This month’s open thread for climate science topics. Not sure about you, but we are still reading the details of the IPCC report. We are watching the unfolding hurricane season with trepidation, with particular concern related to the impacts of compound events (and not just those associated with climate), and anticipating another low, if not record, Arctic sea ice minimum.
PS. At some point this month we will be switching Internet service providers, so don’t be surprised if there are some oddities as we switch everything over.
UAH TLT has been posted for August with a global anomaly of +0.17ºC, this down a little on the July’s anomaly of +0.20ºC, with August the 3rd highest monthly anomaly of the year-to-date. 2021 UAH TLT monthly anomalies for 2021-so-far sit in the range -0.05ºC to +0.20ºC.
August 2021 was the 7th warmest August on the UAH record, behind August 1998 (+0.39ºC), 2016 (+0.32ºC), 2020 (+0.30ºC), 2017 (+0.29ºC), 2019 (+0.26ºC) & 2010 (+0.21ºC).
August 2021 sits =78th on the highest all-month monthly anomaly list.
The first two-thirds of 2021 comes in as 9th warmest Jan-Aug on the UAH record and the coolest Jan-Jul since 2015. For 2021 to snatch 2015’s 7th place in the full-year rankings would require UAH’s Sept-Dec 2021 to average +0.23ºC or more.
Of course the last few months of 2015 were boosted by the strong 2015-16 El Niño while July-August of 2021 have reached a similar global warmth despite the continuing La Niña conditions. The ENSO forecasts suggest a strengthening of the La Niña through the end of 2021 but this would likely impact 2022 global temperatures rather than 2021.
…….. Jan-Aug Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.45ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 1st
1998 .. +0.44ºC … … … +0.35ºC … … … 3rd
2020 .. +0.37ºC … … … +0.36ºC … … … 2nd
2010 .. +0.27ºC … … … +0.19ºC … … … 6th
2019 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.30ºC … … … 4th
2017 .. +0.22ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 5th
2002 .. +0.11ºC … … … +0.08ºC … … … 9th
2018 .. +0.10ºC … … … +0.09ºC … … … 8th
2021 .. +0.09ºC
2015 .. +0.09ºC … … … +0.14ºC … … … 7th
2007 .. +0.08ºC … … … +0.02ºC … … … 13th
2005 .. +0.07ºC … … … +0.06ºC … … … 10th
2014 .. +0.03ºC … … … +0.04ºC … … … 12th
A strengthened La Niña through the back-end of 2021 will presumably increase the chances of an energetic Atlantic hurricane season. It has already shown its mettle with ACE for the year to end-of-August reaching 43.7, the 6th highest ‘by-end-of-August’ value since 2000. And the NHC-NOAA shows September beginning with Storm Larry projected to reach major hurricane strength out in mid-Atlantic by Friday.
As the hurricane season wears on, the public suffering crisis fatigue from compulsory use of the C-word on network news.
It may be time to air an unsolicited testimonial to climate modeling and computational meteorology that has emerged from a sport whose progress depends on both :
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/08/climate-models-and-anthropocene-age-of.html
National Ignition Facility at LLNL makes progress in quest to achieve fusion:
https://www.llnl.gov/news/national-ignition-facility-experiment-puts-researchers-threshold-fusion-ignition
Genosse…
Did you ever learn about Fata Morgana?
It is an old moslem and arab tale, probably known through Averroes Ibn Rushd of the western Arabs in Cordoba, with his learnt roots from the late Univeristy of Alexandria, that burnt!”
But Averroes “& al were able to secure and to bring further a lot of that Gypsy and Greek wisdom from Alexandria via Cordoba onto the School of Bologna in Italia, and thus secured to the aftermath.
Morgane was. a wicked, evil , and dangerous witsch.
Who led naive and stupid men into temptation.
In then mornings in that arid landscape, where there were severe shortage ow water and everyone thrivintg for it,…..
…she fore-showet for them quite pure water just 100 steps out in the sandy deserts and they rushed out for it.
But when they came there, it was only dry sands………… But look, only 100 or 200 steps further,……. clean and pure water. anew……..
And thus it went on under the ever rising and burning sun in the morning hours… until it came to a pointn of no return.
Where they perished pitifully of thirst in those dry sands under the burnhing sun with no water at all,……
That is called a FATA MORGANA!
( Fata Morgana does mean the facts or the deeds of that fameous and cruel wicked witch Morgane, who lead naive and stupid men into temptation that way)
All this is to0 be known about and warned against according to those old moslems and learnt, experienced proper serious arab relatives to the fameous and unluckily vanished University of Alexandria, with all its quite timeless and valuable, Gypsy and Greek wisdoms.
Geoff Bacon @August UV comment,
You set out a few thoughts concerning Energy Imbalance, global SAT and long-term feedbacks which perhaps confusingly is rather a broad range of subject matter. If I may be so bold to suggest that the discussion be cut in half and address the Energy Imbalance and the long-termp effects seperately.
So concening the first part: Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) and global SAT.
EEI is measured at the top of the atmosphere and measures the rate of warming of the planet so a big EEI or an increasing IEE is not good news.
It is not easy to directly measure EEI but we do now have a useful approximation in Ocean Heat Content which today comprises the vast majority of EEI. There is today a rising rate of OHC thus a rising EEI. Fig 7 in the preceding OHC link suggests OHC was risng in 2015 at 0.7Wm^-2(ocean), so 8Zj/y into the oceans, perhaps 9.5Zj/y planet-wide, thus a de-wobbled 2015 IEE of ~0.6Wm^-2.
You (I think confusingly) state “GMST can be stable (not increasing or decreasing) with the Earth’s Energy Imbalance still heating the Earth.” I think I see the word “stable” being used here to mean different things to different people. The situation with an ‘unchanging GMST’ can exist with an EEI warming the planet in that the imbalance could be warming deep oceans or melting ice and tundra (all long-term processes) while not impacting GMST. But such warming/melting has limits so the GMST has not reached ‘equilibrium’ and when the ocean warming/ice melting ends, there must/will be a renewed change in that ‘unchanging GM SAT’ to reach that ‘equilibrium’.
Yet it would be the ‘unchanging GMST’ which is the driving force behind the ocean warming/ice melting. And this driving may be a one-way process as there is hysteresis such that a GMST returning to previous levels will not in many cases lead to a reversal of the ocean warming/ice melting caused by earlier higher GMST. Indeed that earlier higher GMST may have resulted in a ‘tipping point’ being passed and thus the ocean warming/ice melting continuing despite the return to earlier lower GSTM. (And that “return to earlier lower GSTM” may occur for a short while driven by a ‘tipping point’, this most likely concerning unstabalised polar ice caps melting down.)
A Serious Flaw In The New RC,
When the reply and nesting function was introduced, I thought “finally, people can have serious discussions, or stupid trolling using up endless column inches, or long winded lover’s spats, contained within a space, making it much more convenient for everyone to do their own thing.”
Now, on the previous UV, Geoff Beacon (not a troll or long winded) asked a real question, and Cedric Knight and I (neither of us being a troll or long winded) tried to answer. Gosh, I thought, a chance to clear up an honest misconception on physics, or maybe I’m missing something, but we can do this without making other people scroll endlessly, and typing in comment numbers, and so on.
But, as they say, it’s never easy. There is now no reply function within the sub-thread, so it becomes necessary to make a comment on this new UV, in the form of ATTENTION GEOFF, hope that he sees it among unrelated comments, and then refer back to the original, just like in the old format.
I’m hoping this can get fixed easily. So far, the new format’s little bugs have been little, compared to the great improvement overall. If all other posts can be kept open for comment, why not UV and FR?
That is not new, not a flaw (in the sense it’s always been that way), zebra. Has always been thus when a new month was posted.
I hope it’s OK to continue this from August., where Zebra said
“There’s no reasonable mechanism for unidirectional energy transfer and/or change of form to occur within the system for any length of time after we observe the stabilization of GMST”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/08/unforced-variations-aug-2021/comment-page-2/#comment-795367
If ‘the stabilization of GMST’ means simply that GMST is staying constant then this is simply wrong.
Scientists and policymakers are hoping that by about 2060, GMST can be ‘stabilized’ at about 15C. The average temperature of the ocean is 3.9C.
By various routes there will be a heat transfer to the oceans.
At ‘stabilization’ GMST will be higher than 3.9C so oceans will keep heating, ice will keep melting and permafrost will keep thawing.
How serious are these continuing processes-at-stabilization?
Geoff, the average temperature of the ocean might be 3.9C, but that refers to the whole ocean, not just the surface, so you have to account for ocean currents. That’s not straightforward. Much of the deep mixing and heat exchange with the surface air occurs at polar and subpolar latitudes in just a few areas, such as the Labrador Current area in the NH. So, a lot will depend on how much the AOMC and Antarctic currents are upset before “stabilization.” With a lot of the heat exchange happening in the colder parts of the planet, the oceans won’t necessarily keep taking in a lot of extra heat, even if GMST is 15C.
I like your quotes, because the GMST isn’t truly stable even if we stop producing more CO2, since the system won’t be in equilibrium. There is a very long full response time for the polar ice sheets, probably millenia. Much of the ocean response will be more rapid as the near-surface layers adjust, but the currents will not be stable at least until the ice sheets (or what is left of them) have reached equilibrium with prevailing greenhouse gas levels. The same goes for whatever carbon-bearing permafrost might be exposed by the melting of the ice sheets. We have an indication that the NH production of additional CO2 and CH4 wasn’t exceptional during the warm Eemian period around 120k BP, because there wasn’t an exceptional spike in these gases preserved in the Antarctic ice cores, even as much of the Greenland Ice Sheet melted.
So, part of the answer seems to be that after we quit adding extra greenhouse gases, there will still be serious long-term sea level rise, accompanied by unstable ocean currents. This would also keep the climate unstable, along with GMST.
Geoff, you seem to be mixing up some basic concepts and numbers.
-The 3.9C value is for the entire ocean, but that includes the very cold deep waters below 200 meters. So your reasoning there is way off; remember the GMST used to be 14C, but the permafrost was frozen and the arctic was covered with ice, and 14 is still much bigger than 3.9.
-Most (90%) of the increase in system energy caused by humans is already in the oceans, and has raised the temperature of the upper layer. That increase is already incorporated into the GMST. Now, if we manage to stop increased energy gain due to greenhouse gases, some of that existing excess may move out of the oceans… you seem to have that backwards.
So I do still think you may be confusing the idea of positive feedback with a transfer of energy within the system. The value of GMST reflects all the different processes going on, globally and locally.
For the permafrost to melt, energy has to come from somewhere. And you are suggesting that somehow, energy will be lost from somewhere without affecting the temperature of that source….. because if it does affect the temperature of the source, that will show up as GMST still not being stable.
Maybe someone can suggest such a mechanism?
I posted these questions on the sea level thread but got no response. Maybe I’ll have better luck here:
How can one claim sea level rise is driven by warming produced by CO2 emissions when that rise began at a time prior to 1880, when CO2 emissions were negligible and global temperatures were relatively stable? how can one claim sea level rise is driven by warming produced by CO2 emissions when the rate of rise has remained relatively stable from 1880 through the present, while both global land and sea temperatures have risen and fallen at varying rates during this same period? how can one reconcile the observations reported in Fasullo et al., acknowledging that sea level rise has actually decelerated during the satellite era, with the notion, claimed by the IPCC, that the rise has accelerated?
From Fasullo et al., “Is the detection of accelerated sea level rise imminent?” “Global mean sea level rise estimated from satellite altimetry provides a strong constraint on climate variability and change and is expected to accelerate as the rates of both ocean warming and cryospheric mass loss increase over time. In stark contrast to this expectation however, current altimeter products show the rate of sea level rise to have decreased from the first to second decades of the altimeter era.” ( https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31245 )
V: How can one claim sea level rise is driven by warming produced by CO2 emissions when that rise began at a time prior to 1880, when CO2 emissions were negligible and global temperatures were relatively stable?
BPL: You could do a correlation analysis. But alas, the math is beyond you.
@Victor
The answers to Victor’s questions are readily available to anyone who actually does the research. Clue:
https://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/2_22_16_John_CC_NuisanceFlooding_GlobalSLR_1050_718_s_c1_c_c.jpg
And, not surprisingly, the paper that Victor cites doesn’t exactly say what he thinks it does. As we’ve seen in the past, he doesn’t actually read the papers, he just mines for quotes to use out of context. Paper actually attempts to show that the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo masked ocean warming and sea level rise for first two decades of the satellite era–1992-2012. For the second decade of that period the rise rate declined slightly over the first decade. But from 2012 to 2016 when the paper was written you can see a sharp rise although the authors seem to be wary to call that short period acceleration. Regardless, sea level has NOT decelerated overall during the satellite era. See chart from the paper for reference:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31245/figures/1
But, of course since the paper was published there are several more years of data with the rise being more evidently at a higher rate for the period 2012-2019. Anyway, the IPCC considers sea level rise from the beginning of industrialization for which the overall rate of rise has clearly accelerated. See:
https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/994611634684411912/photo/1
Victor should read and think hard about this:
https://thinkingispower.com/the-person-who-lies-to-you-the-most-is-you/
As the hurricane season wears on, the public suffering crisis fatigue from compulsory use of the C-word on network news.
It may be time to air an unsolicited testimonial to climate modeling and computational meteorology that has emerged from a sport whose progress depends on both :
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/08/climate-models-and-anthropocene-age-of.html
Zebra lecturing Geoff: “ take a step back and get cause and effect clear […] you have to be clear that GMST [Global Mean Surface Temperature] is an effect (a metric, or proxy), not a cause. ”
Wasn’t that obvious when Geoff called GSMT:
Of course an important measure […] BUT the increases in ocean heat content, melted ice & thawed tundra are NOT directly linked to GMST [but to] Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI)” ?/ ?
Zebra: “ here’s no reasonable mechanism for unidirectional energy transfer and/or change of form to occur within the system for any length of time after we observe the stabilization of GMST.”
A zebra walks into a bar.
– “Hey, why the long face?” goes the bartender.
– “Arghh, somebody on the Internet got their definition wrong, Again!”
– “C’mon, relax. How about the usual, Martini on the rocks? ”
– “Whatever. stirred, not shaken”.
Zebra observes the glass: the ice is melting yet the drink remains freezingly cold
– “Barkeep, there’s a problem with my drink: there is no reasonable mechanism for melting of the ice if the temperature of the drink is stable”!
– Bartender rolls his eyes: “Sheesh, here we go, again”
If the GMST stabilizes, it will do it ABOVE the preindustrial steady state of the ocean-ice system – then you need your “unidirectional energy transfer” into the atmosphere to compensate for the heat removed form the atmosphere into the subsurface ocean until the new steady state is reached, and to compensate for energy used for the phase change of the melting ice and thawing permafrost. That’s why Geoff said:
“GMST can be stable (not increasing or decreasing) with the Earth’s Energy Imbalance still heating the Earth.
What’s “unreasonable” about that?
Zebra: “You may be confusing this with the idea of “tipping points” or positive feedbacks. .”
No, he is not confused, you are – Geoff said: “GMST can be STABLE (not increasing or decreasing) with the Earth’s Energy Imbalance still heating the Earth”. This sentence is not predicated on tipping points or positive feedbacks.
Yes, Geoff mentions feedbacks, but in a very different context – in discussing impact of short-lived greenhouse gasses – their impact (heating of the ocean, melting ice) may indirectly affect GMST long after these gases are gone, by triggering feedbacks, even though they no longer DIRECTLY affect GSMT via their IR absorption.
No one dares to comment further here.
Are they afraid of getting it also from my side?
The new Honest Government Ad dropped: Carbon Capture and Storage:
Ha ha so true. However the text is very light and hard to read. This is not Jim’s fault, and looks to be yet another problem with the new website format.
No Mr.Nigelj
They conspire against old and poor- sighted readers, discriminate them. Because they want quite much younger readers and users of the website.
@ Jim Galasyn
Once upon a time I had to spend a few hours at the Frankfurt Airport due to Lufthansa, and Al Gore had got the Nobel Price from Oslo just a few days earlier.
An found Frankfurter Allgemeine for reading.
There, a reader stated that taken all the CO2 that is to be captured and stored in its most compressed and dense form namely as CO2 dry ice. It will make up a volume larger than the Alps.
Such a large room does not exist underground!
What is even less understood is that E= PdV, where V is that very volume, and P is geolotgical pressure. A very large volumke is to pe pumped down and stored against geological pressure. So where are we supposed to get that energy E from?
