This month’s open thread for climate science issues.
Reader Interactions
409 Responses to "Unforced Variations: Aug 2018"
patricksays
“This is the face of climate change,” said Prof Michael Mann, at Penn State University, and one the world’s most eminent climate scientists. “We literally would not have seen these extremes in the absence of climate change.”
“The impacts of climate change are no longer subtle,” he told the Guardian. “We are seeing them play out in real time and what is happening this summer is a perfect example of that.”
“We found that for the weather station in the far north, in the Arctic Circle, the current heatwave is just extraordinary – unprecedented in the historical record,” said Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute and also part of WWA [World Weather Attribution consortium].
Across northern Europe, the group found global warming more than doubled the risk of scorching temperatures. “We can can see the fingerprints of climate change on local extremes,” he said. “It is amazing now that it is something you can really see at a local level.”
I was trying to find out where CO2e currently stands at and I was unable.
It would be nice if there was a scientific backed posting in ppm at least twice a year.
An interesting article at Climate Central. Heat waves are lasting longer. Supportive of the idea that jet streams are becoming less reliable.
alan2102says
Personal CO2 quotas:
I’ve been doing more air travel in recent years, and feeling guilty about the resultant CO2 stress. But after a bit of research I feel somewhat better. The figures are not that bad, if in context with an overall CO2-modest lifestyle. A single long-haul domestic flight might release ~1.5 tons — which could fit within a reasonable definition of good global citizenship if your total otherwise is under 5 tons. For perspective, the average American belches 20 tons of CO2 per year.
Someone ring up Kevin Anderson and tell him that he might want to consider an occasional flight, which won’t break his personal CO2 bank provided his lifestyle is sufficiently modest otherwise. On the other hand, I do appreciate him setting a prominent personal example of forbearance. Would that Gore and DeCaprio do the same.
http://carbonfund.org/how-we-calculate/
“CO2 emissions in air travel vary by length of flight, ranging from 0.254 kg CO2e per passenger mile to 0.144 kg CO2e per passenger mile, depending on the flight distance.”
[taking a mid-range .200 kg/mile, a 3000-mile trip would be 600 kgs, or 1300 lbs, or 2/3 of a ton]
~5 tons/year may be consistent with “well below 2 degrees C”:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5476285/
PLoS One. 2017; 12(6): e0179705.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179705
PMCID: PMC5476285 PMID: 28628676
A human-scale perspective on global warming: Zero emission year and personal quotas
SNIP
Discussion
Zero emission year
Based on the results presented in this article, we obtain that a scenario that considers a constant personal CO2 quota equal to 5.0 tons of CO2 yr-1 p-1 and ZEY = 2030, is consistent with the “well below 2°C” target defined at the COP21 (T = 594 Gt CO2). The “well below 2°C” target is defined with the 100% frequency distribution of the CMIP5 ensemble, reaching 2°C…. We stress that the goal of this paper is not to provide a realistic mitigation pathway but instead to help translate the global climate change problem to a human-scale perspective related to our personal behaviour as citizens/consumers. In this sense, even though the constant personal quota scenario until the ZEY is not a realistic mitigation pathway, the ZEYs here defined are a concrete estimation of the timeframe available to eliminate anthropogenic CO2 emissions.”
…………………………
Unfortunately, my total is NOT under 5 tons, because of structural factors — C02 emissions built-in to American life. It may not be possible for any of us in the U.S. to get below ~8 tons/year:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080428120658.htm
“Regardless of income, there is a certain floor below which the individual carbon footprint of a person in the U.S. will not drop…. [this is because of] the array of government services that are available to everyone in the United States…including police, roads, libraries, the court system and the military…. The average annual carbon dioxide emissions per person…was 20 metric tons, compared to a world average of four tons. But the “floor” below which nobody in the U.S. can reach, no matter a person’s energy choices, turned out to be 8.5 tons”
……………………….
“Come out of her, My people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues.” — Revelation 18:4
echdbsays
@Randomjack
Here’s real time CO2 levels from Mauna Loa observatory:
“I suggest paying attention to the fact this indicates passing 300 ppm (early last century)seems to have triggered significant climate changes. ”
I think you need to appreciate that the melting of arctic ice and glacier ice in the early part of last century was only partly caused by CO2 concentrations of 310ppm. It was caused ‘mainly’ by a warming phase of the solar cycle, and a suspected extended reduction in volcanic activity in the early decades. This issue is easily enough googled.
But yes, we do need to get concentrations of CO2 down to well under current levels.
And yes the comment from some so called expert in the you tube video that we are will have increased CO2 levels for 1000 years is indeed excessively pessimistic, because we do have ways to extract this carbon with use of soil and forestry sinks, or direct air capture. Finding the will is going to be the difficult part, but then with a few more global (or northern hemisphere heatwaves) the will may be found through dire necessity.
“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.”
Strong westerlies seem to bring up deep, carbon-rich waters strongly affecting atmospheric carbon.
The 28th annual issuance of the report, led by NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, is based on contributions from more than 500 scientists from over 60 countries around the world and reflects tens of thousands of measurements from multiple independent datasets (highlights, full report). It provides a detailed update on global climate indicators, notable weather events and other data collected by environmental monitoring stations and instruments located on land, water, ice and in space.
Well, it could still all be a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese and the UN’s globalist conspirators…/sarc
Mr. Know It Allsays
1, 2, 3 – patrick and jgnfld
I can refute all that in one website.
Sweden – record high 100.4 deg F set in 1933, tied in 1947
Death Valley, record for the entire world, 134.1 deg F set in 1913, when CO2 was over 100 ppm lower than today; that record still stands as the highest air temperature on earth! That’s hot!
Yes, I know, it’s just weather, not climate, same as the stuff that we witness every summer including this summer.
8:00 pm pacific time Aug 2
“By 2070, heatwave could force up to 400 million Chinese to find refuge in the south”
The geo political and humanitarian implications seem staggering.
Carriesays
Temperature is a lagging indicator of global warming. Global Avg Mean Anomalies even more so. Better to look to CO2 & CO2e concentrations along with trend growth. Even better to know what CO2 & CO2e emissions actually are. Unfortunately Climate Science doesn’t know for sure, cannot keep up with the changes, and is another lagging indicator of global warming – in particular regarding Consequences, Impacts and Climate Feedbacks now and into the near future.
