast, that the levels of greenhouse gasses does not differ significantly when measured on as different locations as on the Mauna-Loa-volcano in Hawaii and in the Antarctica, even if the annual cycle is dampened in the latter location because of lesser vegetation in the southern hemisphere. But this concerns CO2. I’m not quite sure if the same is the case with methane, but I do not see why not.
Secondly the argument about the data on methane levels in the air above Siberia does not seem to be correct, according to this from the same article: “Such remote sensing could shed light on leaks in gas-rich but data-poor countries, such as Russia or Iraq, where inspectors are unwelcome or afraid to venture. But it cannot fully replace on-site sampling because carbon isotopes cannot be identified from afar.” As we all know, Siberia is in Russia…And I do not see why methane from methane hydrates should be easier to trace above russian territory than methane from natural gas.
Another fact: some research not mentioned by The Economist shows that the IPCC may be underestimating the rate of subsea permafrost thaw and thus the emerging climate threat from methane hydrates underneath degrading subsea permafrost:
“According to the model estimates of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), until the end of the 21st century the degradation of permafrost in the ESAS cannot exceed several meters and the formation of through taliks will take hundreds or thousands of years that eliminates the opportunity of massive methane (CH4) emissions from the bottom sediments of the ESAS into water column – atmosphere system due to the destruction of hydrates. Thus the IPCC considers the potential contribution of the ESAS into the emissions of CH4 as insignificant. The paper shows that the model is not really correct.
Basing on the repeated drilling of four wells performed by the Institute of Permafrost Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences in 1982-1983, scientists have proved that the rates of vertical degradation of subsea permafrost amount to18 cm a year over the last 30 years (the average is 14 cm a year) which is greater than it was assumed before.
‘New data obtained by complex biochemical, geophysical and geological studies conducted in 2011-2016 resulted in the conclusion that in some areas of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf the roof of the subsea permafrost had already reached the depth of hydrates’ stability the destruction of which may cause massive releases of bubble methane. According to our findings published earlier in Nature Geoscience, Science and Philosophical Transactions, Royal Society, the size of CH4 bubble flaw from the bottom sediments into the ESAS water can vary from milligrams to tens or hundreds of grams per square meter a day depending on the state of subsea permafrost, which leads to the concentration increase of atmospheric CH4 in the surface layer to values 2-4 times exceeding background concentrations measured in our planet,’ says the first author of the paper Professor Natalia Shakhova, the TPU Department of Geology and Minerals Prospecting.”
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-08/tpu-rsd081517.php
To say this must lead to raised eyebrows is an understatement. It seems to me deeply disturbing, knowing that the abrupt jump in global mean temperature 2016 could not just be explained by the El Nino of 2015, because that was not strong enough. This could maybe also be a factor behind the ongoing extreme heatwave around most of the northern hemisphere this spring an summer?
Interesting in this context:
“Massive remobilisation of permafrost carbon during postglacial warming
Recent hypotheses, based on atmospheric records and models, suggest that permafrost carbon (PF-C) accumulated during the last glaciation may have been an important source for the atmospheric CO2 rise during post-glacial warming. However, direct physical indications for such PF-C release have so far been absent. Here we use the Laptev Sea (Arctic Ocean) as an archive to investigate PF-C destabilization during the last glacial-interglacial period. Our results show evidence for massive supply of PF-C from Siberian soils as a result of severe active layer deepening in response to the warming.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27897191
Of course I do realize that this is about CO2,and not methane, but the question is if not some of the mentioned carbon could stem from methane hydrates underneath degrading subsea permafrost? Does the isotopic signatures differ?
“The last glacial–interglacial transition represents a major climatic reorganization during which the Northern Hemisphere became warmer while the atmospheric CO2 rose from ca. 190 parts per million by volume (p.p.m.v.) to ca. 270 p.p.m.v. (5,6) (corresponding to ca. 190 Pg C)(2). This transition was not gradual, but characterized by abrupt fluctuations in temperature and atmospheric CO2 within the general post-glacial trend. A unique process to explain the CO2 variations has so far not been found. Upwelling of poorly ventilated abyssal water masses is one of the leading hypotheses (7,8), although the search for a 14C-depleted carbon reservoir in the deep ocean remains a matter of current debate (9,10.)” (Ibid.)
Maybe my amateuristic reasoning (regarding this field in organic chemistry) is completely off the track, but anyway it would be interesting with some comments.