The obvious moral is, rather avoid taking up and burning that fossile carbon at all. It is allready there down in the ground where it ought to be. And better look for possible alternatives for energy and electricity production. I believe in the green values and the photosynthesis and in hydroelectric power.
Wikipedia says that the total human greenhouse gas emissions is 52 billiion tonnes CO2 equivalent, of which about 72% is actually carbon dioxide. Dry ice is 1562 kg/m^3. From that I get about 23 km^3.
The area of the Alps is 200000 km^2. If you spread 23km^3 of dry ice evenly over the Alps it would be about 11cm high. That’s not going to be “a volume larger than the Alps”.
Remember that most of the carbon that was burnt to create that CO2 was extracted from the ground in the first place.
See, you are better than the readers of Frankfurter Allgemeine.
But one question remains, where I am most concerned. E= PdV, dV will be the change of volume of the bedrock, they must be lifted up a bit to give space inbside, and P = geological pressure. What will that cost in the form of energy?
You will haqve to lift up very large volumes of groundwater in porous rocks at least, and also against molecular forces and friction.
The technical problems are allready solved in offshore oil and gasfields. There they cannot “pump up” the oil like in Texas and Saudi Arabia. They use water- injection to sustain the field pressure from behind, and even better is very strong selzer H2O +CO2. That is acheived at the Sleipner field in the north sea, known to have especially high CO2- content. The oil and gas is then separated at the platform and the CO2 is pumped back.
If you have very strong selzer at low temperatures under pressure, that “ware” is very valuable and good for keeping up the pressures in old oil and gasfields.. But it will obviously also cost a lot of energy. both for drilling and for pumping.
You are concerned about the work required to inject CO2 into the underground. I the CO2 comes from a gas power plant typically 3% of the power from the plant will be needed to compress and inject the CO2 into the ground (BTW, the compression work of CO2 into dense phase is much larger than the infection work, W = p dV. )
No, at Sleipner the separated CO2 is not “pumped back” neither as a water/CO2 mixture nor as CO2. The CO2 is stored in an entirely different geological entity: the Utsira aquifer where it is permanently stored. Accordingly it is not used to enhance oil production. The is no oil field i the North Sea where CO2 is injected into a oil reservoir.
Also in Saudi Arabia and Texas water has been used to displace oil reservoir out of the reservoirs.. The world largest water injection project is in the Ghawar Field oil field i Saudi and started in 1966, The injection increased in steps and in 1978 the water injection rate was 4.2 million barrels per day.
Erik Lindeberg et al.,
https://www.thejuicemedia.com/honest-government-ad-carbon-capture-and-storage/
I wasn’t making a claim that CCS is a viable idea. I don’t think that it will have much of a role.
I just thought that the specific claim about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere being bigger than the Alps when converted to dry ice was implausible, and that turns out to be the case.
37 billion tons of of CO2 (72% of 52 billion tons) is still a lot, even if it’s small compared to the Alps.
Hr prl
I just got it from the NRK-TV.no daily news that the Germans have come to see a new project of CCS, and store in the old north sean oil and gasfields. The former project, “Jens Stoltenbergs moonlanding..” was a fiasco after billions had been invested.
The new project is scheduled to 2 billion USd. at least. The Germans not believing in that does mean that we will loose the potensially best paying customer at least.
So you seem to be safe there also: “I dont think that will have much of a role.”
I did try for myself to invent a method of CCS, and choose to combust pure carbon under 8 bar pressure of air, cool down the exhaust in a steam boiler, take out the energy by steam turbine, cool also the turbine low pressure side with an ice creek, and absorb the CO2 under 8 bar pressure in saturated Na2CO3- solution. The remaining nitrogen with some argon can then be let out to drive a traditional piston steam engine. to drive some of the air inlet pumps.
The fallen NaHCO3 is then taken out and dried in the sun, and split into soda and very strong selzaer by spill- heat from the combustion tank 2NaHCO3 -> Na2CO3 + H2O +CO2 that is cooled , compressed, and sold through strong steel, pipelines or in strong bottles on the free market.
Given a good icy creek, that engine would deliver some exess electric energy fr0m pure carbon combustion. . And all the way, access to icy water is very valuable to such processes.
But it shows to be the fameous Siemens method, allready invented, so I lost that patent also.
Stoltenbergs moonlanding was a variety of Solvays soda- process. .
But, if oil and gas production is to carry on to the bitter end in old and relaxed oil and gasfields, very strong selzer by pipeline in large quantities can be very valuable.for “water injection” to sustain pressure in the oil and gas reserves..
For that purpose, CCS may be relevant after all.
At least we can laugh our way to Armageddon! Those guys are fricking brilliant!
This is why you don’t pin your entire survival on a non-existent industry. (R&D does not = an industry.)
So Exxon is advertising capturing <0.3% of today's emissions…by 2040.
Just how big? Not very.
Listen up, IPCC.
https://twitter.com/GlobalEcoGuy/status/1433868049212481580?s=20
Thanks for the discussion above.
I also asked
“How serious are these continuing processes-at-stabilization?”
Sea level rise is obviously serious but what about …
1. The effects on sea-life?
2. Rapid intensification on storms?
3. Increased feedbacks?
4. Others?
Have any of these been assessed?
Dr. G. Beacon
Good morning, how are you?
By looking through your questions, I first thought of a fool who can ask more than 10 wise men (especially me,) can possibly answer. But I shall resign on that argument now.
Your most dubious is that of stabilization. When Panta rei,… should we try and stop that?
Answer: Read the history of Sisyphos first!
The effects on sea life may be the most important, at least to my opinion.
But as far as I can see it, industrial and chemical pollution together with the Armada of very large and rabid fisherboats is what ought to be brought an end to.. And there are promjising examjples of proper international good results in that respect, Whereas in other areas / waters, flat-sculled landcrab capitalism is still in charge. .
Rapid intensification of storms?
No! I do not believe that. It is hardly rapid. Only that TV is invented and the broad masses are told to take it politically and blame the class enemy for it.
Increased feedbacks?
No. That is ruled by Le Chateliers principle. The only news is that the broad masses never learnt about feedbacks before..
Others?
Yes, a lot!
Thanks Carbomontanus,
The rapid intensification of storms is quick – as happened with Katrina and recently with Ida.
Doesn’t this process occur because heat is dragged up from sub-surface layers?
“Both Ida and Katrina received much of their strength from a rapid intensification cycle while moving over over the Gulf Loop Current, an eddy of very warm and deep water in the Gulf.”
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/09/04/hurricane-ida-strongest-ever-recorded-comparison-katrina/5713442001/
How can Le Chatilier’s Principle on chemical equilibrium be used here?
Hr G. Beacon
Strorms:
You have 2 and only 2 examples. I would like in this case to have more examples.
In addition, I believe the delta T, the hotter seawater in the gulf, is so minimal that any effect would drown in further accidental “noise”, meaning, I do not believe anyone will find any systematic effect yet, that stands “scrutiny”.
What seems more plausible is that they stay steady for up to twice as long time over the same unlucky city and landscape. That is rather what surprizes. That effect will indeed need more global warming and water vapour.
= speculation from my side, ask a meteorologist.
.
On the other hand, it is obvious that the known effects of CO2- dependent AGW will strenghthen the thunderstorms and tropical cyclones, the question for me is how much.
Le Chateliers principle is a very general and universal principle of stable eqvilibria influenced by several parameters, and not just for chemical eqvilibria. I apply it gladly on standing soundwaves in high refinements of wind instrument tuning. It rules as well for hydrodynamics and sailboat and airlplane and rocket engineering and advanced, finely tuned radio design for instance.
all in all, a very fruitful and practical way of thinking wherever there is complex and dynamic functional eqvilibria.
. .
Yes.
Le Chatilier’s priciple is impressive but where are the “stable eqvilibria influenced by several parameters” so that the principle can be applied?
My question:
If an “an eddy of very warm and deep water” can intensify storms, will an increase in ocean heat content make rapid intensification of storms happen more often?
Just asking.
Geoff:
“If an “an eddy of very warm and deep water” can intensify storms, will an increase in ocean heat content make rapid intensification of storms happen more often?”
Yes. But it will also raise the GMST, so we would not then be in the condition of a stable GMST.
We had examples in the Pacific. That super-typhoon that devasted the Phillipines, and the small cane that reached 210mph shortly before hitting Mexico. Was it last year or the year before that a cane rapidly intensified and hit Florida’s big-bend area at low end cat 5. There are plenty of examples. Sea temperatues are an important input for intensity forecast models.
@ G.Beacon
On rapid intensification of storms:
I have another argument there. There are also some quite small but very fierce sub-polar hurricanes known to occur quite suddenly without warning, in the Barents sea and in the East Grønland waters and ices. They are known to have fallen over and broken down sealers and fisherboats without warning several times when they thought “all clear” . They surely will occur in the Bering sea and russian japanese waters also.
And if so, also on the antarctic coasts. I saw a program of all the penguins laying flat on the ground with all their heads pointing to where the hurricane would come from, with tight water and snowproof feathers the opposite way,, for warning people in the Antarctic.
There we discuss “the polar front” and “The polar vortex” and the fameous “Jet stream” that shows up at the “discontinuity boarder” between polar and temperate air and temperatures. & moistures..
That jet- stream and polar front has weakened in recent years due to especially high warming in the arctic, and the jet stream rather slows down and tend to stay for a longer while in its same meanderings.. Giving longer lasting draughts and longer lasting rain or snow.
Which is what I also tend to0 see and judge as another effect of AGW. Less occurance of those fierce unpredeictable and dangerous sub- polar cyclones., and longer lasting draught and heatwaves and heavy rains.
It is plausible from an unlinear acoustics andv Kladni- figure- point of wiew on hydrodynamics and meteorology.. (The Bjerknes Model). .
“Have any of these been assessed?”
Yes.
Where, when, who by?
Do these assessments need updating now, after a year-of-the-megafires,
Even though WG1 AR6 has just recently been available, this year’s happenings came after the cut off for AR6.
Geoff,
By “stabilization” I am assuming that you are referring to a possible period of somewhat steady GMST late this century accompanied by net zero or lower greenhouse gas emissions, since several parts of the climate system will not be stable for many centuries, at a minimum.
1. This is more for biologists. The effects of rising sea temperatures and acidification will obviously be serious, and will continue to spread from near the surface to deeper parts of the oceans. Throw in pollution (including plastic), overfishing, deoxygenization, etc., and “disaster” or “possible mass extinction” look more like more appropriate terms for what sea-life is facing.
2. Warm ocean temperatures are required for rapid intensification of tropical cyclones, which are powered exclusively by the heat of warm ocean water. Other factors must also be in place, such as low wind vertical wind shear, lack of land interaction, diffluence aloft, etc. If the storms move more slowly, they will extract heat from a somewhat greater ocean depth, where temperatures are cooler.
So the potential for rapid intensification is quite sensitive to warm ocean temperatures, but that potential will not often be fully realized. Rapid intensification in itself is not as serious a problem as some other aspects of tropical cyclones. More death and destruction is typically caused by water than wind, since peak winds cover a smaller area than storm surges, and much smaller than the heavy rain area. There is a good correlation between the intensity of the winds and peak storm surge, but surge also depends on the path of the storm, the duration of the winds, and other factors. A large storm with somewhat weaker winds at landfall, like Katrina, will cause a bigger surge area than a small storm with more intense winds, such as Ida. The rapid intensification means that there is less time to conduct an evacuation, but rapid intensification can often be forecast, and the forecasts are getting better. Heavy rainfall and flooding can occur large distances from where the cyclone makes landfall, as we just saw in the case of Ida. This has little to do with storm intensity at landfall. However…
2b. Extratropical and mixed systems are still sensitive to warmer temperatures. In general, every degree C of warming allows saturated air to hold 7% more moisture, over a wide range of temperatures. This makes any system potentially wetter. A cool-weather system obtains energy from both a temperature gradient and the heat released by condensation and freezing of water vapor. The proportion of the energy obtained from water vapor goes up as the temperature rises, and changes the character of the storm somewhat. So, the potential for intensification of cooler weather systems will also increase, even though this could be somewhat counteracted by decreasing temperature gradients.
3. I’m not going to speculate on increased feedbacks. A lot will depend on how much higher we push greenhouse gas levels before we achieve “stabilization” if we ever do. More emissions are worse, and at least in some aspects, a lot worse. We know what we need to do already, even if we don’t know exactly how bad things will get.
since several parts of the climate system will not be stable for many centuries, at a minimum.
What parts? The modeling from every paper I have seen that addressed the issue in the recent literature states rapid stabilization is entirely possible within decades of significant reductions in atmospheric GHGs.
The cryosphere will not be stable until the continental ice sheets come into equilibrium with new GHG levels, a process which will take centuries, if not millenia. Consequently, ocean currents will not be stable, since they are affected by glacial meltwater. SST patterns will potentially affect the rest of the climate system.
John, I always appreciate the details you provide in your comments, but I’m not sure it helps clear up the question for some people, because they lose track of what the question was in the first place.
The distinction should be made clear between:
1. Initial stabilization of CO2.
2. Stabilization of total system energy content.
3. Stabilization of GMST.
4. A new equilibrium state for the climate system as a whole.
It still seems to me that if we achieve that state where GMST no longer exhibits a trend (after #1 and ignoring “CO2 drawdown”), then #2 has been achieved, and energy is only being transferred and transformed among the sub-systems (we have not achieved #4).
That to me sounds like what you are describing. But I’m still having trouble visualizing the mechanism by which the energy comes to melt the permafrost or ice sheets in the longer term you suggest.
I was thinking perhaps that we might see GMST exhibiting greater variance with no trend, but again, I can’t come up with a mechanism to achieve such a balance.
Note: I’m assuming we actually do achieve stabilization of CO2 sooner rather than “too late”.
And that new GHG level can easily be the old GHG level of something below 300 ppm, and if you do that, the poles. according to at least two studies, begin to stabilize within decades.
As I already stated.
The problem you are having is assuming we are stuck with higher levels. That is a choice, not a foregone conclusion.
Killian @8 SEP 2021 AT 8:29 AM,
You say “new GHG level can easily be the old GHG level of something below 300 ppm.”
While mitigation methods are off-topic here, the non-anthropogenic changes in CO2 levels following from zero CO2 emissions remain on-topic and sciency.
So if we have a CO2 level today of 415ppm and we achieve zero CO2 emissions tomorrow, we could expect that 415ppm to drop as CO2 is drawn down into the deep ocean waters and see perhaps 380ppm in a cenutry or so, and CO2 stabalising at something like 350ppm in a millennium, a level that is not “something below 300ppm,” Indeed, a level of 300ppm relative to 350ppm that would require an additional draw-down of 106Gt(C) from the atmosphere and in addition perhaps 400Gt(C) draw-down from the CO2 enriched oceans and biosphere. That is a lot of carbon to collect and squirrel away. So in a nutshell (as discussion of the method is off-topic here in the UV thread), what method of draw-down is it that you have in mind to describe it as “a choice”?
Zebra,
Thanks for clarifying the range of conditions that could be associated with “stabilization.” I had in mind Geoff’s remark “Scientists and policymakers are hoping that by about 2060, GMST can be ‘stabilized’ at about 15C.” This comes closest to your condition 1, but I agree that other people may have lost track by now.
Conditions 2 and 3 are quite similar, as you point out. I can still imagine a case where energy is redistributed from a relatively warm ocean at the expense of continental ice sheet volume. For example, the previous rise in GMST will be transmitted very slowly through the ice sheets. Warmer ice temperatures reduce the viscosity of the ice, increase flow rates, and lower the height of the central ice sheet that can be supported against gravity. Lower heights in the central part of the ice sheet increase the positive temperature feedback, etc. However, in practical terms, this would probably result in a lower albedo due to reduced ice cover, so the energy in the system would still be slowly increasing.
What I was trying to get at was that under condition 1, “stabilization” of GMST is not what it appears, since the ice sheets are reacting on a very long time scale. GMST would still be rising slowly even if GHG levels are stabilized.
Killian @ 8 Sep. 2021 8:29 am – looks like we may have reached the nesting limit on comments so I can’t put this downthread –
I share MAR’s 8 Sep. 5:40 pm concerns about <300 ppm vs. 350. See, for example, https://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704
However, I'd be glad to be wrong. That still wouldn't end the problem, as far as I can tell.