For example papers like this one below are coming out weekly – who is capable of keeping up with this output and keeping an eye on present temps and global trend changes at the same time – the IPCC is certainly not up to the task required.
Emissions of CO2 and methane from wetlands and thawing permafrost as the climate warms could cut the “carbon budget” for the Paris Agreement temperature limits by around five years, a new study says.
These natural processes are “positive feedbacks” – so called because they release more greenhouse gases as global temperatures rise, thus reinforcing the warming. They have previously not been represented in carbon budget estimates as they are not included in most climate models, the researchers say.
Edward Comyn-Platt et al. (2018), “Carbon budgets for 1.5 and 2 °C targets lowered by natural wetland and permafrost feedbacks”, Nature Geoscience, volume 11, pages568–573, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0174-9 “Global methane emissions from natural wetlands and carbon release from permafrost thaw have a positive feedback on climate, yet are not represented in most state-of-the-art climate models. Furthermore, a fraction of the thawed permafrost carbon is released as methane, enhancing the combined feedback strength.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0174-9
Anyone know why the Petit Climate Graphs haven’t been updated since June 1??
Dan B.says
Patrick @2,
While individual weather stations can always be found that have record temperatures, that is not always an indicator of the greater region. The Arctic July was not particularly hot, at least according to the DMI or UAH data.
S.B.,
Yes the heat waves have been lasting longer, but the maximum temperatures have been lower. That is true in both cities graphed in the article. In Miami, while the length of the heat waves increased since 1970, eight of the hottest days occurred in the first half of the data set, with only two years (1998 and 2009) recording a temperature in the top 10. Similarly, while the average summer temperature in Williamsport has increased, the highest temperatures have not. The city has set four new daily high temperatures since the turn of the century, the last occurring in 2011. Conversely, 12 records from the 1910s still stand, 14 from the 1920s, and 21 from the 1930s. In total, out of 92 summer days, 15 new daily high temperatures have been set since 1960, compared to 77 in the previous years. Other cities are mentioned, such as Houston, which is somewhat of an anomaly, with record high summer temperatures bunched in the years 1909, 1980, and 2011.
I found this essay online which seemingly makes good arguments against the reliability of the IPCC…yet, there are things in the PDFs referenced that make me doubt whether or not these arguments are truly logically sound.
If any of the scientists on this panel have observed these sources, could you comment on this? I find it very important that scientists who support the IPCC give counterpoints to defend such.
Could someone take a look at this essay and see whether or not the arguments presented against the IPCC are indeed legitimate?
Nemesissays
The heatwave in Europe, especially in Portugal and Spain, is getting ugly, Portugal had 47°C (116.6 F) today and temperature are forceast to rise over the coming weekend.
The extraordinary drought in Germany and elswhere in Europe is getting really ugly too. We are in El Nina state right now, El Nino could build up next year. Like I said:
It’s getting ugly.
Hot greetings gow out from my hot attic 38)
rtremblaysays
some of you have information about CO2 emissions from hydrothermal ocean source ?
compare with anthropogenic and volcanoes ? is the hydrothermal source is important ?
Have you accurate evaluation ?
Thank you
patricksays
July 24: “…the temperature was an astonishingly high 119°F (48.3°C)—a new world record for the hottest temperature ever measured while rain was falling.”
Kevin McKinney @301(July UV thread),
That zonal data for UAH TLT has now been posted. It shows a pretty warm N ExTrop Land anomaly for July of +0.72ºC but this is not a July record (its that 1998 year again pipping it to top slot) and it isn’t as warm an anomaly as some of the recent monthly N ExTrop Land anomalies. Mind, the surface records may show something different for July as they do show a wobble profile with wobbles not always matching the TLT records.
#14–Except, KIA, your evidence didn’t actually refute anything said in comments 1-4. You just said some *other* stuff that was sort of tangentially relevant.
Serrara @25&26,
The Robert Hunziker essay you link to is mainly reporting the Jem Bendell paper linked @22. The start-point of Bendell’s 31 pages is that we should be discussing AGW catastrophe which he tells us is already upon us. “The latest climate data, emissions data and data on the spread of carbon-intensive lifestyles, show that the landslide has already begun.”
I don’t see anything he writes showing why such AGW catastrophe is inevitable. Instead there is much exaggerated referencing of folk, like for instance Wasdell (2015) who calculates climate sensitivity at 5°C when slow feedbacks are considered (as per paleoclimate calculations). Bendell converts this finding into “In any case the IPCC estimate of a carbon budget was controversial with many scientists who estimated that existing CO2 in the atmosphere should already produce global ambient temperature rises over 5°C and so there is no carbon budget – it has already been overspent (Wasdell, 2015).”
The Hunziker essay simply dips into the Bendell message but with some additions, eg not specifying the subject of the Anderson (2015) quote (which is concerned with the full severity of the carbon budgets in the IPCC AR5 Synthesis Report) and thus leaving open a very wide door for conspiracy nutters to walk through.
I’m just a layperson, but nevertheless wrote a fairly detailed critique of the article. Unfortunately, my browser just ate it, returning to an earlier page, seemingly irretrievably. And I’m not going to try to rewrite the whole darn thing.
But, to summarize, I found the article full of statements that were misleading, unsupported, or insufficiently described/attributed to evaluate.
I’ll give just one example: it claims the IPCC doesn’t consider Alaskan permafrost melt in projections, however you will find a serious consideration of permafrost melt in AR5, as in previous assessment reports. One example, from a related PowerPoint presentation:
RCP 8.5 projects methane levels of over 3500 ppb by the end of the century, double today’s levels, which certainly ought to be alarming enough for anyone (Figure 11-21).
There are references back to Chapters 2, 4 (already linked) and 6. There is some support for the article’s contention that some possible changes are not included in projections:
Future changes in natural sources of CH4 due to land use and climate change are included in a few CMIP5 models and may alter future CH4 abundances (Chapter 6), but there is limited evidence, and thus these changes are not included in the RCP & projections…
In other words, the exclusion of some possible changes wasn’t negligent, but on the contrary a deliberate choice based on assessment of the quality and scope of evidence then available.
Chapter 6 offers up a substantial but somewhat inconclusive discussion of future methane, beginning on p. 539:
#30, MAR–Thanks for the heads-up. I was actually interested in the ‘NPol’ column, which is everything 60 degrees north and poleward (so a fair bit wider than the Arctic as usually defined.)