Hat tip to Medium.com:
https://medium.com/popular-science/rising-sea-levels-are-going-to-mess-with-the-internet-sooner-than-you-think-2db6b028c36f
For Killian:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature
Basic defining fact: humans are characteristically quite argumentative.
Made a video!
The 5 Big Climate Unknowns
http://climatestate.com/2018/07/27/the-5-big-climate-unknowns/
> What should we use to make houses
Toxic waste: https://www.google.com/search?q=fly+ash+cement
For Mr. KIA. Since you’re focused on local weather, look at the patterns over time.
https://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2018/06/20/you-are-about-to-see-this-image-everywhere/
And rounding off the reporting of last month’s temperature anomalies, HadCRUT has posted for June with an anomaly of +0.57ºC, down on recent months and like NOAA (but unlike GISTEMP & BEST) sitting above Jan & Feb so not the lowest anomaly of the year-so-far. It is the 7th warmest June in the NOAA record (=3rd in GISTEMP, 3rd in BEST, 5th in NOAA) sitting behind June 2016 (+0.74ºC), 2015 (+0.72ºC), 2017 (+0.64ºC), 2014 (+0.62ºC), 1998 (+0.59ºC) & 2010 (+0.58ºC) – this identical to NOAA except with the addition of 1998 & 2010. June 2018 is =76th warmest anomaly in the full all-month HadCRUT record.
A graph of monthly temperature anomalies for the various SAT & TLT records since 2010 can be found here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’).
Now halfway though 2018, in the HadCRUT year-to-date table below, 2018 currently sits in 6th place (3rd in GISTEMMP & BEST, 4th in NOAA).
…….. Jan-Jun Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.92ºC … … … +0.80ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +0.75ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 3rd
2015 .. +0.70ºC … … … +0.76ºC … … … 2nd
2010 .. +0.62ºC … … … +0.56ºC … … … 5th
1998 .. +0.60ºC … … … +0.54ºC … … … 7th
2018 .. +0.58ºC
2002 .. +0.57ºC … … … +0.50ºC … … … 12th
2007 .. +0.56ºC … … … +0.49ºC … … … 13th
2014 .. +0.56ºC … … … +0.58ºC … … … 4th
2005 .. +0.53ºC … … … +0.55ºC … … … 6th
2003 .. +0.48ºC … … … +0.51ºC … … … 9th
In about a fortnight, the Fergusen Fire has burned its way to Closing Yosemite Park, & onto the Front Page of Thursday’s New York Times. Observing the smoke-filtered colorful sunrises daily, across this interval, whilst wrapping up my investigations of pore-collapse degradation of the California Central Valley’s underlying Aquifer (due to “Francis-Shifting“ of the Boreal Jet Stream/Circumpolar Vortex/Planetary Wave), I was startled by the scuttlebutt I overheard @ a local McDonalds yesterday. “On the Black,” is a Hot Shot term for personnel being positioned atop previously burned–‘Blackened’—terrain, either The Subject Fire’s or perimeter (so-called “Controlled”) burns. So, word was that as the city of Fresno anticipates setting the All-Time record for longest consecutive streak of 100 F. + days, early afternoon temps ‘On-the-Black’ @ the Ferguson were running 154 Fahrenheit. And, last night, a chance encounter W/3 resting CalFire crewmen in the parking lot of a Target store here in Clovis, permitted me to CONFIRM that datum, straight from the ‘Horses Mouth.’ Needless to add, when Minimalists such as Drs. Judith Curry or M.I.T.’s Richard Lindzen wind into their “mox nix” spiels, they also but minimally stress this aspect of The Warming: That requirement for truly Heroic men to report for Work, where temperatures exceed 153 Degrees, Fahrenheit.
A better way to communicate attribution?
List the ten worst recent weather-related disasters in the USA. Then confidently claim that without man-made climate change at least four of those disasters would not have happened and most or all of the rest would have been significantly less disastrous.
Adjust the numbers if ya like. But remember, there’s absolutely no way your statement can be falsified, especially since it’s actually an impossible alternative that merely serves as an illustration. The truth is that none of those disasters would have happened on AlternativeEarth because AlternativeEarth would have a completely different set of disasters. Instead of Sandy nuking New York and Katrina drowning NOLA, for example, perhaps Hurricane Joe would have damaged Miami.