"In the last interglacial period (Eemian), CO2 varied around the level of about 270–280 ppm without any significant trend from 126 to 115 ka BP"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379116300300
Despite the fairly stable CO2 levels, there was an abrupt sea level rise of about 5-6m toward the end of the Eemian. " We suggest that in the last few thousand years of the interglacial, a critical ice sheet stability threshold was crossed, resulting in the catastrophic collapse of polar ice sheets and substantial sea-level rise." https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1890?proof=trueMay.
I put a lot of weight on information about how the climate system has behaved in the past. The important point to me is that things can look safe and stable for a long time, but there is still a real danger that we have already gone past such a threshold, or will within the next few decades. GMST stabilization might not be enough. We may not know what level of GHG reduction will be sufficient to avoid ice sheet collapse before it's too late.
Very fine, thank you!
Cladni and Bjerknes would appreciate this.
You see, Dr . G. Beacon, on discussing storms, we must also have them IN VITRO, in a water glass!
1. The effects on sea-life:
effect acidification and high temperature will continue in surface waters, and would increase into deeper oceans as the hotter and acidified water gets more into the deeper water, and will be compounded by fishing, plastic and toxic pollution.
2. Storms have been covered by John Pollack who know much more there than I do
3. Positive feedbacks – it depends what feedbacks you mean – if with GSMT – then by definition not (since no more increase in GSMT) if you mean with fluxes in the energy budget then it is hard to anticipate given the constraint of the constant GSMT:.
Let’s illustrate it on the example of the albedo feedback: since the stabilization of GSMT would be at much higher temp. than the temperature at which the ice/snow cover was in steady state ->
the ice/snow continue to melt -> the albedo will continue to drop – > leading to increased absorption of solar radiation by the Earth surface. However since the last tends to increase GSMT,
to maintain the assumption of stable GSMT would require our GHG emission to be even deeper, so the GHG forcing is reduced enough to make room for the continued increase albedo decline forcing.
It is unclear to me which graph / figure at the NSIDC site you link you leads you to “anticipate” a RECORD low this year.
The “Arctic Sea Ice Extent” graph in the top-right corner of the webpage, along with Figures 1a and 3, indicate a “low” (below the “inter-decile range”) minimum value in mid-September. is a reasonable conclusion to reach, but a “record” low … Sorry, I just can’t see it.
Am I missing something “obvious” on that NSIDC webpage ?
Mark BLR,
I don’t think you are missing anything on NSIDC’s Arctic Sea Ice News but, given this year’s Arctic melt season has been since mid-July looking like being well short of any record for meltiness, perhaps the wording “if not a record” in the thread header should be read as saying rather clumsily “even if not a record” (which was my interpretation).
Mind, the 2021 Arctic melt season could still be a different sort of record-breaker (although it is now getting very close to not being), this record-breaking for being the least melty melt season for over a decade, The JAXA daily record has 2021-to-date as potentially the least melty minimum since 2009 (12 years ago) while the previous ‘record-holder’ 1996 became the least melty since 1988 (8 years before).
And while that might appear ridiculously pedantic to some, there is reason for examining the progress of decline in Arctic summer ice and such lack-of-meltiness is a factor in plotting out that decline.
The IPCC does not cover 2021, it covers most of the remaining decade, and if we don’t it another low before the next report, I will be surprised. The combination of high solar output, a likely El Nino or two, the documented increase in the rates of changes, and continued high emissions make a new low relatively likely before, or around the time of, the next report.
If, however, it was bizarrely referring to only this season, in late winter and early spring it *did* look like a new low was possible. The IPCC reports have a serious time lag and that may be why that was said. However, I find my first scenario far more plausible given the notorious unpredictability of the ASI.
“… and anticipating another low, if not record, Arctic sea ice minimum”
I read it the same way you do Mark.
I also find it baffling that anyone could look at that set of images and comment on the Arctic but fail to say something along the lines of
“…… and anticipating another high, if not record, Antarctic sea ice maximum”
but then who would expect unbiased science as opposed to political activism from this site
Aww, that’s so cute. You actually think that comment is relevant.
I, for one, find it baffling that anyone thinks Antarctic winter sea ice gain somehow compensates for Arctic summer sea ice loss. Does recognizing that the Arctic summer influences global albedo while the Antarctic winter does not, amount to “political activism”?
If only life were so easy that you can just imagine things and they are true. Obviously “Arctic summer influences global albedo while the Antarctic winter does not” is the case because it seems sensible, and my comment is not relevant.
But maybe, just maybe, instead of imagining things, we can look at the data (remember that’s what scientists used to do). Here are the views of the entire earth from the sun as it is today – close enough to the min/max ice extent, and plotted on it is the sea ice extent from September last year, both NH and SH
https://photos.app.goo.gl/MBN7avD71y9aVTEN7
It is clear that winter sea ice in the SH has a greater impact on earth’s albedo than summer sea ice in the NH
Cute hey?
“It is clear that winter sea ice in the SH has a greater impact on earth’s albedo than summer sea ice in the NH”
Neither clear, nor true. That’s because the sun shines on Arctic summer sea ice, but not on Antarctic winter sea ice.
And even supposing your image is accurate, and of sufficient precision to give even an approximate idea, just how in the holy hell do you imagine that the view in September proves anything about the yearly impact? Or how it has been changing over the years?
You’d think someone loud in praise of the virtues of “data” could do a bit better.
Mal, I am not sure I understand your hesitation, those images are exactly what the sun shines on when the northern hemisphere sea ice is at minimum and the southern hemisphere is at a maximum. Remember the minimum sea ice is almost 3 months out of phase with the solstice.
Kevin, Don’t trust my plot? Do it yourself. The ice extent polylines are available as shapefiles for every month since 1979 and GoogleEarth reads them in effortlessly. All I did is zoom in to 0 longitude and latitude equal to the sun’s position for that month (I used 5 degrees north for early September) then just zoom out till you see the globe. That is how parallel rays from the sun will hit the earth. I did it using 0 and 180 longitude, you are welcome to use whatever antipodes you wish. I actually did colour in and then count the pixels for north and south and it was overwhelmingly more for the SH, but didn’t feel anyone would trust my numbers. If you do it I am sure they will trust you. Irfanview is an easy way of counting pixels of unique colours. I never claimed that this was valid all year round, this all arose from the RC group seeming to think the minimum value was in some way important, and then I got bagged for saying the SH max was also important. I was only focused on that one month. What my displays show is that SH max does indeed affect the earths albedo at least as much as NH min. You can also plainly see that any further reduction in NH sea ice extent will have virtually no impact on earth’s albedo.
The condescending comments by Ray and Mal are incorrect and inappropriate.
Your Honour,
I find it baffling that everyone keeps talking about the child I ran over while drunk and no one gives me any credit for all the children I missed. Why the bias?
No expert appears to be anticipating a record Antarctic sea ice maximum this year, Keith. This NASA page says ”The 2020–2021 Antarctic data reveal an ice cover that has rebounded somewhat from its 2017 record low but is nowhere close to growing back to its much greater 2014 ice coverage.”
AFAICT, your reliance on fake facts and gratuitous sophistry is motivated by political activism. You do your cause no credit. You really ought to stop digging!
I am not predicting a record Antarctic maximum. All I am saying is if look at the Arctic and Antarctic graphs the SH is as anomalous as the NH one.
Keith Woollard,
I think you are going to have to show these crazy “Arctic and Antarctic graphs” which you are saying should be looked at. Using JAXA numbers, the annual average Antarctic SIE since 1988 shows no statistical trend, OLS yielding +8,000+/-15,000 (2sd) sq km/yr while for the Arctic OLS yields a strong declining trend of -70,000+/-8,000 (2sd) sq km/yr. So how can the one be “as anomalous as” the other?
MAR,
The Arctic graph is the one linked to in the preface to this post, and questioned by Mark BLR at the very beginning of this thread. The Antarctic one is in the same gallery.
They of course have been updated in the last fortnight but I am sure you can look at the start of September point
Keith Woolland,
So you are looking at this NSIDC Arctic SIE graph and this NSIDC Antractic SIE graph and comparing the anomalies which are shown against a 1981-2010 anomaly base and from this for “the start of September point” you are declaring “the SH is as anomalous as the NH one.”
As the Arctic anomaly shown is almost three-times the size of the Antarctic one, perhaps it is time you visited your optician.
And here they are from web.archive
https://photos.app.goo.gl/22UbV5GBrcr1zqma8
Keith Woollard,
Are you expecting a big round of applause for posting a couple of screen-shots on-line?
The situation remains. Your ridiculous assertion that “if look at the Arctic and Antarctic graphs the SH is as anomalous as the NH one” is not supported by you providing said graphs which obviously show no such thing.
Why not go to the <a href="https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/"NSIDC Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph page where you can see the actual numbers used to plot the said graphs.
For Sept 1st, Arctic SIE = 5.17M sq km anomaly = 1.55M sq km below the 1981-2020 Median and 0.15M sq km below the ‘Interdecile Range’ (or “the middle 80%”).
While Antarctic SIE = 18.75M sq km = +0.54M sq km anomaly = 0.07M sq km inside the ‘Interdecile Range’.
Only a complete imbecile would try to suggest such data shows “the SH is as anomalous as the NH one” and to repeat the suggestion by providing screen-shots of the graphs can only be trolling by said imbecile. But that is what you do.
Before we comment any further I feel you need to check your numbers MAR. For Sep 1 I get the Antarctic value 904,000km2 above the decile range, or 6 times the anomaly of the Arctic
Keith Woolland,
“6 times” you say?
How can it be “6 times” as well as “as anomalous as” all at the same time?
I think before we comment any further, KW, you need to check which comment thread trolling you’re in!!
Seems we both made mistakes reading the graph
Sep 1 Arctic = 5.174 = 0.146 outside 90% range
Sep 1 Ant = 18.747 = 0.102 outside 90% range
I was completely wrong about the 6 times (I wrote down the wrong end of the range) but both are outside the 90% range by similar amounts
Keith Woolland,
Are you still trolling your way down this thread?
Let us recap.
You begin by accusing “this site” of being biased by “political activism” and when called out, you reply with a screen-shot of the planet Earth as inclined to the sun presumably on 1st Sept with a supposed superimposed NH & SH ice edge. This was accompanied by the oh-so-bold but unsupported assertion that “It is clear that winter sea ice in the SH has a greater impact on earth’s albedo than summer sea ice in the NH.”
You considered this contribution of yours as “cute”. Evidently you are unable to spell the word “crap” although the commenters attempted to correct your statement not your spelling.
But here you double down on your crap-serving by insisting “What my displays show is that SH max does indeed affect the earths albedo at least as much as NH min. You can also plainly see that any further reduction in NH sea ice extent will have virtually no impact on earth’s albedo.”
And alongside that, you come out with this “the Arctic and Antarctic graphs the SH is as anomalous as the NH one” bullshit which you now agree is at least party wrong but in the same breath accuse me of being likewise wrong.
I see that I tapped in the word “inside” rather than “above” or “the other side” but beyond that, all is tickety-boo, unlike the piled-high bullshit you serve up.
But rattling out errors is the thing to do, not continually serve them up, as you appear to manage.
So from NSIDC’s Charctic NH & SH, we see for 1/9/21 the negative NH anomaly in SIE is thee-times greater than your cherry-picked positive SH anomaly. (You will also find that your tiny sum 18.747 – 18.679 = 0.102 has a big red cross through it. Evidently you weren’t paying attention when you were taught how to subtract decimals.)
And as Sept 1st is three weeks short of the equinox, the sunlight arriving at the Arctic Circle would be far greater, at 1st Sept over three-times greater.
So you are trying to pass off something [3 x 3 =] nine-times greater as being equal. That remains an evident big fat lie you may care to own up to. But I’m not holding my breath as you seem a very stupid troll who is happy to maintain such gross distortions of the truth.
Wow
“called out” – I assume that is a reference to Ray and Mal’s incorrect suggestion that the SH maximum has no impact on earth’s albedo and therefore irrelevant.. Their statements are demonstrably wrong. Let me remind you of the clearly false statements….
“Arctic summer influences global albedo while the Antarctic winter does not” – False
“That’s because the sun shines on Arctic summer sea ice, but not on Antarctic winter sea ice” – False
“presumably” and “supposed” ???? I have given my workflow, it takes 5 minutes to obtain and plot the data. Prove me wrong with this or any other data or shut up. Innuendo is not scientific
I used the word “cute” as that is what Ray used in a derogatory manner. I would suggest a better word would have been “simple” or QED. It really is a very simple concept
I didn’t cherry pick 1 September, that was the date of the post and the date that that the RC authors said they particularly concerned about the impact of compound events and were anticipating another low arctic sea ice minimum.
I think a lot of the issue here is that people fail to grasp the difference between the poles. Having a whopping great continent sitting taking up a large proportion of the Antarctic Circle makes a huge difference to the effect of the sea ice. The actual area covered by sea ice is much the same at each pole, but the average latitude of that sea ice is hugely smaller in the south
Keith Woolland,
The climate of the Earth is what it is (or was) and the issue of AGW (which you find soh-so difficult to grasp) concerns changes to that climate and thus changes to stuff like the albedo of the cryosphere. If the albedo of the NH and the SH were altering through the decades at similar rates, there would then be an issue of which has more impact on global climate (and that is the NH hands down).
But they are not altering at similar rates. The area/extent of SH ice cover has changed very little over the last 40 years. The records show at any part of the year the maximum daily or monthly value spans a range roughly 2.5M sq km. So annual minimums vary from 2.1M to 3.8M, annual maximums from 18.1M to 20.2M.
The equivalent numbers in the NH span 3.4M to 7.6M (a 4M range) at the minimum and 14.5M to 16.5M at the maximum. And we could add the NH snow cover to these numbers which would push the NH variation to 7M sq km at the minimum and over 10M sq km at the maximum. These variations in ice & snow cover in the NH dwarf any SH variation, and that is before we take account of the relative isolation of the Antarctic climate relative to the rest of the planet.
So do you still “find it baffling” that the SH melt/freeze cycle is not considered as much as the NH version? Or perhaps it was some other blazingly stupid idea had you in mind when you posted the first dollup of eye-bulging stupidity up-thread?
(And for the record, that was 5th Sept, a handful of days after your cherry-picking.)
Perhaps you had the idea that at the equinox (three long weeks after your cherry-pick) the sun shines bright-&-beautiful on both poles alike and, lookie here, there is sheds more ice in the Antarctic than there is in the Arctic!! Indeed so. All rather moronic as come the other equinox the situation is reversed.
Of course with the Antarctic continent ice-covered, what you invoke as a “a whopping great continent”, there is a lot less ice-&-snow at the NH minimum than at the SH minimum just as there is an even greater proportion of NH ice-&-snow when maximums are compared. So the point of interest perhaps might be when they swop.
And what is the period when the NH is less icy/snowy than the SH? That used to be in June thro’ to September but now it’s shifted getting-on a month both ends, spanning more like May thro’ to October, this due solely to changing ice/snow levels in the NH.
And it is the change that is the big factor here. Massive change in the NH. The SH which you try so hard to troll onto this thread simply doesn’t feature.
Dr. Detlev Helmig was fired from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2020. He had been investigating the relationship between the local fracking boom and local pollution. Any comments from the scientists here?
From the Denver Post:
“A University of Colorado Boulder scientist known for his work on air quality and pollution was fired because his publicly funded research and his private business could not be separated.”
Source:
https://www.denverpost.com/2020/04/25/cu-boulder-scientist-public-research-private-business/
____________________________
Other articles said maybe the University had bad information about the relationship – it’s confusing.. Here’s one such article:
https://www.dailycamera.com/2020/07/19/cu-boulder-audit-of-researcher-detlev-helmig-contained-errors/
Here’s a quote from the dailycamera article:
“University of Colorado Boulder investigators made errors when they audited former researcher Detlev Helmig, who was fired this spring over allegations that he did not separate his publicly funded work from his private company.”
________________
Quote from what appears to be a Shale Industry website:
“Why would a fired University of Colorado Boulder researcher turn to the leader of a prominent activist group for legal support? Perhaps his history of flawed research and long-standing association with anti-oil and natural gas activist groups and elected leaders is part of the answer.”
Source:
https://www.shaledirectories.com/blog-1/fired-cu-boulder-researcher-seeks-legal-help-from-prominent-kiitg-activist/
If what it says in that one is true, it sounds unethical to have an anti-oil man gathering environmental data for the government. Such data gathering should be done in a scientific, unbiased way. If partisans are telling people the sky is falling based on their data, that gives good cause to doubt their conclusions.