The bottom line is that the NPol July anomaly of 0.29 C is pretty paltry in the context of the year to date. While March rocked a *negative* anomaly of -0.33 C, January, February, and April all came in with anomalies above 1 degree C. More recently, June managed 0.83. So, by this measure at least, it does not appear that the heat wave we’ve been talking about ‘bled into’ the Arctic much in July.
Ignorant Guysays
#33 Kevin McKinney – Did you use the web page input form for editing a lengthy text to post? Never do that. Only use the input form as an editor for very short texts. For long texts use some other editor (e. g. Notepad is good enough) and save your work-in-progress on a file several times before you’re finished. When you are finished copy and paste the whole lot into the input form. Otherwise you will find that the browser annoyingly often eats your work.
Dan B (sounds remarkably like Dan H) claim’s recent heatwaves and their relation to climate change are not an issue of concern because some city set a ‘record temperature’ back in the 1930’s. But those temperature records set early last century are unlikely to last too much longer.
He is also not willing to admit that heatwaves are already increasing in frequency and duration, according to the IPCC. He can’t seem to see that these are problems, which just amazes me.
nigeljsays
Sheldon Walker @36
I’m a layperson, but I came across this some time ago. Climate change is expected to cause the stratosphere to cool, but since 1995 this has stalled or at least slowed down. There’s a reason for this and it doesn’t mean the models and theory are wrong. Its related to the influence of the ozone issue as below, and it will be temporary.
“I suggest paying attention to the fact this indicates passing 300 ppm (early last century)seems to have triggered significant climate changes. ”
I think you need to appreciate that the melting of arctic ice and glacier ice in the early part of last century was only partly caused by CO2 concentrations of 310ppm. It was caused ‘mainly’ by a warming phase of the solar cycle, and a suspected extended reduction in volcanic activity in the early decades.
Thank you. Now let me remind you that a lack of volcanic activity is 1. largely random and that 2. volcanic activity *masks* the greenhouse effect? If you understand this, you should realize that, less the volcanics, what you got was, for lack of a better term, real or full climate change.
Capiche?
This issue is easily enough googled.
As is the fact that temps would rise 0.7 to 1.4C within years if we magically stopped industrialization today.
And yes the comment from some so called expert in the you tube video that we are will have increased CO2 levels for 1000 years is indeed excessively pessimistic, because we do have ways to extract this carbon with use of soil and forestry sinks
Not over;y pessimistic, accurate. What is inaccurate is the claim that it is permanent. Just to clarify. If we do nothing, that WILL happen.
or direct air capture.
Still a fantasy.
Killiansays
Re #18 Robert Moore said #4
CO2e on the way to 500 ppm. See figure 5 and table 2
The important context is, what was CO2e in 1850?
Killiansays
Re #22 Mike Roddy said I would be very interested in RC reactions to this important paper
I, too, thought it an important paper, but it isn’t. The writer turns out to be a bit of a McPherson acolyte and has nothing useful or original to say. E.g., anyone can say, gee, things are really bad. I state ad naseum here that risk is the best context for climate action because we could see multi-degree C changes in less than a decade. Beyond that, the author rips off well-established disciplines like permaculture to offer a supposed framework for what amounts to widespread survivalism.
That he is an academic is the only redeeming value of the paper. Maybe other academics will take note of the non-academic discussion, fears, etc.
Victorsays
Whenever we see record breaking cold and/or record breaking snowfall we’re reminded that weather is not the same as climate. But after a year or two of unusual heat waves and forest fires that distinction is conveniently forgotten.
So! Nothing like a mountain of historical evidence to separate the weather sheep from the climate goats:
No need to panic folks. Extreme weather has been, and always will be, with us. Not exactly the most reassuring news, granted, but it’s nice to know that destroying civilization as we know it won’t matter much.
Nemesissays
@MA Rodger, #32
” Bendell converts this finding into “In any case the IPCC estimate of a carbon budget was controversial with many scientists who estimated that existing CO2 in the atmosphere should already produce global ambient temperature rises over 5°C and so there is no carbon budget – it has already been overspent (Wasdell, 2015).” ”
Hehe, that’s exactly what internal projections of the beautiful oil industry look like- +5°C by 2050:
Nemesis @45,
You write of “+5°C by 2050” which would require, what, a seven-fold increase in the average rate if AGW over the coming three decades? That is some leap!!
The Independent article you cite says “Oil giants Shell and BP are planning for global temperatures to rise as much as 5°C by the middle of the century” which is just a little less extreme but still requiring an eye-watering increase in the rate of AGW.
The Independent article in turn refers to a ShareAction report which says “Analysis of the firm’s strategic priorities and capital allocation decisions show that Shell’s current business model and base case for planning is consistent with 3–5°C+ of global warming, an outcome which is unacceptable and highly risky for many of Shell’s investors.” The report further says “Shell’s core planning scenarios, Mountains and Oceans, remain aligned with 3 – 5°C+ warming.” While this is not explained further by the ShareAction report (there are a couple of linked references in the ShareAction report but the interesting one is defunct), I think it is enough to conclude that the derivation of the “3–5°C+ of global warming” is likely looking at how much oil Shell is expecting the oil industry will have shifted, perhaps by mid-century. So the forcing to achieve “3–5°C+ of global warming” may be in place within Shell’s 2017 planning, but I don’t think the “3–5°C+ of global warming” is seen as arriving anything like as quickly as 2050.
BPL #11. Thanks for your comment. Right, Mars’thin atmosphere is already comprised of carbon dioxide. But the issue is quantity. Elon Musk says there’s enough to terraform the planet. NASA says No.
So my thought was that with additionalcarbon perhaps the temps could be brought up. Maybe a motive for a billionaire and for the rest of us to get serious about removing the carbon from our skies. I suspect with enough financial motive Big Dirty Energy would be interested as well. Pelletize our extra then dissolve it in another atmosphere perhaps.
Of course that’s much, much easier said then done. It’s just a thought for a creative guy with money to blow. But all of the other roadblocks make the prospect of any kind of normal human life on Mars anytime soon impossible. For starters, we don’t breathe C02. And there are a mountain of other issues as well.
CO2e adds the effects of methane, N20, chlorofluorocarbons and minor gases to the forcing. Not much in 1850.