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/07/12/Major-broadcast-TV-networks-mentioned-climate-change-just-once-during-two-weeks-of-heat-wa/220651
The maps – originally tweeted by Simon Lee, a PhD student in meteorology at the University of Reading – were subsequently shared more than 10,000 times on social media and featured in news stories published by the Metro, Express, Daily Mail, Mirror and Independent.
The big difference between the heatwaves of 1976 and 2018.
June 1976: the UK was one of the warmest places relative to normal across the globe, with most areas cooler than average.
June 2018: the UK was just another warm blob in a mostly warmer than normal world.#GlobalHeatwave. pic.twitter.com/eIsj7glEiE
— Simon Lee (@SimonLeeWx) July 22, 2018
Rising global average temperatures mean when these weather patterns do occur, they are more likely to bring very hot conditions, noted Belcher:
“Since 1976, the global mean temperature has risen by more than half a degree [Celsius], so any extremes we get are superimposed upon that warming. So it makes it more likely that these extreme events are going to give us higher temperatures.”
This point has been echoed throughout media reports in recent days by other scientists. Speaking to the Guardian, Prof Myles Allen from the University of Oxford said that “there’s no question human influence on climate is playing a huge role in this heatwave”.
In the same article, Prof Peter Stott, who leads the climate monitoring and attribution team at the Met Office Hadley Centre, pointed out that human-caused warming since the pre-industrial times “is increasing quite significantly the risk of such a heatwave”:
“The temperatures of 30C and above this week have gone from being a very rare occurrence to, not a frequent occurrence, but much more likely.”
https://www.carbonbrief.org/media-reaction-2018-summer-heatwaves-and-climate-change
Mr. Know It All says:
24 Jul 2018 at 4:05 AM ….more drivel.
You’ve been posting claptrap for a long time and haven’t learned one damn thing. You really should try to get your money back from Trump University. There was a settlement awarded to some of the victims. You may be entitled to a percentage of it.
Another typical day on RC :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToQxa4rgc1I
The results of the attribution study are not a surprise, since the increasing frequency and intensity of heat waves are among the most obvious and well-documented effects of climate change. If we continue to avoid making a concerted effort to reduce our emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, heat waves as extreme as this one will simply be ordinary summer weather a few decades from now. …The great northern European heat wave of 2018 continued to set all-time records.
–Dr. Jeff Masters
https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/2018-European-Heat-Wave-5-Times-More-Likely-Due-Climate-Change
Includes 10-day heat map, partial list of records, NASA Earth Observatory image of phytoplankton blooms in the Gulf of Finland, links, etc.
A somewhat depressing video on YouTube which states that climate change is now irreversible and has been locked in for the next 1000 years at least:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC7A9FHLreI
It argues that even if we stop all anthropgenic emissions right now, forever, the CO2 concentration in 1000 years will still be way above pre-industrial levels. It also looks at a method of removing CO2 from the atmosphere, and uses cost per ton removal and estimated total anthropogenic emissions to show that it is not feasible in todays economy (i.e. too expensive). To my not completely informed mind, the arguments seem logical, but maybe (hopefully) there is something that has been missed.
There is also this excellent vides by David Mackay (author of Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air), which demonstrates, using facts and figures, the difficulties with renewables when it comes to powering a whole country, and that it is not as simple to switch over to a renewable energy economy as some would like to believe, although he doesn’t go as far as saying it is impossible or unfeasible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0W1ZZYIV8o
Summer holidays are here
https://youtu.be/Gbajf_rHzys?t=18s
Extreme temperatures (especially in Europe) and deforestation
Did anyone comment on Lejeune et al, Nature Climate Change, May 2018 “Historical deforestation locally increased the intensity of hot days in northern mid-latitudes” ? It is interesting but some results seem surprising at first, eg. a (too quick ?) reading of Fig 3 right panel could suggest that in Eurasia, climate forcings *other* than deforestation caused a *cooling* over 1960-80… (result of limitations in the method ? or real ?). A key aspect might be that it focuses on daily maximum (or extreme) solely in summer, while extremes may also increase in winter (cold extremes) following deforestation (Cherubini et al 2018 Environ. Res. Lett. 13 ) ?
WRT. recent heat waves, one might also note that based on Lejeune et al. fig 1, there is almost no TXx increase attributed to deforestation over Western Europe countries – and same over California, etc.