___________________
Quote from a 2017 article on fracking:
“Impact
A recent economic report prepared by the Business Research Division of the Leeds School of Business, University of Colorado Boulder for the Colorado Oil and Gas Association found that oil and gas development added $31.7 billion to Colorado’s economy in 2014. The biggest beneficiaries of this were found to be schools (receiving and estimated $178 million) and State Parks and Wildlife (receiving an estimated $0.5 million). The positive economic impact on the state from hydraulic fracking cannot be argued. From the immense creation of jobs, to the investments made in education and transportation, every citizen of Colorado has been impacted by these improvements.”
Source:
https://stillwaterassociates.com/what-the-frack-is-happening-in-colorado-a-look-inside-colorados-hydraulic-fracking-phenomenon/
V: How can one claim sea level rise is driven by warming produced by CO2 emissions when that rise began at a time prior to 1880, when CO2 emissions were negligible and global temperatures were relatively stable?
BPL: You could do a correlation analysis. But alas, the math is beyond you.
V: Why don’t you do it, Bart? Unless you don’t care . . .
Hr. Victor:
Being a socialist does not mean that you must have it your way all the time.
Margaret Tratcher, a facultary chemjist in the Robert Boyle- school, said that “The error of socialism is that they run out of other peoples money!”
According to me, who is also a chemist of the same school and experienced: Another error of the same is that armed, class warfare against the real school.
Victor
Not only see it by one and only one holy professional method. “Good tools do good work, the shoemaker said, he ate his soup with the awl!”
Those are the flat earthers and the submittent worshippers, the blind believers. Join the unions, the Gild and that Party with P
I do not even have to0 specify which Party only the Party with P. P for Party.
And acheive that symbolic tool of the professions, the awl. .
Then even youn will be in charge and on- line, and rule the world and the situation.
They tried to flatten even Afganistan over and over again..
your comments tend to be fucking exhausting and are not helpfull.
Yes, to have you fucking exhausted is some of the purpose.
He already did, and presented the results to you. This was perhaps a couple of years ago, and I don’t plan to waste my time searching for the posts. But I don’t have to; BPL is a sensible guy and has that info up on his website.
So LMGIFY:
https://bartonlevenson.com/CO218502019.html
You’re welcome. (Hopefully, this time you’ll remember.)
CCHolley:
The answers to Victor’s questions are readily available to anyone who actually does the research. Clue:
https://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/2_22_16_John_CC_NuisanceFlooding_GlobalSLR_1050_718_s_c1_c_c.jpg
V: Take a look at the Rate figures in the box at the upper left: 1993-2002: 3.5; 2003-2012: 2.7. “Our current best estimate of the rates during the first (1993–2002) and second (2003–2012) decades of the altimeter era are 3.5 and 2.7 mm yr−1, respectively. . .”
CC: And, not surprisingly, the paper that Victor cites doesn’t exactly say what he thinks it does. As we’ve seen in the past, he doesn’t actually read the papers, he just mines for quotes to use out of context. Paper actually attempts to show that the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo masked ocean warming and sea level rise for first two decades of the satellite era–1992-2012. For the second decade of that period the rise rate declined slightly over the first decade. But from 2012 to 2016 when the paper was written you can see a sharp rise although the authors seem to be wary to call that short period acceleration. Regardless, sea level has NOT decelerated overall during the satellite era. See chart from the paper for reference:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31245/figures/1
V: I certainly did read the whole paper. However, what’s important to me, as it should be to any real scientist, is the data itself, not an ad hoc hypothesis which remains to be proven. A more informative chart, from the same paper, is this one: https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fsrep31245/MediaObjects/41598_2016_Article_BFsrep31245_Fig3_HTML.jpg?as=webp
Note the difference between the altimeter readings and the readings with “Pinatubo removed.” The former represent actual data, the latter a hypothesis formulated in an attempt to explain why the data fails to support the expected result. As far as I’m concerned the data itself should take precedence over any attempt to massage it. As for the period after 2015, that represents a projection, as the paper itself dates from 2016. The widely held notion that sea level rise has accelerated is based on the hypothesis, not the data itself.
CC: But, of course since the paper was published there are several more years of data with the rise being more evidently at a higher rate for the period 2012-2019. Anyway, the IPCC considers sea level rise from the beginning of industrialization for which the overall rate of rise has clearly accelerated. See:
https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/994611634684411912/photo/1
V: The post-1993 rate of 3.1 mm per year, as depicted in that graph, is still less than the 3.5 rate for 1993-2012 as referenced in the Fasullo paper. You’ve said nothing about my other questions, CC. Any thoughts?
@Victor
Of course Victor totally misses the point.
Victor is just unwilling to do his own research and learn what the science actually tells us beyond him getting his information about the science from apparent denial sites.
Victor: “You’ve said nothing about my other questions”
Awww, but Victor was given a clue, but totally missed it and failed to actually look at the chart and think critically about what it in truth shows us about sea levels.
Here it is again:
https://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/2_22_16_John_CC_NuisanceFlooding_GlobalSLR_1050_718_s_c1_c_c.jpg
So with this, we will add a couple more clues for Victor.
What was sea level doing in all those previous centuries prior to the 21st century? What are the takeaways from this? What are all the possible reasons for what sea level was doing prior to the 21st century?
The information is readily available for those actually interested in putting the work into learning by doing the real research.
Once Victor actually shows he has gained some knowledge, then we can provide some thoughts.
The area of the disc of the Earth, as seen from space, equals a quarter of the area of the surface of the Earth.
In “Earth’s albedo 1998-2017 as measured from earthshine”, it is reported that the Earth’s albedo has changed by -0.5 W/M2 over 20 years. (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL094888).
Would this change in albedo increase Earth’s Energy Imbalance by 0.5 W/m2 or by a quarter of this (0.125 W/m2) – or something else?
0.5 W/m2 sounds scary.
Hr.G.Beacon
Earthshine,….That, I can recommend as a laboratory engineer, experimental designer, and amateur astronomer.
The dark side of the moon and its “earth- shine” is relevant.. Many things have been found there.
Swante Arrhenius made spectrophotometry of the moonshine and found the IR absorption lines of CO2. The LUX of sheere moonshine at any time but mostly at fullmoon is one grey stone in vacuum through one atrmosphere, For Photo- calibration further in the universe.
Intelligent amateur astronomers have focused at the dark side of the moon during Leonide meteor showers and got valuable results on Video.
The Moon is quite a refrerence, a spherical gray stone in vacuum at 1 AU from the nearest star, that is known.
The moon, from ancient on, has been quite a rosetta- stone in order to get further in the universe.
What have we got it for?
Earthshine,…. remember the colour of the full lunarv ecclipses. I have seen fat pancakes and yellow bananas, pizzas rather overburnt but also obvious fat and green roquefort, petersilium with creme freche, and brilliant blue to icy white.
We even have to keep Goethes theory of colours in mind at the moon ecclipses in order not to loose anything.
My idea of discussing earthshine on the new moons is that of SO2- aerosols more or less.
“Comet weather” is when the skies are absolutely clean. . They mostly are not, and today we can see it on geostationary weather satelite photos. also.
Measurements of Earth’s albedo, especially by the “Earthshine” method, are subject to big error bars. Satellite measurements are more reliable and more stable. I have a list of 13 of the latter estimates, one of which, 0.313, was later determined to be an error (too high). The rest are all between 0.29 and 0.30, with a mean at 0.294. We don’t have a good time series for albedo and can’t determine whether it has gone up or down.
BTW, we can see half the Earth from space. A quarter is how the light falls on it.
BPL: “BTW, we can see half the Earth from space. A quarter is how the light falls on it.”
Yes, area of a sphere is 4*pi*r^2 and area of a disk (circle) is pi*r^2, a ratio of 1 to 4.
Also, any location on the surface of the Earth is sunlit roughly 1/2 of the time:
https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/3625/average-amount-of-annual-daylight-at-any-place-on-earth
Geoff Beacon,
Regarding the paywalled Goode et al (2021) ‘Earth’s albedo 1998-2017 as measured from earthshine’, the 20-years 0.5Wm^-2 is desrcribed in the ‘Plain Language Summary’ as
So it is indeed what you describe as “sounds scary” but in the paper saying it ‘corresponds’ to a ‘forcing’ it is presumably meaning ‘dimensionally’. In the context of AGW the measured effect is not necessarily a “climate forcing.
Note that the ‘Abstract’ ends with mention of an even more scary result saying “The CERES decline is about twice that of earthshine.”
This result has been a long time in the making with some initial findings appearing in Goode et al (2001).
(Note the last named author in these papers is an old friend of ours who apparently inspired this work on earthshine when he “described its modern potential in a 1991 paper.” The attraction to those of a skeptical bent towards AGW should be obvious.)
While we are stuck the wrong side of a paywall for Goode et al (2021), an earlier paper Palle et al (2016) provides their findings up to 2014, including a graphic showing the Earthshine-CERES comparison (Fig 4).
As for the +0.5Wm^-2 sounding “scary,” the positive forcing from AGW over 20 years is something like +0.9Wm^-2 and this is expected to kick-off additional feedbacks of roughly twice that level, perhaps half appearing within the decade, and much of this resulting from clouds although cloud climate feedbacks would comprise more than just reflection of sunlight but also the change in height of cloud tops and increased cloud reducing outward IR.
Excerpt from the Conclusion of Geoff’s link:
“The two-decade decrease in earthshine-derived albedo corresponds to an increase in radiative forcing of about 0.5 W/m2, which is climatologically significant (Miller et al., 2014). For comparison, total anthropogenic forcing increased by about 0.6 W/m2 over the same period. The CERES data show an even stronger trend of decreasing global albedo over the most recent years, which has been associated to changes in the PDO, SSTs and low cloud formation changes. It is unclear whether these changes arise from the climate’s internal variability or are part of the feedback to external forcings.”
He refers to “radiative forcing” and to “total anthropogenic forcing”. What is the difference between total anthropogenic forcing and earth’s energy imbalance. Looks like it was 0.6 W/m^2 in 2009 per NASA – what is it today? What is the imbalance today?
2009 NASA energy balance: (says net absorbed = 0.6 W/m^2 in lower left corner)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File:The-NASA-Earth's-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
Mr. Know Shit All,
You ask “What is the difference between total anthropogenic forcing and earth’s energy imbalance.”?
Consider the analogy of a maniac cyclist pedaling furiously towards hell. Being a maniac he is also pumping the brakes. The ‘net effort’ (= pedaling minus pumping) he has expended in getting towards hell would equate to ‘total anthropogenic forcing’ while if he were to stop pedaling and also stop pumping the brakes, if all effort were to cease, there would remain momentum that would continue to carry the maniac forward. At any time, that momentum would equate to “earth’s energy imbalance. “
The ‘total anthropogenic forcing’ is increasing with time as this graphic of it and its components shows.
The “earth’s energy imbalance” has also been increasing but when measured directly or through OHC it is shown to be increasing in a wobbly way as shown in this graphic (which is Fig 12 from Meyssignac (2019)). So answering the question “What is the imbalance today?” is not so easy. easy.
MA, apart from the pointlessness of answering trolls, I think your answer is not really helpful. And why do you need an analogy to explain basic physics?
I think the term “balance” is, in itself, confusing.
Before dealing with the dynamic state, let’s compare two planets… A has less CO2 than B, and the energy in the climate system is constant for both.
I would say there is a “balance” in both cases: Energy in (from the Sun) = energy out (to space) + energy retained in the climate system. And B has more energy retained than A.
Case 1. We take the difference in CO2 between A and B, and add it instantaneously to A.
Case 2. A mini-black-hole collapses nearby and the radiation instantaneously hits planet A with energy equivalent to the difference in system energy between A and B.
Discuss the dynamic in both cases, and explain how the terms “imbalance” and “forcing” would be applied in each case.
(Use of analogies will result in losing 10 points on your grade.)
Since in the energy budgets of Earth the solar radiative flux = the radiation per m2 of your disc divided by 4 , I doubt anyone would calculate changes in climatic albedo forcing differently. And your paper’s plain language summary says: The albedo shows a decline corresponding to a net climate forcing of about 0.5 W/m^2″ , so it is 0.5 W/m^2 and does not require division by 4.
Per 2009 graphic (link below) from NASA: (all units in W/M^2)
Incoming solar radiation to earth’s atmosphere = +340.4
Reflected solar radiation out to space = -99.9
Total infrared radiation out to space = -239.9
______
Subtracting we get Net absorbed radiation by the earth = 0.6 (shown in lower left of the linked graphic) That’s pretty close to your 0.5 W/m^2.
0.6 W/m^2 is about the same as one of the old incandescent 5-watt Christmas tree lights for every 8.3 square meters.
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File:The-NASA-Earth's-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
MA Rodger mentions a number of 0.9 W/m^2. Is that the latest radiation imbalance?
The NASA graphic numbers are only for solar and infrared radiation energy to and from the atmosphere. Does the earth atmosphere gain or lose energy in any other way? For example via shedding of particles or molecules via friction with space, or from solar winds, or from warped space that we pass through, or from moon shine, or from particles the earth collides with as it passes thru space, or via orbital changes, or via “hot spots” in space that the earth passes thru, or via subterranean heat due to the hot core, or due to the reversing of the polarity of the planet, or from UFOs (HOLY COW!), or from volcanic activity, or man-generated heat from burning of fuels, friction, etc?
For extra credit, has a calculation of the temperature rise of the atmosphere ever been done based on a heat gain of 0.6 W/m^2? I’m assuming it would take into account the mass and specific heat of the air, etc – would it also need to take into account the mass of any land or water or trees and the heat transfer rate to those things, etc? Does the 0.6 W/m^2 imbalance only occur when a part of the atmosphere is sunlit?
Well over 90 percent of the extra heat goes into heating seawater. Maybe a percent into melting ice. The heat capacity of the atmosphere is much much smaller than of the ocean. There are estimates of the rate of heat gain of the oceans, and they are a big number. I think it equates to many thousands of Hiroshima sized bombs per minute.
I’ve done some thinking regarding two of the questions I posted above: “How can one claim sea level rise is driven by warming produced by CO2 emissions when that rise began at a time prior to 1880, when CO2 emissions were negligible and global temperatures were relatively stable? how can one claim sea level rise is driven by warming produced by CO2 emissions when the rate of rise has remained relatively stable from 1880 through the present, while both global land and sea temperatures have risen and fallen at varying rates during this same period?”
And I’m wondering: is it possible the rise in sea levels has little or nothing to do with climate? Consider, for example, the difference between sea level measurements, which reveal a steady rise from prior to 1880 to the present ( https://www.globalchange.gov/sites/globalchange/files/seal_level_rise_052021.png ), and ocean surface temperatures, (http://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/19418.jpeg), which dip significantly from 1880 to 1910, peak at 1940, then drop and level off until the mid-70’s, a period of roughly 35 years.
According to a recent study, “Geothermal heat flow in the polar regions plays a crucial role in understanding ice-sheet dynamics and predictions of sea level rise. . . . We show that the rapidly retreating Thwaites and Pope glaciers in particular are underlain by areas of largely elevated geothermal heat flow, which relates to the tectonic and magmatic history of the West Antarctic Rift System in this region. Our results imply that the behavior of this vulnerable sector of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is strongly coupled to the dynamics of the underlying lithosphere.” (“High geothermal heat flow beneath Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica inferred from aeromagnetic data” — https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-021-00242-3 )
A similar dynamic has been reported for Greenland (“High geothermal heat flux in close proximity to the Northeast Greenland Ice Stream” — https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-19244-x)
I’m now wondering whether the steady sea level rise since the late 19th century could be linked primarily to a gradual geothermally-induced melting of ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland, a notion that seems more consistent with the evidence than the effects of climate change.
Any thoughts?
Victor Grauer the mind-numbingly stupid Troll,
Any thoughts?” you ask.
You’ve had your fun and some more. How about being a man of your word.
To quote you at the end of your first foray here at RealClimate; “There’s no point in wasting my time “trolling” this blog anymore. You people are impervious to logic.”
I think you might want to consider: local heat flux WRT ocean mass, among other things.
V: is it possible the rise in sea levels has little or nothing to do with climate?
BPL: No.
Victor, do you really expect us to believe that you posed your two questions and then, only after cogitating a bit, you started to wonder whether the answer *might* be that the rise in sea level had nothing to do with climate? Is this a clumsy attempt at rhetoric, or just simple dishonesty? I can’t tell. But you’d be taken more seriously if you didn’t engage in such nonsense (not much more seriously, mind you, but at least it would be a small step in the right direction).