Adam Leasays
8: “And yes the comment from some so called expert in the you tube video that we are will have increased CO2 levels for 1000 years is indeed excessively pessimistic, because we do have ways to extract this carbon with use of soil and forestry sinks, or direct air capture. Finding the will is going to be the difficult part, but then with a few more global (or northern hemisphere heatwaves) the will may be found through dire necessity.”
The so-called expert was referencing a paper by Susan Soloman, a climate scientist, and it is not just the CO2 that will persist (it is estimated to drop around 40% in 1000 years if we stop emitting now), but the climate impacts:
These estimates are based on computer simulations, so there will be some uncertainty, but taken at face value, if we stopped emitting CO2 now, and in 1000 years, the CO2 concentration will still be elevated relative to pre-industrial levels, I can’t see a flaw in the logic which concludes that the impacts of anthropogenic emissions will be felt for another millenium. That is assuming emissions stopped today, which is not going to happen.
The video then concentrates more on carbon capture, specifically a resently published method estimated to cost between $94 and $232 to remove one ton of CO2. He takes the lowest of the two costs, looks at the 2017 emissions of 32.5Gt, and a bit of maths shows that it would cost around US$ 3 trillion every year, just to offset the emissions (assuming they stay constant), never mind a net removal of CO2. As it stands his assessment seems reasonable that no-one is going to be paying that any time soon, but, it could be true that there will emerge much cheaper ways of doing the job.
No chance it is feasible wait for dire necessity. By the time the impacts of climate change become undeniable to enough people for a proper global effort to be initiated, it will be too late, like telling someone to stop smoking when they are terminally ill with lung cancer. If we have to wait for dire necessity, it will be about adaptation and building resiliance, not reversing emissions.
I am interested in looking at the soil and forestry methods of removing enough CO2, I’ll try and look it up.
Al Bundysays
Serrara,
Yes, the vast majority of climate scientists have been unwitting dupes for the forces of evil. To lowball one’s conclusions is a horrid and direct violation of the absolute core of scientific ethics.
Combine that with the reduction of unknowns to zero (the most infamous is scientsts’ choice that ice melt is not well constrained so “we’ll just assume that NO ice will melt when delivering our sea level rise predictions. But put a teensy weensy caveat in the footnotes, where nobody will notice, that our prediction is 100% guaranteed to be garbage to the ” benefit” of deniers.
Climate scientists got played.
MA Rodgers,
Uh, the deliberate exclusion of feedbacks IS negligent. The ONLY two non-negligent paths are either to include them with error bars and confidence levels or to state that you don’t have an estimate at all. The reason is because the scientists were speaking to non-scientists and only a moron would think that the deniers they were talking to would translate “zero” into “probable gobsmacking catastrophe”.
Negligence, plain and simple.
Alan,
Thanks for the analysis. However, the second part refutes the first. If the budget is blown by societal emissions alone then there is no way that a flight can fit in the budget.
—–
BPL,
You forget that terraforming involves turning almost all CO2 into O2. Thus, it would be possible (except that transportation would be prohibitive and low gravity might result in excessive losses – I don’t know about the second)
—–
Carrie,
I’ve got to admit that I was surprised at your Nobel Prize. I figured you to be a shoe-in for the Nubile Prize.
Anyway, yes, carbon feedbacks are like sea level rise. They are stubs. There’s nothing wrong with stubs if and only if you don’t blurt out an estimated total that excludes some sort of educated guesstimate of the stub. Doing so is negligence that enabled, and is still enabling the destruction of the biosphere.
Seriously, teensy weensie orbital fluctuations resulted in HUGE feedbacks. Why on Earth would anybody think that the stubs representing feedbacks should be zeroed out when communicating the danger to the friggin biosphere? As if an asterisk is good enough!
—–
rtrembley,
Ray Ladbury did an analysis on Antarctic volcanoes that utilized total planetary volcanoes to show that the issue is negligible. I’m sure the same applies to your query. Geological emissions of heat are like the Republican meme that global warming is caused by body heat. Republicans have no sense of orders of magnitude.
——
Killian,
Nigelj said that much of the early 20th century ice melt could have been attributable to a lowering of volcanic activity. You responded that he’s wrong because volcanic activity *masks* the greenhouse effect. (I’ll add: in the short term)
I’m confused. Just where does your stance diverge from his?
“This is the face of climate change,” said Prof Michael Mann, at Penn State University, and one the world’s most eminent climate scientists. “We literally would not have seen these extremes in the absence of climate change.”
“The impacts of climate change are no longer subtle,” he told the Guardian. “We are seeing them play out in real time and what is happening this summer is a perfect example of that.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/27/extreme-global-weather-climate-change-michael-mann
“We found that for the weather station in the far north, in the Arctic Circle, the current heatwave is just extraordinary – unprecedented in the historical record,” said Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute and also part of WWA [World Weather Attribution consortium].
Across northern Europe, the group found global warming more than doubled the risk of scorching temperatures. “We can can see the fingerprints of climate change on local extremes,” he said. “It is amazing now that it is something you can really see at a local level.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/27/heatwave-made-more-than-twice-as-likely-by-climate-change-scientists-find
https://www.carbonbrief.org/climate-change-made-2018-european-heatwave-up-to-five-times-more-likely
Re. Jul unforced #307…
“Which beats the previous record hot month… set by Death Valley, last year.
QUICK!! Someone throw a snowball in Congress so climate change isn’t real!!!”
Silly person. The only reason it’s so warm in Death Valley is because of all the urbanization and paving there.
I was trying to find out where CO2e currently stands at and I was unable.
It would be nice if there was a scientific backed posting in ppm at least twice a year.
And also…
Take care and have a nice day
Thank you’s
Jack
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/longer-heat-streaks
An interesting article at Climate Central. Heat waves are lasting longer. Supportive of the idea that jet streams are becoming less reliable.
Personal CO2 quotas:
I’ve been doing more air travel in recent years, and feeling guilty about the resultant CO2 stress. But after a bit of research I feel somewhat better. The figures are not that bad, if in context with an overall CO2-modest lifestyle. A single long-haul domestic flight might release ~1.5 tons — which could fit within a reasonable definition of good global citizenship if your total otherwise is under 5 tons. For perspective, the average American belches 20 tons of CO2 per year.