The first four weeks-worth of MLO CO2 levels have been published by NOAA ESRL and they average 408.84ppm. That’s a CO2-rise of +1.7ppm over the same period a year ago. With just three days of July left, this makes the average annual CO2-rise for all July certainly below +2ppm and over the period Aug2017-Jul2018 the CO2-rise is also certainly below +2ppm, thus below the level that was being described as the norm up-thread @149 by Carrie/Thomas.
The 12-month CO2-rise 2015-18 (and a comparison with 1997-2000) is plotted out here (usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’)
We still need to wait another 11 months to see if Carrie/Thomas’s prediction of a monthly CO2 rise above +3ppm will arrive “within the next twelve months.” Yet we will probably never know why Carrie/Thomas considers such a +3ppm increase important enough to feature in a future IPCC AR.
Hmmm… wondering if the summer heat wave will boost 2018’s ranking.
Any sense whether this heat will bleed into the Arctic and give us an early August melt rate increase? The AO is going negative right now, meaning the circumpolar winds will be weakening.
Weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa steadily falling, more importantly YoY growth rate is falling even faster than 2017.
Week beginning on July 8, 2018: 409.16 ppm +2.18
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 406.98 ppm
Week beginning on July 15, 2018: 408.54 ppm +1.69
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 406.85 ppm
Week beginning on July 22, 2018: 408.28 ppm +1.55
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 406.73 ppm
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html
Meanwhile Global CO2 is slowly rising at a glacier pace nevertheless.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gl_trend.html
Many places nth hemisphere still making new temp records, including central NL which broke a record high then jumped another 2C higher a cpl days later.
Arctic Sea about 6 weeks away from it’s annual minimum again though it’s still a mystery how that will unfold. Have to wait and see won’t we.
Been a few fires lately, with a European record death toll in over 100 years in Greece fires (91 + 25 missing), but US not too bad yet.
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2018/nasa-satellite-sees-fires-up-and-down-us-west-coast
Heatwave news 2018?
https://www.carbonbrief.org/climate-change-made-2018-european-heatwave-up-to-five-times-more-likely
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/are-we-ready-deadly-heat-waves-future
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/28/us/2018-global-heat-record-4th-wxc/index.html
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27072018/summer-2018-heat-wave-wildfires-climate-change-evidence-crops-flooding-deaths-records-broken
At least some are talking about it and sharing info to the public.
Killian, #263–
One can ballpark the possible effects on the annual 2018 ranking. Assume that both July and August have (outlandishly high, for now) GISTEMP anomalies of 150 (ie., 1.5 C, larger than the record high monthly anomaly of 135, from February of 2016). The June anomaly was 77, so rounding off you could say that the difference in *total* 2018 monthly anomalies due to the assumed heatwave would be ~1.4. Divide by 6 (since a 2-month heatwave is assumed) and voila, you have a bump in the yearly ranking of 0.23 C or so.
The top 4 GISTEMP anomalies are 100 (2016), 90 (2017), 87 (2015) and 74 (2014)–all given for calendar, not meteorological, years–and the current YTD anomaly is ~83, which would obviously put 2018 in 4th place, bumping 2014 down to 5th. So, add 0.23 to that, and you’d see 2018 surge into first, with a yearly anomaly of 106.
Of course, the assumption made at the start was, as I said, “outlandish.” So let’s try something more likely, though still probably on the high side, and say that the July and August anomalies turn out to be just 100. (Only nine months to date have posted anomalies above 100.) Then you’re dividing 0.4, not 1.4, by 6, and your annual anomaly would be higher by just ~0.07 C, for a final number of 90. That would produce a tie for second place with 2017.
Bottom line? 2018 won’t come close to 2016, of course, and even 2017 will, I think, be too much of a stretch, at least for the heatwave to accomplish alone. But I think that it’s possible that the heatwave could push 2018 past 2015 into a solid third place–though if this year does exceed 2015, it will more probably be on the strength of the heatwave *plus* a late El Nino, not the heatwave alone.
(2015’s YTD anomaly at this point was ~82, virtually tied with 2018’s 83, which sounds promising if you want 2018 to ‘win’. But 2015 proved a strong finisher, with the last 6 months posting a mean anomaly of ~93. The big El Nino really kicked in in October–that’s actually the first 100+ month in the GISTEMP record. 2018 would need to match that 6-month mean.)
Harder yet to say, I think. If you look at DMI N80, it’s still showing a cooler-than-usual central Arctic, but the Climate Reanalyzer has been showing what seem to me warmish anomalies for the wider Arctic. One indicator will be when the GISTEMP zonal map is updated for July, which will be what? A couple of weeks yet?