How much would sea levels rise due to displacement of the world’s ships, pipelines, oil rigs, off-shore wind farm supports, islands we blew up to test nukes, man-made particulates falling from the atmosphere, volcanic flows into the ocean, earthquakes lifting tectonic plates, growing underwater volcanos, man-made islands, man-made land in many major cities, sea-walls, tidal hydroelectric and flood control dams, and trash dumping? :)
We know the increase in humidity in the air. How much would that lower sea levels? Should be an easy calc. If the atmospheric pressure is getting higher due to adding stuff to the air, how much would that change sea levels? ;)
You want to make the point – you do the sums.
Though only a few seconds though should tell you that the time average contribution of tidal hydroelectric schemes will be zero.
On tidal hydroelectric I was thinking of the displacement of the ocean water by the concrete and steel parts that will be under-water, therefore permanently raising sea levels.
Scientists need to do the sums to ensure that these easy to understand displacements aren’t why sea levels are rising. I doubt all those things combined would amount to much, but without doing some research and calculations, they can’t be totally discounted – particularly if you want all economic systems to be radically changed because you say CO2 is causing that SLR, and yes, I think CO2 probably is the cause, but I’m not 100% sure because I haven’t done the calcs and there is too much politicizing of the subject to accept anything without evidence that leaves no stone unturned. Billions of people will die because of AGW policies of reducing FF use to near zero, because there is zero possibility of human labor replacing all those FF powered farming machines. If you are pushing policies to kill billions you have to be 100% sure you are right. Just like the scientists did before they lit the first H-bomb, they had to calculate if the bomb would light the atmosphere on fire and destroy the earth. Interesting reads on real science history:
https://www.insidescience.org/manhattan-project-legacy/atmosphere-on-fire
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/bethe-teller-trinity-and-the-end-of-earth/
KIA: Billions of people will die because of AGW policies of reducing FF use to near zero
BPL: That’s a lie. Stop spreading lies.
OK, since you think that the calculation is necessary, go for it. Do the sums. Tell us the answer.
I’m not a climate scientist. I’m not telling people they have to alter the entire world economic system because of CO2. If the data is available, or can be estimated, the math is easy.
Vic doesn’t “do sums”. He uses his eyes, his brain, and all his intelligence and training to just “see” the answer.
And if YOU take the time to do the sums and show him, he simply smirks and ignores it and repeats his idiocy (see his correlation “analyses”). Also surely says to himself: “well I sure pwned that stupid libbie…got them to waste X hours…gee I’m a success giggle, giggle.”
prl,
I fear you are asking too much of Mr. Know Shit All. This is such a feeble-minded individual that assessing the lack of impact on SLR resulting from human activities other than via AGW is well beyond his capabilities.
I think the idiot thinks that because he considers such an assessment is incredibly hard, we would in some way find it awkward to give a reply. Thus the continued trolling.
In terms of human-built ‘structures’, by far the biggest human input into SLR would be world shipping which has been on average increasing by </a href="https://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=93"80M dwt/yr over the last decade. So assuming they are all loaded and not wedged on a sand bar in the Suez Canal, that would be [80/1000/361=] 0.0002mm/yr SLR. You could probably take off a zero for an assessment of the effect of land reclamation which through the history of mankind globally totals perhaps 25k sq km [perhaps say x 1m/30yr]. So the gross effect of non-AGW human impact on SLR is at most 2 days-worth-per-year of the present SLR.
OK, I’ll play.
1) Mass of Earth’s atmosphere: 5.1480×10e18 kg
2) Mass of Earth’s oceans: 1.335×10e9 km3 x 10e3 kg x 1oe9 (unit conversion) = 1.335×10e21 kg
*(Ignoring the salt content here…!)
3) Approximate max water vapor content of atmosphere: ~3%
4) Approximate mass of total vapor content (@ 3%): ~1.54×10e17 kg
5) Mass ratio of oceans/atmospheric water vapor: 0.87x10e4/1 Put the other way round, and expressed in percentage terms, ~0.01153%.
So, with a mean ocean depth of 3,688 m (and ignoring the issue of mean shoreline slope), the maximum possible swing of sea level from the physically unrealistic extremes of a totally arid atmosphere to a totally saturated atmosphere would produce sea level change of less than ~42.5 m.
Surprisingly large, I’ll admit, but you can’t wring every gram of water out of the atmosphere any more than you can ensure 100% RH everywhere simultaneously. But what would a *realistic* change give?
I don’t know the literature, but searching, per Chen & Liu (2016), it would seem that we know the increase in humidity rather less well than one might have thought. (Though on reflection, one can see that the difficulties of empirical measurement are non-trivial, as they say.)
But they do give the NCEP & radiosonde trends in ‘PWV’–precipitable water vapor–for 1979-2014 as 0.11 mm/decade, +/- 0.06 or 0.05 respectively.
Dang. More math.
0.11 mm x 510065623 km2 = 1.1×10e-4 m x 5.10065623×10e14 m = ~5.5×10e10 m3
That’s 5.5×10e13 kg additional water vapor in the air.
So, 5.5×10e13 kg (DeltaM)/1.335×10e21 kg (oceans) = 4.1×10e-8/1 mass ratio. (Ignoring the fresh/salt issue again.)
S0 3,688 m x 4.1×10e-8 = 1.5×10e-4 m, or 0.15 mm (And again, unrealistically large because it tacitly assumes 100% perpendicular shorelines around the world.)
That 0.15 mm would be the *total* decline in sea level for the period of 1979-2014, remember. So given that SLR rates during the 20th range upwards from 1 mm *per year*, it’s quite clear that the effect KIA put forward was quite as negligible as we all intuitively knew it to be all along.
But hey, it’s good for me to practice handling exponents and unit conversions without dropping a decimal point.
Well done! I’d make the mass of the oceans 1.39 e 21 kg, since the density of seawater is 1,025 kg m^-3 with all the salts, but of course the salts don’t evaporate.
Some not so good news from the UK, if this article is accurate, the UK is having to bring coal power plants back into generation because recent stagnant weather has resulted in a drop in wind power amid a global shortage of natural gas.
https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/britain-forced-fire-coal-plant-132904634.html
At least they weren’t dumb enough to get rid of their coal plants!
Couldn’t view the story without submitting to some Yahoo/Verizon nonsense.
Victor
If you could be only more understanding to your own language and writings…..
“And i`m wondering it`s possible the rise in sea levels has little or nothing to do with climate?”
Conscider for example the bdifference between sea level measurements, which reveal a steady rise from prior to the 1880 to the present.”
I would suggest “has got less to do” , not little or nothing. That “nothing” is surely a false statement, that is easily avoided by using other words.
What about “has got less to do with…”
I surely know the socialists to be better than yours.
Q: Were you “ousted” from there?
. Even the declared communists say thanks and eat gladly if I offer them properly stolen apples at our work.
Then you have the church and white curve, that is not disputed by serious participants in the taverns. For that you need analytic geometry.
“Steady” is hardly precise enough. You have linear, and then you have curves up and curves off. And noise to it, that must be discussed as “secondary effects.”
A very fruitful conscept then is the slope or the 1.st derivative. Whether that is constant or slightly rising or falling over time along with the curves. And the second derivative, the acceleration of that slowly rising or falling of watering and drowning and threatening.
When that is in order, you can keep the Guinness book of records in hand or simply just mention it.
The People with obey, and you can order another Guinness stout or even a brown or a pale ale only provided that it is from Guinness, , and be in your right, as long as you can also pay for it.
That is better how to discuss.
My very good advice.
Because,
Guinness is owned and controlled by The Royal Society and The Universityn of Cambridge I think, to the advantage of The Irish People and The People worldwide.
They were given to judge on “Climategate” and a hockeystick also at the East Anglian University, and judged that “All we need to known is the CO2 content of the atmosphere and some simple physics, PERIOD”
Thus, stick to that.
Past world economic production constrains current energy demands:
Persistent scaling with implications for economic growth and climate change mitigation
Timothy J. Garrett ,
Matheus Grasselli,
Stephen Keen
Published: August 27, 2020
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237672#sec007
Unfortunately, this paper has a number of questionable propositions (from my perspective). Some of these seem to result from a significantly anthropogenic viewpoint. For example, they define fossil energy as primary energy production on Earth. That definition in the science of ecology refers to annual biomass growth and does not include mined materials from the lithosphere. Factors like this tend to defeat their “economics.”
You have to consider their context, Jim. However, your point is correct and ultimately overrides their economics. That said, Keen is about the closest we come to a sane economist, so time is better spent trying to bring him to a regenerative understanding than antagonizing him, and others. Not that I follow my own advice. I have met Keen and he and I generally see things along the same lines, and can spar without drawing blood, but at the end of the day, he’s still an economist.
Important to note that his Economics model, attempting to model a steady-state type of economy, shifted from typical economic flows to thermodynamics, so he’s getting it better than most – by a long distance.
Still… though… Economics…
The Copernicus ERA5 re-analysis has been posted for August with a global SAT anomaly of +0.31ºC, the second highest monthly anomaly of the year-to-date and a little down on the July anomaly of +0.33ºC. (The Jan-Jul 2021 monthly anomalies sat in the range +0.06ºC to +0.33ºC.)
August 2021 is the 3rd warmest July on the ERA5 record behind 2016 (+0.40ºC) & 2019 (+0.36ºC) and August 2021 is the 46th highest anomaly in the all-month EAR5 record.
The first eight months of 2021 averages +0.22ºC and is the 6th warmest start-to-the-year on the ERA5 record. For the full calendar year to climb into 5th spot above 2018 wound require the 2021 Aug-Dec monthly anomalies to average above +0.34ºC while to retain 6th spot above the El Niño-boosted 2015 wound require the 2021 Aug-Dec monthly anomalies to average above +0.32ºC.
…….. Jan-Aug Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.48ºC … … … +0.44ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +0.45ºC … … … +0.47ºC … … … 1st
2019 .. +0.38ºC … … … +0.40ºC … … … 3rd
2017 .. +0.36ºC … … … +0.34ºC … … … 4th
2018 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 5th
2021 .. +0.22ºC
2015 .. +0.18ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 6th
2010 .. +0.16ºC … … … +0.13ºC … … … 7th
1998 .. +0.10ºC … … … +0.02ºC … … … 15th
2014 .. +0.09ºC … … … +0.11ºC … … … 8th
2007 .. +0.08ºC … … … +0.04ºC … … … 13th
2005 .. +0.07ºC … … … +0.09ºC … … … 9th
2013 .. +0.04ºC … … … +0.07ºC … … … 10th
MARodger: To quote you at the end of your first foray here at RealClimate; “There’s no point in wasting my time “trolling” this blog anymore. You people are impervious to logic.”
https://youtu.be/CWXoOEsHguk
The climate is not special. Covid is not special.
Our ability to have scientifically informed political decisions is always going to be fraught.
We have embedded within the scientific community a view of how politics works that was never realistic.
ref https://twitter.com/THEworldsummits/status/1433818316154474515
The world’s biggest carbon removal plant is going online in Iceland. It will draw down ~870 cars worth of emissions per year.
“Climeworks hasn’t publicly disclosed its price per ton” highlights the continuing coyness of DAC proponents (not just Climeworks) to actually say how much it costs to sequester/store a tonne of carbon. This is something that they have avoiding for years.
The reason is clear. Since (DAC and Storage) is only economically viable if the price is close to the effective carbon price (set by taxes/trading schemes/regulations), and it clearly is nowhere near this, it suits them to be coy & promise potential ‘economies of scale’ down the road.
refs – https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1435434256587792392
https://qz.com/2055951/climeworks-is-opening-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-removal-machine/
https://climeworks.com/orca
Economies of scale down the road that do not even exist hypothetically.
SR15 Figure 4.2
Evidence on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) abatement costs, 2050 deployment potentials
Potentials cannot be added up, as CDR options would compete for resources (e.g., land). SCS – soil carbon sequestration; OA – ocean alkalinization; EW- enhanced weathering; DACCS – direct air carbon dioxide capture and storage; BECCS – bioenergy with carbon capture and storage; AR – afforestation
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/01/fig-4.2-768×1024.jpg
4.3.4.5 CO2 capture, utilization and storage in industry
4.3.7 Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-4/
All analysed pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C – use CDR to some extent … CDR deployed at scale is unproven, and reliance on such technology is a major risk in the ability to limit warming to 1.5°C.
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-2/
Many might now be aware that Rupert Murdoch appears to have ordered his Australian media outlets to stop promoting climate denial and to now campaign for net-zero emissions. If Murdoch now supports net zero GHG emissions, then it follows the Neoliberal Climate Denial-Inaction Plan = Net Zero by 2050. Exxon also publicly supports Net Zero by 2050. Net zero 2030 would be different, but obviously that’s not where this kind of PR Spin is heading.
Misc NET/CDR Refs RC 12 Aug https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/07/forced-responses-july-2021/comment-page-10/#comment-794502
Climate scientists: concept of net zero is a dangerous trap – April 22, 2021
Collectively we three authors of this article must have spent more than 80 years thinking about climate change. Why has it taken us so long to speak out about the obvious dangers of the concept of net zero? In our defence, the premise of net zero is deceptively simple – and we admit that it deceived us.
https://theconversation.com/climate-scientists-concept-of-net-zero-is-a-dangerous-trap-157368
net zero is capitalisms selfpromise and desperate attempt to save itselfs destructive idea of the evergrowing “market”.
Im certain the only way is to stop this insane lifestyle of overproduction, consumerism and mass”mobility”, that defined the last 40 years of an unleashed global capitalism, fuelled by cheap fossil energy. even in so called “socialist” countries it always was about money and “competition” and still is, china is the classic example.
You didn’t say what the “only way” was, but I am interested in what it might be.
Go regenerative, or fall down and go boom, and maybe go extinct.
I admit, it didn’t deceive me. What’s wrong with me? Why am I a misfit toy? Do I need ALAnon-PhD?
It’s cooling off in the far north – probably be making ice soon:
https://www.wunderground.com/forecast/ca/resolute
Currently -86 F at the South Pole, with a -113 F wind chill. Let’s go camping! :)
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/antarctica/south-pole
Forecast low for Sept 20 at Vostok is -90 F, with a wind chill of -119 F.
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/antarctica/vostok-station/ext
That wind chill is almost as cold as the -148 F experienced by the men who made the first winter ascent of Mt. McKinley back in the 1960s. It was colder than that, but -148 was as low as the wind chill charts went.
https://www.amazon.com/Minus-148-Degrees-Winter-McKinley/dp/0898866871/ref=sr_1_3?crid=2YGJ9MZ1OOSQI&dchild=1&keywords=minus+148+degrees+first+winter+ascent+of+mount+mckinley&qid=1631100467&sprefix=minus+148+degrees%2Caps%2C392&sr=8-3
;)
Ladies and Gentlemen
On “Earthshine”.
Looking back into Robert H.Bakers ASTRONOMY, 7th edition from 1959,
I can just quote Gallilei: “Measure all that can be measured, and make measurable all that can not yet be measured!”.
According to Pastor Vojtyla from Krakow: “That professional badgering- that Class warfare… against Gallilei was erroreous, sinful, and is deeply regrettable, on behalf of the Church and of all saints and in al languages! I repeat…!”
All the satelites rattled for the rest of the evening and jumped 2 fingerwidts out of geo- stationary orbitb just by that message. I can remjember it..
That earthshine method and history is an example of proper science and scientific methods including science history on its very best.
I quote from Bakers Astronomy seventh edition, , 5. 7. Earthlight on the moon:
“When the moon is in the crescent phase, the rest of its disk is made visible by sunlight reflected by the earth.
(then follows a short comment to classic bromide photographic problems due to very high contrast, a possible systematic device- error..)
The Earth exhibits the whole cycle of phases in the lunar sky, and theese are supplementary to the moons phases in our skies. “Full earth” occurs there at the time of new moon.
Full earthlight on the moon is many times as bright as is the light of the full moon on the earth.
The earth is not only a larger mirror to reflect the sunshine, but it is also a more efficient one because of its atmosphere and clouds.
Earthlight on the moon is bluer than the direct sunlight, for much of the earthlight is selectively reflected by our atmosphere, and in this light the blue of the sky appears.”