Someone ring up Kevin Anderson and tell him that he might want to consider an occasional flight, which won’t break his personal CO2 bank provided his lifestyle is sufficiently modest otherwise. On the other hand, I do appreciate him setting a prominent personal example of forbearance. Would that Gore and DeCaprio do the same.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/climate/airplane-pollution-global-warming.html
“according to some calculations, a round-trip flight from New York to San Francisco [~3000 miles] emits about 0.9 metric tons of carbon dioxide per person.”
http://carbonfund.org/how-we-calculate/
“CO2 emissions in air travel vary by length of flight, ranging from 0.254 kg CO2e per passenger mile to 0.144 kg CO2e per passenger mile, depending on the flight distance.”
[taking a mid-range .200 kg/mile, a 3000-mile trip would be 600 kgs, or 1300 lbs, or 2/3 of a ton]
https://co2.myclimate.org/en/flight_calculators
according to the calculator at this site, from NYC to SanFran, one-way, releases .777 tons of CO2
…………………………
~5 tons/year may be consistent with “well below 2 degrees C”:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5476285/
PLoS One. 2017; 12(6): e0179705.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179705
PMCID: PMC5476285 PMID: 28628676
A human-scale perspective on global warming: Zero emission year and personal quotas
SNIP
Discussion
Zero emission year
Based on the results presented in this article, we obtain that a scenario that considers a constant personal CO2 quota equal to 5.0 tons of CO2 yr-1 p-1 and ZEY = 2030, is consistent with the “well below 2°C” target defined at the COP21 (T = 594 Gt CO2). The “well below 2°C” target is defined with the 100% frequency distribution of the CMIP5 ensemble, reaching 2°C…. We stress that the goal of this paper is not to provide a realistic mitigation pathway but instead to help translate the global climate change problem to a human-scale perspective related to our personal behaviour as citizens/consumers. In this sense, even though the constant personal quota scenario until the ZEY is not a realistic mitigation pathway, the ZEYs here defined are a concrete estimation of the timeframe available to eliminate anthropogenic CO2 emissions.”
…………………………
Unfortunately, my total is NOT under 5 tons, because of structural factors — C02 emissions built-in to American life. It may not be possible for any of us in the U.S. to get below ~8 tons/year:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080428120658.htm
“Regardless of income, there is a certain floor below which the individual carbon footprint of a person in the U.S. will not drop…. [this is because of] the array of government services that are available to everyone in the United States…including police, roads, libraries, the court system and the military…. The average annual carbon dioxide emissions per person…was 20 metric tons, compared to a world average of four tons. But the “floor” below which nobody in the U.S. can reach, no matter a person’s energy choices, turned out to be 8.5 tons”
……………………….
“Come out of her, My people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues.” — Revelation 18:4
@Randomjack
Here’s real time CO2 levels from Mauna Loa observatory:
https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2
Killian @289 (last months UV).
“I suggest paying attention to the fact this indicates passing 300 ppm (early last century)seems to have triggered significant climate changes. ”
I think you need to appreciate that the melting of arctic ice and glacier ice in the early part of last century was only partly caused by CO2 concentrations of 310ppm. It was caused ‘mainly’ by a warming phase of the solar cycle, and a suspected extended reduction in volcanic activity in the early decades. This issue is easily enough googled.
But yes, we do need to get concentrations of CO2 down to well under current levels.
And yes the comment from some so called expert in the you tube video that we are will have increased CO2 levels for 1000 years is indeed excessively pessimistic, because we do have ways to extract this carbon with use of soil and forestry sinks, or direct air capture. Finding the will is going to be the difficult part, but then with a few more global (or northern hemisphere heatwaves) the will may be found through dire necessity.
https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Preparing_for_the_Future/Discovery/ESA_investigating_detection_of_floating_plastic_litter_from_orbit
Maybe we’re turning the oceans into infrared radiators?
(July)#299 nigelj said 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.”
Strong westerlies seem to bring up deep, carbon-rich waters strongly affecting atmospheric carbon.
This is very bad news.
Here’s to very weak westerlies.
Ron R 304,
There is already more CO2 on Mars than on Earth. We can’t terraform Mars with Earth’s CO2, believe it or not.
@Randomjack: is this what you are looking for? https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html
The 28th annual State of the Climate report
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/reporting-state-climate-2017
Full report:
https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/state-of-the-climate/
Well, it could still all be a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese and the UN’s globalist conspirators…/sarc
1, 2, 3 – patrick and jgnfld
I can refute all that in one website.
Sweden – record high 100.4 deg F set in 1933, tied in 1947
Death Valley, record for the entire world, 134.1 deg F set in 1913, when CO2 was over 100 ppm lower than today; that record still stands as the highest air temperature on earth! That’s hot!
Yes, I know, it’s just weather, not climate, same as the stuff that we witness every summer including this summer.
8:00 pm pacific time Aug 2
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12100307
“By 2070, heatwave could force up to 400 million Chinese to find refuge in the south”
The geo political and humanitarian implications seem staggering.
Temperature is a lagging indicator of global warming. Global Avg Mean Anomalies even more so. Better to look to CO2 & CO2e concentrations along with trend growth. Even better to know what CO2 & CO2e emissions actually are. Unfortunately Climate Science doesn’t know for sure, cannot keep up with the changes, and is another lagging indicator of global warming – in particular regarding Consequences, Impacts and Climate Feedbacks now and into the near future.
For example papers like this one below are coming out weekly – who is capable of keeping up with this output and keeping an eye on present temps and global trend changes at the same time – the IPCC is certainly not up to the task required.
Emissions of CO2 and methane from wetlands and thawing permafrost as the climate warms could cut the “carbon budget” for the Paris Agreement temperature limits by around five years, a new study says.
These natural processes are “positive feedbacks” – so called because they release more greenhouse gases as global temperatures rise, thus reinforcing the warming. They have previously not been represented in carbon budget estimates as they are not included in most climate models, the researchers say.