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
My vote for post of the month award to Ray at 235:
Mr. KIA: “What should we use to make houses?”
If we can find something as impenetrable to wind and rain as your head is to evidence and logic, that’s got my vote!
well done, Ray!
Carrie, bless your heart, are you getting enough attention?
Victor@237 wrote
Interesting. And here I thought the IPCC report was full of facts.
Do you have any references to the peer-reviewed scientific literature that it’s not?
Relevant to a number of posts above:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/arctic-warming-and-global-heatwave-1.4765383
(Dr. Jennifer Francis weighs in on the weakening of the jet stream, and we get weather news from the Yukon.)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369526617302406?via%3Dihub
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/science/climate-change-plants-global-greening.html
@199 and in other places MA Rodger says among other silly things:
your statement “Sweden doesn’t seem to be a major exception to the rest of the Nth hemisphere either,” ( posted on the 17th July btw ) and that shows the exact opposite – Sweden is the major exception in the NH for July 17th….. but it would be far better if you learned not to spew nonsense down this thread in the first place.
I heard that – Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.
so said Robert A. Heinlein – look it up! (smile)
When already in a deep hole the best thing to do is to stop digging!
https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/show_picture.pl?l=english&rais=1&oiu=https%3A%2F%2Ftoddspain.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F01%2Fhole.jpg&sp=4d4ff17e838e486d0ada3ef405ce7e63
And I do love that T-Shirt
Useful summary by Neven about the Arctic Sea Ice situation this year.
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2018/07/as-we-approach-the-final-stretch.html
Mike Roddy @215 asks, “Why are we still building houses out of two by fours in the 21st century?”
If the question is why houses are still built with two by fours instead of with two by sixes or better yet cross-laminated timber, which sequester more carbon than two by fours, it’s a good one. If the question relates to the use of sustainable wood building materials versus alternative materials such as steel or concrete, one answer would be that wood building materials have a lower environmental footprint, using less energy and emitting fewer greenhouse gases and pollutants over their life cycle.
238 – S.B. Ripman says:
“A couple of interesting factoids in the local press:
“Early in July, Quriyat, Oman, recorded an overnight low of 108.7 degrees, the highest “low” temperature in world history.””
If only it were true, but, it is not. That record was whooped by 2.9 degrees in 2017. So much in the press is fake news. Just 2 day ago someone read out of the local paper that it had recently hit 90 degrees in Sweden for the first time. I had just reviewed the records a couple of days previously after reading comments here about fires north of the Arctic Circle, and I knew that was not the case. Thus, I went to Al Gore’s internet and produced the facts that refute the fake news – read ’em and weep:
“Highest overnight low temperature: 44.2 °C (111.6 °F) at the Khasab weather station (WMO Index = 41241) in Oman on June 17, 2017.[150][a]”
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records#Europe_%5Bnotes_6%5D
Sweden – from the same link above:
Sweden 38.0 °C (100.4 °F) Ultuna, Uppsala County/
Målilla, Kalmar County (tied) 9 July 1933 /
29 June 1947[112]
They don’t call me MKIA just to hear their heads rattle. :)
235 – RAY
Good one dude! :)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180730120332.htm
“A new study has warned that unless we mitigate current levels of carbon dioxide emissions, Western Europe and New Zealand could revert to the hot tropical climate of the early Paleogene period — 56-48 million years ago.”
236 – Hank
A 200 year drought 4,200 years ago? How could this be? Who was driving SUV’s back then? Where was Trump? :)
Hey, I heard your song the other day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2hJLa0T-Sw
240 – Ric
I’m not a denier. It’s hotter than it used to be, but I do want to understand the radiation physics calcs, but my time is limited and it’s been 35 years since I studied it in school, so I’m rusty.