Comment:
Quite ingenious, R.H.Baker cunningly foresaw the very fameous “blue marble” long before pictures in colour had been taken by the Apollo astronauts, that surprized everyone. Really a new and paradigmatic “picture” of the earth. R.H.Baker contempary to R.Revelle and C.D.Keeling represented did represent early astronomy and early science on its very best. Those people do their work well and deliver new, and timeless wisdom.
MA Rodger has given very good reference to Goode & al(2021) earths albedo 1998-2017 as measured from earthshine, and
Palle & al (2016)
Really very fine thank you,
That is healthy and educative litterature for anyone here , who needs to know better what science is about.
They seem to have used a 6″ mirror telescope with CCD, charge couppled device..
And seem to have got it with 3 valid chiffres. Beat that…Anything better in the foggy heavens? And right along with Gallilei.
Barton Paul Levenson is misconswceived on this. Good greef…
================0000
Permit another example:
I also had it from “Klimarealistene” the N. climate surrealists that Tyndalls experiments are quite obsolete thus to be ignored. Because today we have transistors and computers and satelites and much better, than those too large error bars of those days. And think of that, Earthshine on the moon, Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha… Herschel & Arrhenius used the same instruments.
That style of argument is very typical. That is class warfare against the doubble beam detection technique, against carefully and cunningly puriufied natural gases, against pure silver conical metal mirrors, and against the termopile.
Against the termo- electricity and the turning coil mirror- galvanometer of 1860, and against 2 metal cubes exactly 1 cubic decimeter heated by tiny gas- flames with boiling water inside for IR- sources. . Turnable in 4 directions, coated with copper, silver gold, and for IR radiationj, “Husblas” finest clear gelatine from beluga sturgeon swim bladder.
Alltogether rational and quite intelligent, well understood experimental design by the very best of hi- tech pioneering materials and remedies.
That typical class warfare against all that they cannot grasp (which is most of it including their own minds and bodies) and quite especially against all possibly honest work of hands and mind……
is something that I really cannot like.
======0000
Those exellent observations by 6″ mirror telescope and modern CCD, carefully and critically put together and presented to 3 digits accuracy were dirty infreriour with too large error bars according to a B.P Levenson.
,Denialism and surrealism fear and they hate and fight in a characteristic way the very much cheaper and simpler, pioneering, intelligent, critical methods just like in the old Vatican. And teach systematics and morals to it.
It is the same existencial fear of having to resign on definition power and leadership.
C: Those exellent observations by 6″ mirror telescope and modern CCD, carefully and critically put together and presented to 3 digits accuracy were dirty infreriour with too large error bars according to a B.P Levenson.
BPL: “excellent.” And yes, they have huge error bars, Carbomontanus, and no, that particular paper is not taken seriously any more. That’s the scientific consensus speaking, not just me. BTW, do you know what the error bars on those observations were? Can you cite them?
You do know I’m a planetary astronomer, right? That all work on planetary temperatures starts with semimajor axis and albedo, right? Do you want the list of 28 articles on Earth’s albedo I’ve collected for my own work? Because if you do, I can copy and paste it here.
@ BPL
So you are a planetary astronomer , Right?
The fameous shoemaker who ate his soup with his aw,. Right?
and did teach all arould him who wondered,………. about good,, typical professonal tools doing good work!
Did that shoe- maker ever make a shoe?
Did his modern industrial colleague the locksmith ever smith a lock?
Did that planetary astronomer ever astrononize or – my a planet?
If you could mention and discuss the spectral response curve of CCD and the errors or unqualified choise of filters to adjust for that, I might have taken you for serious.
Also look after spider spin more or less in the tubes, and birdshit on the lenses and mirrors. That makes big error bars if simply ignored or denied..
But the biggest archaic error bars are due to that shoemaker, who failed to grasp that for broad soups we take broad spoons, being more phaenomenologically congruent to the purpose..
Error bars are hardly reduced at all by your reference to anonymeous experts consensus, the shoemakers and locksmith and planetary astronomers unions and gilds.
And not by your enormeous collection of DATA in a list of 28 articles.
Because, that is rather the way that magics and sales propmotion em0ployees have been trained to perform on the free market, in the given civil media, and on peoples doors.
You’re still wrong.
You asserted that the Earthshine method was reliable because results were reported to three decimal places. That’s a freshman mistake, confusing precision with accuracy. It doesn’t matter if your speedometer records you going at 54.93678 miles per hour; if it’s biased downward by 20 mph, you’re still over the speed limit.
Earthshine is not a reliable method of deducing the Earth’s albedo; it only gives an approximate answer. The first study (1912) using the method found Earth’s albedo to be 0.89. In the 1940s, Danjon found values of 0.40, 0.39, and 0.385. Palle et al. get about 0.3, but the error bars are large enough to rule out any serious attempt to establish a time series. Satellite observations are more reliable and they do NOT show the Earth getting darker, even though we have them from 1959 to the present.
@BPL
You are discussing systematic errors and call them precision accuracy ad libitum. A typical freshman mistake. Systematic errors seem to be cunningly cared for by following the contrast between dark and bright areas on then moon, and I see that also mentioned.
Optical “Densitometry” has long been routine in many practical sciences, not least in astronomy.
It would help you a lot if you tried to understand that of substansial and accidental forms and further Ogdens triangle. Before you observe and measure and map and describe anything, Ask and try and decide first what is it really? and what is it about? what for?
Then you can choose and design and calibrate your methods better to known standards, and find “blind tests” “or “blancs” for possible zero reference. And make better choises of adequate, phaenomenologically congruent scales and displays..
But maybe you never learnt and trained it that way?
I find a lot of classical examples of that, that led tom pioneering works and discoveries, in Bakers Astronomy.
Some people ridiculed also Radio astronomy in the beginning because the mirrors and lenses were not polished optically shiny and “clean”.
Those critics did not grasp what it was all about first. They probably approached it by very deep exsistencial fear for their traditi9onal and professional definition power , that cloggedc their thoughts against see8ing both objects and intelligent device methods. ..
And the pioneering electricians were ridiculed and badgered by the routine pfrofessional plumbers for installing too thin tubes that were not even hollow inside.And used no hemp for the joints and connections. “Freshmen- errors and misconsceåptions”… they laughed. And published.
“There ain`t no planet beyond Uranus! Adams is misconsceived on this!” Mr Airy wrote in his journal datum at the Flagstaff Observatory, and took another glass of whiskey.
Again I must remind of that shoemaker who insistede on eating his soup with his awl.
You’re really good at posting word-salad nonsense. Apart from the frequent misspellings it’s just annoying to try and figure out what the hell you’re talking about. Here’s a pretty good example I picked at random:
Carbomontanus says:
“Error bars are hardly reduced at all by your reference to (anonymeous) experts consensus, the shoemakers and locksmith and planetary astronomers unions and gilds.
And not by your (enormeous) collection of DATA in a list of 28 articles.
Because, that is rather the way that magics and sales (propmotion) em0ployees have been trained to perform on the free market, in the given civil media, and on peoples doors.”
What the hell is that? Surely not anything scientific. It’s just garbled nonsense. I put your misspellings in parentheses. Maybe you should invest in a dictionary.
Give it a rest already.
Their reading and writings seem tecnically guided by and thus also highly dependent of , robotic automats.
Which is todays levels of commerciallized, virtual intelligence.
I avoid that in all its varieties the best I can. And that makes a big difference.
V: is it possible the rise in sea levels has little or nothing to do with climate?
BPL: No.
MS: Victor is right and BPL wrong
BPL is not used to thinking before bubbling around. Of course, completely different factors than the climate play a role in the SLR.
We discussed a long list of uncertain contributions to slr in may:
Why is future sea level rise still so uncertain? — by gavin
Here’s a list of factors that will influence future regional sea level (in rough order of importance):
ice mass loss from West Antarctica
ice mass loss from Greenland
ocean thermal expansion
mountain glacier melt
gravitational, rotational and deformational (GRD) effects
changes in ocean circulation
steric (freshwater/salinity) effects
groundwater extraction
reservoir construction and filling
changes in atmospheric pressure and winds
And on top of that, the risks of coastal flooding also depend on:
tectonic/isostatic land motion
local subsidence
local hydrology
storm surges
tides
For example, sealed, urban areas due to the increased drainage are also a reason for a higher SLR. They have just as little to do with the climate-related causes of the SLR as emptied aquifers and groundwater levels.
Or what does our ingenious BPL think where the water of the aquifers has gone ??? – if not in the oceans.
Juicing the continents accounts for 8% of the SLR annually. With so much intellectual excellence of an aging, arrogant, intellectual low-flyer, it is no wonder that he does not understand my alternative, holistic climate protection strategy, which counteracts precisely these man-made causes. This shipwrecked maniac defends himself with hands and feet against the swimming ring that a friendly captain throws to him – a viable strategy that holds back water on the continents, turns it into clouds, in order to stop the SLR and the rise in earth temperatures.
@ m. shury
Stefan Rayhmstorf has commented on this.
I can suggest a better argument for understanding.
Take the air moisture on anaverage. The enlighted way to discuss the atmosphere is 75 mmHg or 1 Bar = 10 meters of water pressure at sea level.
Then take to Daltons law, The average absolute moisture in % of 10 m water. That is the average heighth of water if suddenly all rained or snowed down. Hoiw many handwidths would that be on earth and at the sea shores?
We can se by such an easy argument that the discussed sea- level risings is way above anything that can be “kept” up in the air to counteract it.
The obviously larger water content or volume on land different from the sea is that of groundwater, swamps, and glaciers on land + the volume of all freshwater lakes and rivers.
A more healthy argument, but not for saving the sea- level, is that of lake and freshwater and wetlands and lake engineering. But not for sea- level regulation. That will only disqualify your argument. But rather in order to prepare and secure against cathastrophic draught and freshwater shortage, and against catastrophic riverflows.
A new horizon of this is that of urban and suburb sewage and rainwater administration.. But that is hardly about global sea level. It is about cathastrophic rushing water levels in the streets. And the defence of possible urban and sub- urban parks and recreational areas with parks and ducks and swanes and possible Iris and nympheae.
BPL is correct: sea level rise is mainly about climate, and there’s no credible possibility at all rise in sea levels has little or nothing to do with climate. Of the factors you mention, the top four are all directly causally related to climate change; which confirms the simple point.
None of this denies, of course, the comment by gavin, to the effect that future sea level rise is very uncertain. Sea level rise in the present is both primarily a consequence of global warming; and with a magnitude that is really hard to pin down accurately.
“V: is it possible the rise in sea levels has little or nothing to do with climate?
BPL: No.
MS: Victor is right and BPL wrong”
and then you have the nerve to write this:
“Here’s a list of factors that will influence future regional sea level (in rough order of importance)
ice mass loss from West Antarctica
ice mass loss from Greenland
ocean thermal expansion
mountain glacier melt”
which are caused by? jah, right!
“it is no wonder that he does not understand my alternative, holistic climate protection strategy”
good grief, this self-centered bs gets more and more anoying by every degree on top we already got!
macias shurly,
You fail to grasp a fundamental truth that has been evident here within RealClimate comment threads for almost seven years now:- the troll Victor Grauer is always wrong.
The last seven years have shown that he is consistently incapable of stringing a comment together without diving into the realms of denialist nonsense.
That said, may I pass a jaundiced eye over your own contribution here.
You cut-&-paste from an RC OP from this May which did mention the raggedy inputs into assessing Sea Level Rise although its main consideration was what it described as “the elephant seal in the aquarium,” and which was the item top of the list you cut-&-pasted, that being “Ice mass loss from West Antarctica.”
You, however, ignore this ‘mirounga in the marine exhibition’ as well as its friend, the melting Greenland Ice Sheet, its smaller cousins, the mountain glaciers, and their distant cousin, thermal expansion. Note that these factors of SLR which cause the majority of SLR result from a warming climate.
And this is why BLP is correct in contradicting Victor the Troll (who is flat wrong yet again).
But you yourself do not pick up on these giants of SLR or even any of the next few items in Gavin’s ordered list from the May RC OP. You dive deeper down to pick on the 8th item in the roughly ordered list – what you describe as “juicing the continents” – which you tell us is responsible for “8% of the SLR annually” (a rather odd way of expressing such a contribution).
You then prosaically describe what you term an “alternative, holistic climate protection strategy” which sounds very-much like the nonsensical witterings of a commenter @SkS, a strategy which (as explained at SkS) will neither meaningfully impact SLR nor indeed reduce AGW.
May I suggest that such wittering is more appropriate for the RC Crankshaft than for these RC UV threads.
V: is it possible the rise in sea levels has little or nothing to do with climate?
BPL: No.
MS: Victor is right and BPL wrong
BPL: BPL is right and MS, as usual, doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He goes on to list many factors which can affect LOCAL sea level, and ignores the fact that we’re discussing GLOBAL sea level, the main influence on which is always and everywhere climate. Go back to school, Macias, and stop thinking you know this stuff before you’ve studied it.
@ m shurly
“. ……my alternative holistic climate protection strategy……..a viable strategy that holds back water on the continents, turns it into clouds, in order to stop the SLR and the rise in earth temperatures.”
seems to come from an intellectual low- flyer.
Maybe from an employed spin- or which- doctor, a rain- maker?
(Not that BPL seems to be so wise either)
But I know a much better way. If there has been severe draught for weeks and people need rain, simply take off the roof, and rain will be pouring down. Guaranteed.
To understand my strategy you have to:
1. read it
2. understand how a bathtub works
3. understand how a cloud and the water cycle work.
But you are still miles away from that because you are secreting mental skinny things
the whole day long.
I hardly use your dope, you see,…
@ Schurly
If you have the process AB that goes both ways but at different speed each way, then you should not teach a facultary chemist likie me or anyone else that if A being liquid water evaporating into B, that again rains down on A , (together a water cycle that works),…. that it strategically cycles a lot of the sea- level to be up in the clouds at any time.
That argument has also been disqualified by Stefan Rahmstorf,
I also tried to tell you how to quantify it in order also to judge it in possibly natural and functional quanta,
It simply fails, and it only betrays your mentally skinny ideas on such things the whole day long.
It takes one to0 know one, you see.
So resign on it!
C: (Not that BPL seems to be so wise either)
BPL: Says the guy who openly confuses precision with accuracy when talking about albedo, a freshman mistake.
“MS: Victor is right and BPL wrong”
Quite Shurly not.
Macias Shurly: “Juicing the continents accounts for 8% of the SLR annually”
What’s your source?
Piotr,
This Macias Shurly is usually away with the fairies but with this comment “Juicing the continents accounts for 8% of the SLR annually,” he seems not to be so far off.
In decades gone-by, change in terrestrial water storage (ΔTWS) was significantly impacted by reservoir construction but today the pumping-out of aquifers is less balanced by new reservoirs and the ΔTWS is given by Frederikse et al (2020) as +0.31mm/yr SLR for 1993-2018, which is 9% of the total observed SLR. Fig1d of that paper suggests ΔTWS has been rising through this period so today’s percentage may well be higher.
Mind, there is a natural component within this ΔTWS which is also positive due to the drying out of the continents but with Doell et al (2014)) giving the very same +0.31mm/yr SLR for ground water depletion over the shorter period 2000-09, the natural component appears to be not a major one, at present.
Thank you, MA, for the sources and the explanation. It’s slightly more than I thought it would have based on the 8th position on Gavin’s list of importance. But the flip side is that with a larger volume of water in play there – the schemes of capturing rainwater in barrels to reduce sea level rise look even more ridiculous. Of course it makes sense if you wanted to use it to retain rainwater to water your lawn, probably still a be a drop in the bucket if one thinks of using this water for agricultural irrigation for anything, but the smallest fields. And to promote it as a way to reduce SLR – that’s like filling a bucket of sand and saying it would affect the Sahara…
Piotr,
I think there are two aspects to the “slightly more than I thought” situation with SLR.
Firstly, we see numbers based on decades gone-by. Thus Frederikse et al (2019) gives us SLR=3.3mm/yr comprising contributions of 1.2mm thermal expansion, 0.7mm from both Greenland & Glaciers and 0.3mm from both Antarctica & aquifers. But those numbers are for a period centred on 2005 and SLR is accelerating. Today SLR will surely be running significantly above 4mm/yr and the ‘aquifer’ contribution was probably up to 0.5mm by 2010-16 (this based on <a href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/4831/2020/#&gid=1&pid=1Fig 5c of Cáceres et al (2020). (Note the ordinate scale of Fig5c is in error and should be in 10mm steps not 30mm.)
The second aspect is a consideration of why “groundwater extraction” should be in “8th position on Gavin’s list of importance” when its contribution to SLR is given as being pretty-much identical to the top of the list “ice mass loss from West Antarctica”.