The findings suggest that human-caused emissions will need to be cut by an additional 20% in order to meet the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C or 2C limits, the researchers estimate.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/permafrost-wetland-emissions-cut-budget-5-years.html
Edward Comyn-Platt et al. (2018), “Carbon budgets for 1.5 and 2 °C targets lowered by natural wetland and permafrost feedbacks”, Nature Geoscience, volume 11, pages568–573, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0174-9
“Global methane emissions from natural wetlands and carbon release from permafrost thaw have a positive feedback on climate, yet are not represented in most state-of-the-art climate models. Furthermore, a fraction of the thawed permafrost carbon is released as methane, enhancing the combined feedback strength.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0174-9
Temperatures in Spain and Portugal could exceed 48 degrees — breaking all-time Europe record
”Forecaster AccuWeather said it would not only be possible to break the highest temperature on the Iberian Peninsula, but also the highest temperature ever recorded in Europe.”
http://www.euronews.com/amp/2018/08/01/temperatures-in-spain-and-portugal-could-exceed-48-degrees-breaking-all-time-europe-record
@4 Randomjack
Hello Jack, you can find the information here : https://www.co2.earth/
#4
CO2e on the way to 500 ppm. See figure 5 and table 2
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html
Anyone know why the Petit Climate Graphs haven’t been updated since June 1??
Patrick @2,
While individual weather stations can always be found that have record temperatures, that is not always an indicator of the greater region. The Arctic July was not particularly hot, at least according to the DMI or UAH data.
hi randomjack: You said: I was trying to find out where CO2e currently stands at and I was unable.
you could start looking here: https://www.co2.earth/annual-ghg-index-aggi
I would be very interested in RC reactions to this important paper:
http://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf
S.B.,
Yes the heat waves have been lasting longer, but the maximum temperatures have been lower. That is true in both cities graphed in the article. In Miami, while the length of the heat waves increased since 1970, eight of the hottest days occurred in the first half of the data set, with only two years (1998 and 2009) recording a temperature in the top 10. Similarly, while the average summer temperature in Williamsport has increased, the highest temperatures have not. The city has set four new daily high temperatures since the turn of the century, the last occurring in 2011. Conversely, 12 records from the 1910s still stand, 14 from the 1920s, and 21 from the 1930s. In total, out of 92 summer days, 15 new daily high temperatures have been set since 1960, compared to 77 in the previous years. Other cities are mentioned, such as Houston, which is somewhat of an anomaly, with record high summer temperatures bunched in the years 1909, 1980, and 2011.
Matt Ridley farewell– The Economist has re-enlisted in the Climate Wars under the banner :
Blood, Sweat and Geoengineers .;
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/08/03/the-end-of-the-line-a-climate-in-crisis/
I found this essay online which seemingly makes good arguments against the reliability of the IPCC…yet, there are things in the PDFs referenced that make me doubt whether or not these arguments are truly logically sound.
If any of the scientists on this panel have observed these sources, could you comment on this? I find it very important that scientists who support the IPCC give counterpoints to defend such.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/08/03/the-end-of-the-line-a-climate-in-crisis/
Could someone take a look at this essay and see whether or not the arguments presented against the IPCC are indeed legitimate?
The heatwave in Europe, especially in Portugal and Spain, is getting ugly, Portugal had 47°C (116.6 F) today and temperature are forceast to rise over the coming weekend.
The extraordinary drought in Germany and elswhere in Europe is getting really ugly too. We are in El Nina state right now, El Nino could build up next year. Like I said:
It’s getting ugly.
Hot greetings gow out from my hot attic 38)
some of you have information about CO2 emissions from hydrothermal ocean source ?
compare with anthropogenic and volcanoes ? is the hydrothermal source is important ?
Have you accurate evaluation ?
Thank you
July 24: “…the temperature was an astonishingly high 119°F (48.3°C)—a new world record for the hottest temperature ever measured while rain was falling.”
https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Hottest-Rain-Record-Rain-falls-119F-Imperial-California
Kevin McKinney @301(July UV thread),
That zonal data for UAH TLT has now been posted. It shows a pretty warm N ExTrop Land anomaly for July of +0.72ºC but this is not a July record (its that 1998 year again pipping it to top slot) and it isn’t as warm an anomaly as some of the recent monthly N ExTrop Land anomalies. Mind, the surface records may show something different for July as they do show a wobble profile with wobbles not always matching the TLT records.
#14–Except, KIA, your evidence didn’t actually refute anything said in comments 1-4. You just said some *other* stuff that was sort of tangentially relevant.
Serrara @25&26,
The Robert Hunziker essay you link to is mainly reporting the Jem Bendell paper linked @22. The start-point of Bendell’s 31 pages is that we should be discussing AGW catastrophe which he tells us is already upon us. “The latest climate data, emissions data and data on the spread of carbon-intensive lifestyles, show that the landslide has already begun.”
I don’t see anything he writes showing why such AGW catastrophe is inevitable. Instead there is much exaggerated referencing of folk, like for instance Wasdell (2015) who calculates climate sensitivity at 5°C when slow feedbacks are considered (as per paleoclimate calculations). Bendell converts this finding into “In any case the IPCC estimate of a carbon budget was controversial with many scientists who estimated that existing CO2 in the atmosphere should already produce global ambient temperature rises over 5°C and so there is no carbon budget – it has already been overspent (Wasdell, 2015).”
The Hunziker essay simply dips into the Bendell message but with some additions, eg not specifying the subject of the Anderson (2015) quote (which is concerned with the full severity of the carbon budgets in the IPCC AR5 Synthesis Report) and thus leaving open a very wide door for conspiracy nutters to walk through.
#25-26, Serrana–
I’m just a layperson, but nevertheless wrote a fairly detailed critique of the article. Unfortunately, my browser just ate it, returning to an earlier page, seemingly irretrievably. And I’m not going to try to rewrite the whole darn thing.
But, to summarize, I found the article full of statements that were misleading, unsupported, or insufficiently described/attributed to evaluate.
I’ll give just one example: it claims the IPCC doesn’t consider Alaskan permafrost melt in projections, however you will find a serious consideration of permafrost melt in AR5, as in previous assessment reports. One example, from a related PowerPoint presentation:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/unfccc/sbsta40/SB40_research_dialogue_hezel_wgI.pdf
Or you can check out the main discussion of observed changes in the cryosphere in the relevant chapter of AR5, here, starting on p. 362:
https://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter04_FINAL.pdf
The discussion of probable future methane levels is here (p. 996)–and the projected levels are highly sensitive to CO2 emissions:
https://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf
RCP 8.5 projects methane levels of over 3500 ppb by the end of the century, double today’s levels, which certainly ought to be alarming enough for anyone (Figure 11-21).