2 deg C per century over 4 decades is 1.44 deg F. I doubt scientists can determine the global temperature to +/- 1.44 deg F, but I know they claim to have that capability. Ordinary folks could not distinguish an average of 1.44 deg F rise even over just 1 year. That’s nothing. I will say this – it FEELS like it’s gone up an average of at least 10 deg F in the past 10 years! What caused it? Maybe AGW, maybe the phenomenon described in #236 by Hank. I want to see a detailed, complete presentation showing the calculations for air temperature rise versus CO2 concentration, with all the details of every atmospheric layer from the surface to outer space. Many here have provided good links and I thank them, but the man on the street hasn’t seen a thorough explanation, and if we are asked to change our entire society and infrastructure, if our electected leader is ridiculed, slandered, threatened, because he doesn’t believe in AGW, then I think the scientific community owes the ENTIRE WORLD, a thorough scientific presentation, on at least the CO2 warming part – not necessarily the future effects on atmospheric circulation between poles/equator, melting ice and SLR. But we deserve to see the math laid out plainly on CO2 and the air temperature. Is this an unreasonable request? AGW may be real – it feels real right now. :)
Take a break and listen to a good environmentalist song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8sh9P3X33w
232 – BPL
Dude, just pulling your leg. You are correct, don’t let me get to you. BUT, dude, don’t go to Austin. They do NOT like your name down there. You can’t make up idiocy this profound:
https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2018/07/equity-office-proposes-renaming-7-confederate-streets-and-even-the-city-itself/
You folks voted ’em into office – not me. :) :) :)
Re #233 Kevin McKinney said “1941 when CO2 was barely higher than pre-industrial levels.”
To be precise, 310.8 ppm, according to the Vostok core data, or 10% above pre-Industrial, give or take. And three years after Guy Callendar published the first paper documenting a global warming trend and attributing it to human activity–almost certainly erroneously, as it turned out, but the paper was seminal in multiple ways.
And about 12 years before Arctic Sea Ice melt starts to show up @ 1953, at about 315ppm or so. I remind all there is a lag in the climate system between GHGs and temps. I suggest paying attention to the fact this indicates passing 300 ppm seems to have triggered significant climate changes.
I repeat my call for a sub-300 ppm world and repeat my claim this can only be done in a (relatively) safe time frame WRT tipping points by both sequestering carbon and simplifying.
*************************
Re #236 Hank Roberts said hat tip tp Soylent News:
| The Latest Chapter in Earth’s History: The Meghalayan Age
[0]takyon writes:
[1]Welcome to the Meghalayan Age – a new phase in history
The official history of Earth has a new chapter – and we are in it. Geologists have classified the last 4,200 years as being a distinct age in the story of our planet. They are calling it the Meghalayan Age, the onset of which was marked by a mega-drought that crushed a number of civilisations worldwide.
Interesting. Thanks.
*********************
Re #239 Bill Duncan said Are we starting to see the new normal?
Starting to? Really? Perhaps a better question would be from what point one would say the new normal started. I vote for the beginning of ASI melt around 1953.
*********************
Re #244 Al Bundy said AB: Gosh, so many options. I like SIPs, which are thin engineered wood panels sandwiching thick foam. They’re incredibly strong, insulate like nothing else, totally air and moisture tight, and erect in a jiffy.
Cool. Utterly unsustainable.
Steel is a decent option since it’s recyclable and doesn’t rot
Is the process, and all else in the life cycle? And what is rust? Shouldn’t it be thought of as rot for the intents and purposes of how long a building will exist?
If wood is used then engineered wood is vastly superior to dimension lumber. It can be made of inferior stock and is always true. Plus, it uses less of wood since joists and rafters can be thick on edge and thin in the middle. Thus, you can thin out a tract while leaving all the decent trees and end up with fuel and building material. Once you’re done, you simply spread the ash back in the forest.
Aaaaand… what else is in that special wood… and is any of it, or the process, sustainable and non-toxic?
Just making the point to all: We must think differently. Cool is not good enough anymore.
*******************
Re #245 Carrie said Thanks.
You’re welcome. He was out of line and spouting nonsense. Literally.
Re #271 Adam Lea said A somewhat depressing video on YouTube which states that climate change is now irreversible and has been locked in for the next 1000 years at least.
It argues that even if we stop all anthropgenic emissions right now, forever, the CO2 concentration in 1000 years will still be way above pre-industrial levels…
Let me fix it for you: “…if we do nothing.”
That study is, I believe, the same one McPherson has been lying about for years, presenting atmospheric GHG levels as permanent. However, the study, or whichever one it was, only considers geologic/Earth system factors. It addresses only one geoengineering possibility, a tech-based one.
In other words, the study doesn’t say what you think it says. That is, if we sequester carbon in various ways, preferably regenerative ways, and simplify, we can get back to pre-industrial levels within a human lifetime, and certainly a lot faster than a millennia or two.