While Gavin’s list is that of a climatologist so perhaps boosts items of ‘climatey’ interest up the list (and how-much humanity pumps from aquifers isn’t immediately ‘climatey’), Antarctica claims top-spot because it is looking like it easily could become the top contributor to SLR in the coming century while pumping out aquifers will have its limits and become a relatively small contributor.
….
And as for the commenter ‘macias shurly’, I encounter him also @SkS where he is fast running out of moderation warnings. I’m not sure if up-thread here he is accusing me of lying/delusion or admitting that he could be lying/delusional. He certainly feels bold enough to cut-&-paste his writings from SkS setting out his belief that I should be stripped of my PhD and that he himself is deserving of one.
And this a one who has found his comments Crank-Shafted!! Perchance the fool needs to read and reflect on some of the contents of Alexander Pope (1711) ‘An Essay on Criticism’.
Mind, his grand theory (that SLR can be zeroed by impounding the excess water on land to increase evaporation, neatly flooding the land by perhaps an average of 2m by 2100 as an alternative to 1m SLR by 2100) does come with an attached ‘get out of jail free’ card in that he appears to be saying the increased evaporation from land would increase cloud at a rate which would actually reverse AGW. Thus, with AGW reversed, that 1m SLR by 2100 may become disappeared.
There is some very thin-but-flawed logic supporting this lunacy (in that Wild et al (2019) shows clear skies cool the planet 19m^-2 less than the average, which might suggest that more cloud and less clear sky would counter AGW,) but the exact location of the cumulative water storage is poorly described and the full effect of annually-increasing evaporation simply ignored.
Thanks MA – your point Gavin and the sources of Mr. Shurly are at different time points (climatological future vs. some time in the past) clear things up. Using the first, clearly more relevant to this group, would produce smaller numbers for effect of water extraction as % of SLR – the numerator is likely to drop, while the denumerator is certain to increase.
Further, Mr Shurly’s scheme relies on the “captured rain” to go into evaporation instead of river flow into the ocean, is limited not only by this small and dropping %SLR, and by the technical limitation of what % of the rainwater could be practically captured, but also by the fact that when this water evaporates – some it will rain over the ocean – thus negating the reduction in SLR:
As for the tenuous get out of jail card for Mr. Shurly –
Wild et al (2019) shows clear skies cool the planet 19 [W?] m^-2 less than the average [hence] -> more clouds -> countering AGW – but does it account for the possibility that
the increased evaporation may caused higher conc. of water vapour, but maybe not enough to get more clouds (in which case the net effect is …further warming) ?
Further, as you indicate “the exact location of the cumulative water storage ” is not given – which would affect WHERE these additional clouds may form:
– if they form in the already cloudy place – the net effect would be limited
– the cooling effect would change geographically and seasonally –
the effect of adding clouds over tropical ocean >over tropical land (since unclouded land has higher albedo than unclouded ocean) > in high lat. (less energy due to low sun, higher albedo due to ice/snow and the elevated albedo for the low angle solar rays (at least when the ocean surface is not wavy…)
Mr. Shurly’s ravings (now generally being delegated to the Crank Shaft here) also totally ignore the possibility that increasing evaporation at one location leads to generally increased humidity elsewhere that will reduce evaporation in other locations, for no net gain in evaporation. The only possibility he considers is that everywhere else will remain Exactly The Same As Before, and his local evaporation increase can only lead to an exact match in increased local cloud cover (he has elsewhere claimed 1% increase in each) and precipitation.
FYI to all: A successful shift to regenerative practices would greatly increase water infiltration on land. Gabe Brown increased his SOC from less than 2% (about 1.5% seems typical of productive farmlands) to 5%. That would represent a 3x increase in water storage. That small increase alone if done globally would be a huge amount of water – though relative to SLR, you’d have to figure out yourselves. (Again, not jumping in, just giving some points to consider or ignore.)
The successful creation of new terra preta with as much as 15-20% C, would blast these numbers through the roof. I suspect the SLR mitigation would be significant.
The former example could be done on the scale of less than a decade, the latter would be a long-term effect as one can shift matter into true terra preta only so fast. We could chose to, however, grow something like hemp all over the world for the sole purpose of making terra preta or increasing SOC and ramp all this up, but uncharged C (untreated to infuse it with biologics) is just burnt stuff that does little to increase soil fertility.
a freshly opened bottle of beer
A paper was published recently (< a year ago) that argued we should switch emphasis from CO2 to a more general approach when modelling climate change. At least I think that is what it said, but I don’t have a copy. Does anyone know the paper I am remembering? If so I would be extremely grateful if you could provide a reference.
It was not arguing that CO2 does not matter as some claimed.
Please ignore my previous post. I have found the blog post which I was recalling. It does not say a more general approach is required.
Once again KIA flaunts his ignorance about climate by talking about weather. For the umpteenth time, he never has learned the fundamental differences. Epic critical thinking failure by him once again. Speaks volumes about his inability to want to learn. Because then when it comes to climate science, he would find out he is wrong. Which of course he can never admit. Insecurity and cowardice will do that.
I did not say a word about climate. I was just pointing out interesting weather.
Here’s an extra credit problem for you to demonstrate your scientific prowess:
Q1: What is the total energy received by the earth from:
A. – All of the satellites in space that are beaming information to earth.
B. – Radiation from hot surfaces of all satellites in orbit above the earth.
C. – Add the answers from A & B above.
Q2: Calculate the temperature rise of the atmosphere due to the energy calculated in C above.
Dude, the answer is basically zero for all 3. We know this because
1) satellites have very low energy budgets
2) they’ll reflect away more than they emit
This ain’t hard.
Hr.Knowitall
Such problems and questions I deal with and conscider daily.
So I am also quite an experienced expert on how to find it out without having to ask the experts, if there is anything I have to find out, and I often advice people on how they can find things out for themselves. Rather than giving them the precise answers
See my discussion with Barton Paul Levenson, it is about that.
During a lunar ecclipse, Mr Røed Ødegaard said: “Now in 30 seconds that little star close at the moons rim will be ecclipsed and disappear!”
I had my binoculars and… BLINK- gone. He was right within 5 seconds.
-Yes really,.. but that is a very good way to measure the diameters of faint stars! I said.
Oh no, he replied, for that we have another method!
I had my solid doubts and went home and opened Bakers astronomy. There it stood that a certain Churchill (not to be confused with W.Churchill,) had measuered up diameters of dozens of remote stars by lunar eccliptings “by a rapid photoelectric device” about 1952.
I saw possible measurement at once because I am aquainted to it.
And really quite impressing because I also knew the possible photoelectric devices and rapid datalogging of the same within milliseconds of such weak signals. by 1952 methods.
Given that method and those important results, you also have an alternative contro0l of your fameous methods, thoughts, and theories, Eddingtons and Hoyles atomic theories of star diameters and luminescence for instance, . Namely through quite another and systematically independent empirical method. .
But Peculiar People do hate and fight and badger good experimental argument and design. you see. Wherefore they often end up as surrealists and deniers, so called “trolls”.
Your questi9ons and measurements should also be relevant.
Knowitall is impossible and ridiculous.
But have an idea of how to find out and be critical to yours and other peoples methods and answers, that is quite possible and quite more interesting and valuable. .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
On a website far, far away, a certain Mr. All it Knows writes:
Here’s an extra credit problem for you to demonstrate your scientific prowess:
I went to the beach with my parents, and I played whole day with my SpongeBob SquarePants plastic bucket and blue plastic spoon, building this beautiful, tremendous, Mar a Largo with sand.
But then a big wave washed over my tremendous sand villa. Seeing my hard work destroyed – I lashed out at the ocean with my bucket, I bent and scooped, and run away to my parents,
showing them with pride with my bucket half-filled full with sand and full with seawater:
Q1. How much pain I inflicted on the ocean in my revenge for destroying my sand Mar a Largo:
A. – How much I dropped the global sea level by removing half a bucket of underwater sand
B. – How much I dropped the global sea level by removing of half a bucket of seawater
C. – Add the answers from A & B above.
Q2. Are my questions tremendous or what?
Pjotr
There is an old saying
“”All contributions matter”, the mouse said, he pied in the ocean.!”
Originally , Alle monner drar. Monner is a noun p0lural from verbum monne. Maybe etym. Many, but Munin is one of Odins ravens His other raven was Hugin, that means Mind. Munin means what weighs up or matters or adds to it all. Drar = to drag dra verbum in presens.
Hugin & Munin flew out every morning, lo0oked over the world and came back each evening, sat on his shoulders and told into Odeins right and teft ear, the news for the day. Thus Hugin & Munin is also relate to your right and you left brain halves.
But that little mouse was not stupid either, however ridiculed and misconsceived for what he did and said. .
First of all , he did not pie in bed. Secondly, he did not pie in his pants either. Third, he understood in which way water is running, and knew of re- cycling and source- sorting. Fifth he did show a moral example. All in all 5 environmental moral deeds at least.
On one more berry in the full bucket or one more straw to the full barn, you say “Alle monner drar!”
Mods, any chance of getting the September Forced Responses thread started?
Sustained
But it seems to be there allready
Have I got a colleague of engineer poetry here?
I noticed that Tropical Storm Mindy formed in the Gulf of Mexico 90 miles west of Apalachicola, FL in the past day. That seems strange to me. Don’t tropical storms normally form much further south and east of this point?
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/571411-tropical-storm-mindy-threatens-flooding-in-florida-panhandle?utm_campaign=Carbon%20Brief%20Daily%20Briefing&utm_content=20210909&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Revue%20Daily
Storm path is across FL and off east in to the Atlantic and the storm is reported to be moving at 21 mph, so it’s not likely to stall over warm Gulf water and blow up into a hurricane. That’s good news as far as I can tell. It’s going to bring some heavy rains as it crosses FL. That seems like bad news. We could use the rain here in the PNW. Trees are really suffering from this long dry spell.
Cheers
Mike
Mike,
Tropical storms occasionally form near the Gulf Coast, since the sea surface temperatures are very warm this time of year, and it doesn’t take much to spin up a weak wave into a tropical storm. In fact, I can recall at least one case where an onshore mesoscale convective vortex wandered offshore, and quickly intensified into a small tropical cyclone. The cyclones seldom gain a lot of strength if they are close to the coast at formation, but they can produce a very large amount of rain if they are slow-moving. Fortunately Mindy is fast-moving.
To all and everyone
On wether it rains or not.
There were 2 brothers.
The one could not be among people, so he lived in a stony cave out at sea, and rowed his boat with a line after him all day back and fort between the scars. The catch he laid on the rowing board and sat on it as he rowed further, until it was tender, and then ate it.
In that way, the Lord cared also for him for several years.
The other brother, quite more civilized, went in a black jacket and with a hat, and with galoshes..
Such types were known also over there in the States.
Then one summer, they had a severe drought. It had not rained for several weeks, so the peasants decided to gon to church and pray for rain.
That second brother also arrived, but also brought an ubrella with him. All people laughed. “What do you need an umbrellas for? it has not rained now for weeks?”
“Well if we are to pray for rain, I must also bring an umbrella!” he replied.
They went in and prayed, and as they came out again, the rain was pouring down. Then brother just put up his umbrellas and was the only one of them who got dry- shoed home.
Discussion:
Afrter having thought it over a lot, I come to think that this 2.nd brother maybe has been a bit learnt. Because Prof. Arne Næss, who studied locical empiricism in Cambridge, gave a lecture of logics that states “It rains, or it rains not!”
That statement is told to be true in any case, according to Cambridge..
The 2nd brother may have known that, and if it had not rained, he might have criticized the church. And if it had rained, he could show them all that he was the only one who came dry- shoed home from it.
Thanks for the info on tropical storms, JP. Methane study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-021-00264-x?utm_campaign=Carbon%20Brief%20Daily%20Briefing&utm_content=20210910&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Revue%20Daily
I would expect that rising sea level will put shallow water over permafrost and the shallow water will probably warm easily. I expect this would be a very slow process, but not helpful in terms of CO2e numbers globally.
Cheers
Mike
MARodger: You fail to grasp a fundamental truth that has been evident here within RealClimate comment threads for almost seven years now:- the troll Victor Grauer is always wrong.
V: LOL! But of course. Fundamentally. According to our official court jester, Victor will always be wrong, no matter what he says. By definition. How amusing. Even if he asks a simple question he will be wrong, because it will always be the wrong question. In other words, any question raising issues threatening to the prevailing orthodoxy must ipso facto be wrong, even if it’s only a question.
Now how can a question be wrong, you might ask. If the wrong person asks it. Duh!
If Victor references certain facts, no matter how reliable the source, he will be wrong, by definition, because anything a “denier” references must, ipso facto, be wrong. If the rise in sea levels began while CO2 levels were minimal and global temperatures were trending downward, then by virtue of our jester’s amusing axiom, the sea itself must have been wrong. If sea levels continued to rise while global temperatures fell (over a 40 year period), then by gum that only proves it. If those facts are cited by Victor, who ipso facto must always be wrong, then the sea itself must be wrong.
The jester has continued to amuse me since I first dipped a toe into this blog, nigh unto seven years ago — by his count. His obsession with literally every comment I’ve ever written here, even those consigned to the Bore Hole, touches me deeply. He may only be a jester, but he is MY jester. Anyone seeking to belittle him must answer to me.
:-)
ROFLMAO. The official court jester isn’t MARodgers.
@Victor
Here you can read about MARodger real skills of reflectivity – dumb – dumb – dumb
He discovered a brand new unit in the univers: its called mm/yr/yr ????
The brand new unit must be something about an IDIOT`s development towards a SUPERIDIOT getting closer and closer each and every year/year /year to his own very privat bore hole.
– a nobel price for comedy for a clown, that all days long call others to be idiots.
So funny that I fall into my laptop – he destroyes himself publically with superclue(less)
Have fun.! before moderation will delete it.
coolmaster (alias macias shurly) at 15:37 PM on 17 September, 2021
sks — it`s albedo @96
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=141
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=141&p=2#137731
MA Rodger: you state that “albedo is … depends primarily on the wavelength of the light that hits the body/molecule.” This is not correct. The reflected light is pretty-much independent of wavelength being no more than “bluish”. The spectrum of reflected light is thus not significantly different from the spectrum of sunlight.
coolmaster: I’m not sure if you know that e.g. plants are green (wavelength = ~ 550nm), a tomato red (~ 650nm) and blueberries (~ 450nm) blue when illuminated by sunlight with a full spectrum.
Illuminated by a full spectrum (white), the objects appear to your eyes & brain in more or less monochrome light. So – many of the incident wavelengths are absorbed and only single colors are reflected.
A snow surface is white and has a high albedo because all wavelengths are reflected in the range that is visible – nevertheless, snow absorbs very strongly in the long-wave range of IR radiation.
What you describe as “bluish” is the Raleigh scatter.
This has absolutely nothing to do with absorption, relative reflection and albedo.
Your posted graph shows the spectral properties of the light emanating from the earth – and not the energy content of sunlight, that matters in an energy balance.
Without having read the article – I guess you will hardly find the unit W / m², which is the important one for the radiation budget of the earth. So please don’t mix it all up here. (MOD)
MA Rodger: The TOA radiation balance under clear sky conditions averaged globally by Wild (2019) shows 19Wm^-2 more cooling than his all-sky average.
coolmaster: No you are utterly wrong – it is vice versa.
Or do you feel yourself cooler in sun under clear sky – and feel heat when a cloud covers the sun ????
The radiation net effect of clouds and water vapor (CRE = -19W / m²) You still seem to confuse CRE with the atmospheric feedback of the clouds, which consists in the fact that with increasing temperature less cloud cover, changed lapse rate and optical depth are determined (+ 0.42Wm-2 ° C-1). Earth – is – loosing – the clouds !
MA Rodger: ☻ And to correct your bold assertions @94 / Your own derivation of a greatly different value of 344km^3/yr uses solely Fig 3a of the former paper which gives an annual rate of increase as 2.3mm/yr (it should actually be 2.3mm/yr/yr)???? and for the 16-year period the increase would be thus 5,500km^3/yr, in the circumstance not a significant difference from 7,000km^3/yr.
coolmaster: 1500km³/yr is more than I suggested to retain.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/satellite-data-reveals-impact-of-warming-on-global-water-cycle
Can you give us just a reference or a page in the www. quote where the unit mm / yr / yr is used ???? You should then definitely get in touch with Ms. Madeleine Pascolini-Campbell and explain to her that she was mistaken by a factor of ~20.