There are references back to Chapters 2, 4 (already linked) and 6. There is some support for the article’s contention that some possible changes are not included in projections:
In other words, the exclusion of some possible changes wasn’t negligent, but on the contrary a deliberate choice based on assessment of the quality and scope of evidence then available.
Chapter 6 offers up a substantial but somewhat inconclusive discussion of future methane, beginning on p. 539:
https://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf
#30, MAR–Thanks for the heads-up. I was actually interested in the ‘NPol’ column, which is everything 60 degrees north and poleward (so a fair bit wider than the Arctic as usually defined.)
The bottom line is that the NPol July anomaly of 0.29 C is pretty paltry in the context of the year to date. While March rocked a *negative* anomaly of -0.33 C, January, February, and April all came in with anomalies above 1 degree C. More recently, June managed 0.83. So, by this measure at least, it does not appear that the heat wave we’ve been talking about ‘bled into’ the Arctic much in July.
#33 Kevin McKinney – Did you use the web page input form for editing a lengthy text to post? Never do that. Only use the input form as an editor for very short texts. For long texts use some other editor (e. g. Notepad is good enough) and save your work-in-progress on a file several times before you’re finished. When you are finished copy and paste the whole lot into the input form. Otherwise you will find that the browser annoyingly often eats your work.
Here is a Global Warming Contour Map, which shows the warming rate for the Stratosphere, since 1960. Notice the “slowdown”, which started about 1995.
https://i2.wp.com/agree-to-disagree.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/RATPAC-Stratosphere.png
You can see contour maps for the Upper and Lower Troposphere at my website:
https://agree-to-disagree.com
The Stratosphere, Upper Troposphere, and Lower Troposphere, each have very different warming rates.
Check out the Robot-Train Contour Maps, to see how contour maps work.
Also, see the Legend for Global Warming Contour Maps.
Any views on this paper by Mann et al on using a Bayesian rather than a frequent ist approach in climate attribution of extreme weather events?
Assessing climate change impacts on extreme weather events: the case for an alternative (Bayesian) approach
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/MLOClimaticChange17.pdf
1,2,3,31 – all you folks
31 – Kevin
You are correct. I forgot to include the link. Here it is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records#Europe_%5Bnotes_6%5D
10:40 pm pacific 8/4/2018
Dan B (sounds remarkably like Dan H) claim’s recent heatwaves and their relation to climate change are not an issue of concern because some city set a ‘record temperature’ back in the 1930’s. But those temperature records set early last century are unlikely to last too much longer.
He is also not willing to admit that heatwaves are already increasing in frequency and duration, according to the IPCC. He can’t seem to see that these are problems, which just amazes me.
Sheldon Walker @36
I’m a layperson, but I came across this some time ago. Climate change is expected to cause the stratosphere to cool, but since 1995 this has stalled or at least slowed down. There’s a reason for this and it doesn’t mean the models and theory are wrong. Its related to the influence of the ozone issue as below, and it will be temporary.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018GL078035
Re #8 nigelj said Killian @289 (last months UV).
“I suggest paying attention to the fact this indicates passing 300 ppm (early last century)seems to have triggered significant climate changes. ”
I think you need to appreciate that the melting of arctic ice and glacier ice in the early part of last century was only partly caused by CO2 concentrations of 310ppm. It was caused ‘mainly’ by a warming phase of the solar cycle, and a suspected extended reduction in volcanic activity in the early decades.
Thank you. Now let me remind you that a lack of volcanic activity is 1. largely random and that 2. volcanic activity *masks* the greenhouse effect? If you understand this, you should realize that, less the volcanics, what you got was, for lack of a better term, real or full climate change.
Capiche?
This issue is easily enough googled.
As is the fact that temps would rise 0.7 to 1.4C within years if we magically stopped industrialization today.
And yes the comment from some so called expert in the you tube video that we are will have increased CO2 levels for 1000 years is indeed excessively pessimistic, because we do have ways to extract this carbon with use of soil and forestry sinks
Not over;y pessimistic, accurate. What is inaccurate is the claim that it is permanent. Just to clarify. If we do nothing, that WILL happen.
or direct air capture.
Still a fantasy.
Re #18 Robert Moore said #4
CO2e on the way to 500 ppm. See figure 5 and table 2
The important context is, what was CO2e in 1850?
Re #22 Mike Roddy said I would be very interested in RC reactions to this important paper
I, too, thought it an important paper, but it isn’t. The writer turns out to be a bit of a McPherson acolyte and has nothing useful or original to say. E.g., anyone can say, gee, things are really bad. I state ad naseum here that risk is the best context for climate action because we could see multi-degree C changes in less than a decade. Beyond that, the author rips off well-established disciplines like permaculture to offer a supposed framework for what amounts to widespread survivalism.
That he is an academic is the only redeeming value of the paper. Maybe other academics will take note of the non-academic discussion, fears, etc.
Whenever we see record breaking cold and/or record breaking snowfall we’re reminded that weather is not the same as climate. But after a year or two of unusual heat waves and forest fires that distinction is conveniently forgotten.
So! Nothing like a mountain of historical evidence to separate the weather sheep from the climate goats:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records#Europe_%5Bnotes_6%5D
No need to panic folks. Extreme weather has been, and always will be, with us. Not exactly the most reassuring news, granted, but it’s nice to know that destroying civilization as we know it won’t matter much.
@MA Rodger, #32
” Bendell converts this finding into “In any case the IPCC estimate of a carbon budget was controversial with many scientists who estimated that existing CO2 in the atmosphere should already produce global ambient temperature rises over 5°C and so there is no carbon budget – it has already been overspent (Wasdell, 2015).” ”
Hehe, that’s exactly what internal projections of the beautiful oil industry look like- +5°C by 2050:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/bp-shell-oil-global-warming-5-degree-paris-climate-agreement-fossil-fuels-temperature-rise-a8022511.html
But hey, the oil industry is well known for it’s alarmism, right? 8)
Nemesis @45,
You write of “+5°C by 2050” which would require, what, a seven-fold increase in the average rate if AGW over the coming three decades? That is some leap!!
The Independent article you cite says “Oil giants Shell and BP are planning for global temperatures to rise as much as 5°C by the middle of the century” which is just a little less extreme but still requiring an eye-watering increase in the rate of AGW.