Re #277 Kevin McKinney said Killian, #263–
Hmmm… wondering if the summer heat wave will boost 2018’s ranking.
So let’s try something more likely, though still probably on the high side, and say that the July and August anomalies turn out to be just 100. (Only nine months to date have posted anomalies above 100.) Then you’re dividing 0.4, not 1.4, by 6, and your annual anomaly would be higher by just ~0.07 C, for a final number of 90. That would produce a tie for second place with 2017.
Bottom line? 2018 won’t come close to 2016 …I think that it’s possible that the heatwave could push 2018 past 2015 into a solid third place–though if this year does exceed 2015, it will more probably be on the strength of the heatwave *plus* a late El Nino, not the heatwave alone.
Two points: 1. UK weather latest: Heatwave could last MONTHS because of STALLED jet stream, warn experts
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/994053/UK-heatwave-uk-weather-forecast-stalled-jet-stream-temperatures-met-office
2. The AO is negative at the moment, and will be for at least another week. This would explain the forecast you mentioned. The AO being negative means the circumpolar winds – another jet stream – are weaker and air can both escape from and enter the Arctic more easily than in the positive, or stronger, phase.
Any maths on the effect of the AO on Arctic temps, anyone?
Al Bundy @251,
The Space.com item is reporting on the paywalled paper Santer et al (2018) but it isn’t the best coverage of the paper. CarbonBrief have a better version.
The paper looked at TLT & TMT satelite records for the patterns of warming shown in CMIP5 models under AGW and found them in the TMT data both for the mean temperature and for the size of the annual cycle. The paper tells us the TLT did not show a discernible “fingerprint” of AGW but didn’t explain what was missing.
As for “our” summers warming quicker or slower than winters, that depends on where you find yourself. The map in the CarbonBrief item applies to RSS TMT v4.0 data 1979-2016 and shows summers warming quicker over temperate latitudes but warming more slowly over the poles. At OpenMind, Tamino has tested this latitude effect but using GISS SAT data and found a similar effect – 40ºN-6º0N winters are warming more slowly, 70ºN-90ºN summers are warming more slowly. But this is not a strong signal if you start ignoring it as being a pattern. For the NH as a whole, an OLS through GISS SAT data 1979-2017 shows NH winters warming at 0.229ºC/decade and NH summers at 0.243ºC/decade. There is a difference (0.014ºC/decade) but not robust enough to rate as a “fingerprint”.
Thomas/Carrie @283.
I suppose it is a positive thing that you have re-visited my comment @199 and do not leave the string of vaccuous adjectives @205 as your final judgement. Your reply @283 is thankfully less adjective-laden than that @205. Indeed, it comprises naught but a seemingly pithy saying from Robert Heinlein. Yet it is actually more Humpty Dumpty than pithy in that the saying “means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” Then, the comprehensibility of your multitudinous comments here at RealClimate has mainly been very poor.
Of course, Heinlein did offer advice to stupid people who struggle with the scientific to-&-fro, folk like Thomas/Carrie.
Of stupidity born of closed minds he said:-
The simplistic logic of this saying of course relies on an idea that there is such a thing as an immutable truth that can be ‘got’ to replace falsehood, a rather simplisitic interpretation of reality. The important point is that the “niche” should not become too sticky to ‘sweep’.
But of innate stupidity Heinlein wrote:-
and also wrote:-
So which applies to you Thomas/Carrie? Up-thread @59, you said (without subsequent explanation) of the scientifically-based IPCC AR5 “‘Twas BS in 2013 and it’s still BS in 2018.” yet by that choice of Heinlein quote @283 you appear to be telling us that your own evident stupidity is entirely precient and will be vindicated by posterity. I fear such arrogance continues to be more ‘squeal’ than ‘song’.
Re #271 Adam Lea said There is also this excellent vides by David Mackay (author of Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air), which demonstrates, using facts and figures, the difficulties with renewables when it comes to powering a whole country, and that it is not as simple to switch over to a renewable energy economy as some would like to believe, although he doesn’t go as far as saying it is impossible or unfeasible.
Welllllll, but he does. In another video he said each of the “renewables” came out to 2kwh/person/day. We currently use way over 100kwh/person/day. And that’s if each were optimized, but clearly you can’t optimize them all because they will share locations, limit each other in funding, etc. But, still, best case scenario:
W+S+Tidal+H= 8kwh/person/day. Again, we currently use well over 100 in OECD countries. Americans seem to use over 200. Brits would be 125 to 150-ish, I’d guess.