The Independent article in turn refers to a ShareAction report which says “Analysis of the firm’s strategic priorities and capital allocation decisions show that Shell’s current business model and base case for planning is consistent with 3–5°C+ of global warming, an outcome which is unacceptable and highly risky for many of Shell’s investors.” The report further says “Shell’s core planning scenarios, Mountains and Oceans, remain aligned with 3 – 5°C+ warming.” While this is not explained further by the ShareAction report (there are a couple of linked references in the ShareAction report but the interesting one is defunct), I think it is enough to conclude that the derivation of the “3–5°C+ of global warming” is likely looking at how much oil Shell is expecting the oil industry will have shifted, perhaps by mid-century. So the forcing to achieve “3–5°C+ of global warming” may be in place within Shell’s 2017 planning, but I don’t think the “3–5°C+ of global warming” is seen as arriving anything like as quickly as 2050.
BPL #11. Thanks for your comment. Right, Mars’thin atmosphere is already comprised of carbon dioxide. But the issue is quantity. Elon Musk says there’s enough to terraform the planet. NASA says No.
http://astronomy.com/news/2018/07/terraforming-mars-is-a-no-go
So my thought was that with additionalcarbon perhaps the temps could be brought up. Maybe a motive for a billionaire and for the rest of us to get serious about removing the carbon from our skies. I suspect with enough financial motive Big Dirty Energy would be interested as well. Pelletize our extra then dissolve it in another atmosphere perhaps.
Of course that’s much, much easier said then done. It’s just a thought for a creative guy with money to blow. But all of the other roadblocks make the prospect of any kind of normal human life on Mars anytime soon impossible. For starters, we don’t breathe C02. And there are a mountain of other issues as well.
https://midmiocene.wordpress.com/space-or-bust/
To me, it just underlines our desperate need to protect this planet.
Killian asks what was CO2e in 1850?
LMGTFY, for CO2 level:
http://www.sealevel.info/co2_and_ch4c.html
CO2e adds the effects of methane, N20, chlorofluorocarbons and minor gases to the forcing. Not much in 1850.
8: “And yes the comment from some so called expert in the you tube video that we are will have increased CO2 levels for 1000 years is indeed excessively pessimistic, because we do have ways to extract this carbon with use of soil and forestry sinks, or direct air capture. Finding the will is going to be the difficult part, but then with a few more global (or northern hemisphere heatwaves) the will may be found through dire necessity.”
The so-called expert was referencing a paper by Susan Soloman, a climate scientist, and it is not just the CO2 that will persist (it is estimated to drop around 40% in 1000 years if we stop emitting now), but the climate impacts:
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704
These estimates are based on computer simulations, so there will be some uncertainty, but taken at face value, if we stopped emitting CO2 now, and in 1000 years, the CO2 concentration will still be elevated relative to pre-industrial levels, I can’t see a flaw in the logic which concludes that the impacts of anthropogenic emissions will be felt for another millenium. That is assuming emissions stopped today, which is not going to happen.
The video then concentrates more on carbon capture, specifically a resently published method estimated to cost between $94 and $232 to remove one ton of CO2. He takes the lowest of the two costs, looks at the 2017 emissions of 32.5Gt, and a bit of maths shows that it would cost around US$ 3 trillion every year, just to offset the emissions (assuming they stay constant), never mind a net removal of CO2. As it stands his assessment seems reasonable that no-one is going to be paying that any time soon, but, it could be true that there will emerge much cheaper ways of doing the job.
No chance it is feasible wait for dire necessity. By the time the impacts of climate change become undeniable to enough people for a proper global effort to be initiated, it will be too late, like telling someone to stop smoking when they are terminally ill with lung cancer. If we have to wait for dire necessity, it will be about adaptation and building resiliance, not reversing emissions.
I am interested in looking at the soil and forestry methods of removing enough CO2, I’ll try and look it up.
Serrara,
Yes, the vast majority of climate scientists have been unwitting dupes for the forces of evil. To lowball one’s conclusions is a horrid and direct violation of the absolute core of scientific ethics.
Combine that with the reduction of unknowns to zero (the most infamous is scientsts’ choice that ice melt is not well constrained so “we’ll just assume that NO ice will melt when delivering our sea level rise predictions. But put a teensy weensy caveat in the footnotes, where nobody will notice, that our prediction is 100% guaranteed to be garbage to the ” benefit” of deniers.
Climate scientists got played.
MA Rodgers,
Uh, the deliberate exclusion of feedbacks IS negligent. The ONLY two non-negligent paths are either to include them with error bars and confidence levels or to state that you don’t have an estimate at all. The reason is because the scientists were speaking to non-scientists and only a moron would think that the deniers they were talking to would translate “zero” into “probable gobsmacking catastrophe”.
Negligence, plain and simple.
Alan,
Thanks for the analysis. However, the second part refutes the first. If the budget is blown by societal emissions alone then there is no way that a flight can fit in the budget.
—–
BPL,
You forget that terraforming involves turning almost all CO2 into O2. Thus, it would be possible (except that transportation would be prohibitive and low gravity might result in excessive losses – I don’t know about the second)
—–
Carrie,
I’ve got to admit that I was surprised at your Nobel Prize. I figured you to be a shoe-in for the Nubile Prize.
Anyway, yes, carbon feedbacks are like sea level rise. They are stubs. There’s nothing wrong with stubs if and only if you don’t blurt out an estimated total that excludes some sort of educated guesstimate of the stub. Doing so is negligence that enabled, and is still enabling the destruction of the biosphere.
Seriously, teensy weensie orbital fluctuations resulted in HUGE feedbacks. Why on Earth would anybody think that the stubs representing feedbacks should be zeroed out when communicating the danger to the friggin biosphere? As if an asterisk is good enough!
—–
rtrembley,
Ray Ladbury did an analysis on Antarctic volcanoes that utilized total planetary volcanoes to show that the issue is negligible. I’m sure the same applies to your query. Geological emissions of heat are like the Republican meme that global warming is caused by body heat. Republicans have no sense of orders of magnitude.
——
Killian,
Nigelj said that much of the early 20th century ice melt could have been attributable to a lowering of volcanic activity. You responded that he’s wrong because volcanic activity *masks* the greenhouse effect. (I’ll add: in the short term)
I’m confused. Just where does your stance diverge from his?