Let me take a moment to tweak the noses of those who have scoffed at my statements regarding reducing demand 80-90%…
Simplicity. There is but one choice.
Arctic Sea Ice melt season note:
Lost about 2.18k sq km of sea ice in record time: 18 days.
Went from 9k sq km to less than 6.9k sq km.
If the current rate holds, we will see another record for 9k to 6k as we might go from 7 to 6 in as little as 6 days. Probably more but this momentum seems strong. Would be very surprised if as much as 9 or 10 days. 6-8 seems the target range.
Why? AO is somewhat negative. Some energy coming in from Siberia, a few other places.
Thanks to Carrie at 284 for the link to Neven’s Arctic ice report. If you have not read Neven’s ice reports, please read or at least skim/scan this one. It is full of significant analysis about the arctic ice mass.
I am on hold pattern with CO2 analysis at this time because the yoy increase comparison numbers appear to have fallen under 2.0 ppm. It would be great news to claim that the upward acceleration of CO2 increase has stopped, but it is too soon to make such a claim. The baseline trend is only apparent to me in blocks of 5 or 10 year numbers or longer. Still, it is so encouraging to see yoy numbers under 2.0 ppm increase. We have to get to zero, as in 0.00 ppm increase in yoy numbers and we need to get there sooner, rather than later unless we want to try living in Carr fire conditions in expanding areas of the globe. Maybe it will happen, then we have to figure out how to live on a significantly warmed planet or how to cool it off. The Trump administration is hoping that reductions in capital gain taxation will make things go smooth. It’s so shameful and embarrassing to be a US citizen these days.
Warm regards
Mike
For Carrie:
> being right too soon
The observation predates Heinlein’s comment.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/premature_antifascist
Detection of continental-scale intensification of hourly rainfall extremes
Temperature scaling studies suggest that hourly rainfall magnitudes might increase beyond thermodynamic expectations with global warming1,2,3; that is, above the Clausius–Clapeyron (CC) rate of ~6.5% °C−1. However, there is limited evidence of such increases in long-term observations. Here, we calculate continental-average changes in the magnitude and frequency of extreme hourly and daily rainfall observations from Australia over the years 1990–2013 and 1966–1989. Observed changes are compared with the uncertainty from natural variability and expected changes from CC scaling as a result of global mean surface temperature change. We show that increases in daily rainfall extremes are consistent with CC scaling, but are within the range of natural variability. In contrast, changes in the magnitude of hourly rainfall extremes are close to or exceed double the expected CC scaling, and are above the range of natural variability, exceeding CC × 3 in the tropical region (north of 23° S). These continental-scale changes in extreme rainfall are not explained by changes in the El Niño–Southern Oscillation or changes in the seasonality of extremes. Our results indicate that CC scaling on temperature provides a severe underestimate of observed changes in hourly rainfall extremes in Australia, with implications for assessing the impacts of extreme rainfall.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0245-3
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=12097292
“The gigantic carbon sink below New Zealand that is the Southern Ocean might come to quicken the effects of climate change, due to a worrying feedback loop just identified by scientists.”
UAH is reporting July 2018 TLT with an anomaly of +0.32ºC, up on June’s +0.21ºC and the highest UAH TLT anomaly for the year so far. (Previous 2018 months range from +0.18ºC to +0.26ºC.) It is the 4th warmest July in UAH TLT, below first-placed 1998 (+0.51ºC and in UAH way out front, still), 2016 and 2010. July 2018 is the =46th warmest monthly anomaly on the full all-month UAH TLT record.
In the UAH TLT year-to-date table below, 2018 sits 6th. .
…….. Jan-July Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.59ºC … … … +0.51ºC … … … 1st
1998 .. +0.58ºC … … … +0.48ºC … … … 2nd
2010 .. +0.41ºC … … … +0.33ºC … … … 4th
2017 .. +0.31ºC … … … +0.38ºC … … … 3rd
2002 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.22ºC … … … 6th
2018 .. +0.23ºC
2005 .. +0.21ºC … … … +0.20ºC … … … 7th
2015 .. +0.21ºC … … … +0.27ºC … … … 5th
2007 .. +0.21ºC … … … +0.16ºC … … … 10th
2014 .. +0.17ºC … … … +0.18ºC … … … 9th
2003 .. +0.17ºC … … … +0.19ºC … … … 8th