After all, her work and GRACE-FO are regarded worldwide as one of the most important findings of the last few years. So if you know better – go ahead … Your pocket calculator with the built-in joker must have been very expensive.
macias shurly has now ‘recused’ himself from further commenting at SkS due to repeated “”violations of the Comments Policy” so he resorts to cutting-&-pasting one of his previously-stricken SkS comments here at RC.
To gain a full measure of the mania he is operating under, the following quote is from another stricken SkS comment of his in which he describes the scope of his “holistic, alternative climate protection strategy, which lowers sea level rise and earth temperatures. … In my opinion it is the very last opportunity for you, your readers, commentators, your descendants, and the rest of creation to escape from climate hell.”
So there you have it – the saviour of mankind.
At SkS, commenters have attempted to demonstrate the many flaws in this grand “holistic, alternative climate protection strategy” but to no avail. He seems oblivious to the volume of water his grand ‘strategy’ would need to store somewhere to halt SLR. Further, he has been shown AQUASTAT data demonstrating that global land area is already receiving multiple-times the anthropogenic soaking his grand ‘strategy’ plans as well as data showing evaporation from global land has over recent years risen multiple-times the increased evaporation his grand ‘strategy’ is supposed to deliver; yet AGW continues apace.
And it could be added that Fig 3 of Pascolini-Campbell et al (2021) reproduced in this CarbonBrief item also shows a reduction of river discharge over the last few years that is now almost double the reduction anticipated by his grand ‘strategy’, yet SLR continues and is accelerating through this same period.
MS: MA Rodger: you state that “albedo is … depends primarily on the wavelength of the light that hits the body/molecule.” This is not correct. The reflected light is pretty-much independent of wavelength being no more than “bluish”.
BPL: MAR is right and you are wrong. Albedo does vary with wavelength. It may vary slowly, but it varies. For climate work, one works with a planet’s bolometric albedo, which is integrated across all wavelengths, but it has to be integrated. If you work with the visual albedo alone, or the infrared albedo alone, you will get it wrong.
BPL: The rotation speed of the Earth would have sped up as more mass from the melting polar caps moved toward the equator. What’s more, this would have been predicted ahead of time.
KIA 21: No. Mass moving toward the equator would slow the rotation, the same way that ice skaters slow their rotation as their arms/legs are extended; their rotational speed increases as they draw their arms/legs in closer to the axis of rotation.
BPL: You got that right and I, the physicist, got it wrong.
MS: ???? smile – you are the ice princess of albedo, water cycle, clouds and slr.
Shall we laugh or weap here?
Teachers, I say, Teachers. I say no more, Teachers!
ms: you are the ice princess of albedo, water cycle, clouds and slr.
BPL: And you are Hans.
“The hottest summer most Americans have ever lived through”
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/09/the-hottest-summer-most-americans-have-ever-lived-through/
“An 85-year-old record for summer heat set during the Dust Bowl has met its match. In 2021, the contiguous U.S. had its warmest meteorological summer (June-August) on record, according to NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). Records going back to 1895 show the 48-state summer average of 74.01°F in 2021 came in just ahead of the summer of 74.00°F recorded in 1936. The margin of 0.01°F is close enough to be considered a statistical tie.”
“The record is especially noteworthy because many dismissive of climate-change science have trumpeted the heat of the 1930s in their efforts to downplay the importance of recent human-caused climate change in the United States. Doubters have long cited the full-year (not just the summer average) national heat record of 1934 even after it was beaten out in 1988. Since then, six years in the contiguous U.S. have ended up even warmer than either 1934 or 1988.”
“The 1930s were a notoriously scorching decade when many states recorded all-time highs and dust storms ravaged the Great Plains. Multiple studies have found that the extreme U.S. heat of the 1930s was likely the result of naturally occurring drought apparently triggered by warm sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic, with the resulting surface heat exacerbated by the bare, over-plowed soil of the Great Plains.”
“Land management practices have averted any recurrence of Dust Bowl conditions – perhaps with an assist from ever-more-dense plantings in the Corn Belt that have exerted a cooling and moistening effect on summers in that region. Yet we’ve now had a 48-state summer just as hot as 1936’s, and perhaps a shade hotter………”
I think the heat could wreck the global economy and cause a large number of deaths if we let it continue, but it looks like it will create huge deficits to slow the buildup. So far, the “marketplace” approach has not been working. Do you think the global warming has become an emergency? What do you think needs to be done, Nigel? Iand how fast? How will we pay for your plan?
This discussion starts on unforced variation, but your ideas and discussion would fit better on forced responses. You pick.
Cheers
Mike
I think the heat could wreck the global economy and cause a large number of deaths if we let it continue,
Fixed it: The heat is wrecking the global economy and causing a large number of deaths. Ff we let it continue, it will be a true nightmare.
But, if we turn off the FF spigot today, then by this time next year many billions will have died of starvation, disease, hypothermia, and hyperthermia. That would be a true nightmare within 1 year. Don’t do an Afghanistan type of botched exit from FFs.
It is not going to happen anytime soon but if that FF spigot was turned off it would be a nightmare within hours and days, not a year.
The FF spigot is not going to be turned down to 45% of 2010 levels by 2030 either. So really you don’t have anything much to worry about on that score. It’s BAU all the way down to the turtles. Maybe some coal use can be reduced but apart from that it’s burn baby burn as far as you can look ahead.
People like you should be happy as Larry. You’ve won. Nothing significant has been done to curb FF use for 3 decades now, and the next decade is looking much the same BAU with only some minor adjustments at the margins.
The Economic Growth and Capitalist paradigm is also alive and well. In fact it’s booming despite even a global Covid pandemic. No doubt almost anyone with a share portfolio or real estate portfolio must have grown their wealth by 3 or 5 fold the last few years.
Life is good. You have nothing to fear from climate change / environmental activists, be they scientists or not.
Mike,
If I understand you correctly, you may have your perception of “economics” completely upside down. It is precicely those huge deficits which you seem concerned about that prop up (economically encourage) the fossil/fissile fuel military-industrial complex. This has been going on for decades. There are dozens of previous economic studies which counter your presumption including one most recently stating:
“benefits (of clean energy strategies) are often contrasted against discussions about the associated costs of transitioning44. Our analysis suggests that such trade-offs are unlikely to exist: a greener,
healthier and safer global energy system is also likely to be cheaper.”
The study indicates that a fast clean energy transition (one generation) vs. a slow one would be the most economical. However, this is a mitigation subject appropriate for the other comment thread.
Regards.
RSS TLT has been posted for August with a global SAT anomaly of +0.64ºC, a little down on the July anomaly of +0.67ºC. The Jan-Jul 2021 monthly anomalies sit in the range +0.47ºC to +0.67ºC.
August 2021 is the 6th warmest August on the RSS TLT record (7th in UAH TLT, 3rd in the ERA5 SAT re-analysis). In RSS 2021 sits behind Augusts 2020 (+0.78ºC), 2017 (+0.76ºC), 2019 (+0.70ºC) 2016 (+0.69ºC) & 2010 (+0.69ºC).
August 2021 is the 58th highest anomaly in the all-month RSS TLT record (=78th in UAH TLT and 46th in Copernicus ERA5 SAT) .
In RSS TLT, the first eight months of 2021 averages +0.58ºC and remains the 7th warmest start-to-the-year on the RSS TLT record (9th in UAH TLT & 6th in ERA5). A Sept-Dec average above +0.58ºC would keep 2021’s full-year annual average in 7th spot above 1998 while a Sept-Dec average above +0.68ºC would push it up into 6th spot above 2015 and above +0.71ºC would be required to top 2010 and claim 5th spot.
…….. Jan-Aug Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.89ºC … … … +0.81ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +0.83ºC … … … +0.81ºC … … … 1st
2019 .. +0.73ºC … … … +0.75ºC … … … 3rd
2010 .. +0.69ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 5th
1998 .. +0.67ºC … … … +0.58ºC … … … 7th
2017 .. +0.65ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 4th
2021 .. +0.58ºC
2015 .. +0.54ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 6th
2018 .. +0.54ºC … … … +0.54ºC … … … 8th
2014 .. +0.48ºC … … … +0.49ºC … … … 9th
2005 .. +0.47ºC … … … +0.47ºC … … … 10th
2007 .. +0.46ºC … … … +0.42ºC … … … 12th
2013 .. +0.43ºC … … … +0.43ºC … … … 11th
Both GISTEMP & NOAA have posted for Ausust, GISTEMP with a global SAT anomaly of +0.81ºC, down on the July anomaly of +0.92ºC which remains the highest anomaly of the year-to-date. GISTEMP 2021 monthly anomalies sit in the range +0.64ºC to +0.92ºC.
The NOAA August anomaly saw a lot smaller drop from July, a drop down to +0.90ºC from +0.92ºC
August 2021 is the 6th warmest August in GISTEMP (also 6th in NOAA, 3rd in ERA5 re-analysis), in GISTEMP behind August 2016 (+1.02ºC), 2019 (+0.94ºC), 2017 & 2020 (both +0.87ºC) & 2014 (+0,82ºC). July 2021 is the =74th highest anomaly in the all-month GISTEMP record.
The first eight months of 2021 averages +0.81ºC and is the 7th warmest start-to-the-year on the GISTEMP record (6th in both NOAA & ERA5). For the full calendar year to climb to 6th spot in GISTEMP above 2018 wound require the 2021 Sept-Dec monthly anomalies to average above +0.92ºC & to drop below 2014 into 8th would require Sept-Dec to average below +0.61ºC.
…….. Jan-Aug Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.08ºC … … … +1.01ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +1.05ºC … … … +1.02ºC … … … 1st
2019 .. +0.96ºC … … … +0.98ºC … … … 3rd
2017 .. +0.95ºC … … … +0.92ºC … … … 4th
2015 .. +0.83ºC … … … +0.89ºC … … … 5th
2018 .. +0.83ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 6th
2021 .. +0.81ºC
2010 .. +0.76ºC … … … +0.72ºC … … … 8th
2014 .. +0.73ºC … … … +0.74ºC … … … 7th
2007 .. +0.71ºC … … … +0.66ºC … … … 11th
1998 .. +0.69ºC … … … +0.61ºC … … … 17th
2002 .. +0.67ºC … … … +0.63ºC … … … 15th
2005 .. +0.66ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 10th
Ladies and Gentlemen
I must tell you this also, after I did teach on whether it rains or not d/o
Again there were 2 brothers
The one had emigratet to over there in the States, and after several years he came back to visit his brother who had stayed home. And the brother at home wanted to tell that we also follow up now and are getting a higher living standard, and was very proud of his new Philishave.
The American looked at it….and remarked: “That`s nothing, over there in The States, we put on a dime and put our heads into a hole on the wall in the street, and get shaved!
The brother was quite astonished, but then he came to think, and dared to ask: “But all heads aren`t alike?”
“…. Well…. they get alike!”
(laughter)
I see Carbomontanus is still defending his idiot defense of Pallé et al., even though the field long ago put it behind. Let’s examine exactly what Pallé et al. found. We will assume that all their measurements are just fine:
Year Albedo
1994 0.316
1995 0.319
1999 0.297
2000 0.310
2001 0.306
Now if we do a regression of Albedo on Year, we indeed get a downward line:
A = 4.2434 – 0.002 Y
r^2 = 0.4995
For a sample size of N = 5, we have p < 0.392. This is not significant even at the 90% confidence level, and therefore we can say: The contention that albedo is becoming lower, and that this, rather than carbon dioxide, accounts for the warming Earth, is not supported by the evidence.
Q.E.D.
BPL seems ready to assume that “all their measurements are just fine”
So what is wrong with it? Why fight it or argue against it?
Looking at his list of Data from 1994 to 2001 I see that 1999 stands out quite negative, so I looked over GISS global temperature anomaly monthly values and running 37 months average. That curve corelates roughly negative “well enough” in shortperiod weathers terms I would say, in order to look further at it. And 1994 to 2001 is much too short in order to judge ande discuss any corelation to increased CO2. That, we rather see in the long term period from 1979 to 2021.
, BPLs effort of doing statistics is hardly identifying any further reasonable, measured or measureable observeable function in nature or in physics to corelate it statistically to.
(Is that the way they learn to count and to lay their plans in other peoples portemonnaie?)
This is also quite typical for quasi professional people or workers who hardly had to absolve highschool or proper polytechnical school of any kind, in order to become responsible for their own work or contributions, and would hardly even have entered any facultary study of astronomy . And due to that very large hole of pensum and training of general higher edeucation, feeling especially qualified for discussing science and research.
That deeply inaugurated and peculiar ideological aspect does interest me a bit., namely what sustains that instinctive class or racial warfare against Gallilei, Darwin, and Bakers Astronomy ?.
Compare that with me, who is rather the facultary chemist and instrument maker on Master level., . When it touches astronomy and astronomical measurement in a geophysical context, I once happened to find Bakers Astronomy under the christmas tree, different from Karl Marx Das Kapital and Adam Smith The Wealth of Nations
I thus betray more of my historical, social, religious, and political heritage and identity. “Idiot” he wrote and “Freshman”.. Which is the typical racketeers and industrialized dilettants remark to anything they hardly learnt to understand,
(which is most of it including their own body and soul..)
Thus comes denialism and populism.
I am especially suspicious of that. in the climate dispute.
The very situation of having to look up also for science is ideologically alian to them for very deep tribal reasons.. They do not get it on their aquainted forms for uneducated manufacture routine workers in a closed society or factory situation at the assembly line.
= Enhtfremdung der Arbeit.
Moral: 1
Ask first and Grasp first, what is it about?
Moral 2
Be also ready to take your basic learning litterature in any foreign language, that is a primary rule for possible responsibility and mastership regardless of craft or art.
Moral3
Then you will also be better able to resign on your swear- words.
Give it up, C. Palle et al. 2004 is discounted nowadays, no matter how much you argue against it. The trend they found isn’t really there. I demonstrated it for your mathematically. If you don’t believe me, ask one of your friends who knows math to explain what I said.
“give it up”
Barton Paul Levenson does hardly understand the situation and the discussed phaenomenon, and what they are observing, launchinjg himself as the professional experienced and adult “planetary astronomer on “albedo”!
What on earth, what the Hell is he trying to sell so eagerly instead?
Why the need for disqualifying, “discounted nowaday” the shielded and carefully calibrated mirror telescopes with cooled CCD photometry and densitometry?
“Error bars!” he teaches.
I looked back into MA Rodgers reference 7 sept 7.26 , Goode et al 2001.
“(PDF)Earthshine observations of the earths reflectance.”
That shows to be an exemplary presentation of an intelligent method partly also integrating and using updated methods for the purpose, with careful discussions also of possible systematic errors and how theese could be carefully reduced.
“discounted nowadays” he teaches, and “give it up” referring to something thatb I havent red and hardly can understand. A Strawman.
Clouds having cleared up in recent time and that being the real cause of global warming is a fameous standard denialist argument that I havent furthered at all.
So what the hell is he fighting for? that large “planetary astronomer”, teacher, and judge, of systematics, of healthy professional empiric scientific methods, and of “error bars”
It makes me suspicious.
Æsop may have given a keye to the understanjhding also of that mentality.
Namely the Fable of the fox and the grapes. (We are eating sweet grapes here now in our garden, believe it or not, and I do not have to jump in vain. Due to global warming perhaps, but surely more doe to a little bit of luck, interest, learnings, realism, and gardener wisdom.)
And found a quite wise word to that fable on English Wikipedia:
“People who speak disparangingly of things that they cannot attain would do well to apply this story to themselves!”
Did BPL ever attain and deliver any astronomical or geophysical result?
It is done by proper intelligent use of very elementary simple and quite cheap amateur astronomical methods, ….. the careful measurements and computed results seem to have measured and mapped earth albedo down to 3 chiffres in a critical way, That seem to sustain paralel official global weather graphs, first of all. And that, he seems to take to his one and only one scientific method, and applies it to his picked data that are out of scale for his artgument.
What for? I hate it.
It shows The Republican War on Science, so frequent also in the lab and in the field at any time.
Those who fight and ridicule and badger any kind of good responsible work just slightly aside of their private and corporative interests and style and learnings.
“No, Senor Gallilei, the telescope is no astronomical device! You must study our doctrines and maths first!
“No, Mr R.Adar. Those ridiculous dirty nets are no mirrors. Can`t you see that they have got too large error bars?.Moths and bugs can fly right through them It must be minutely cleaned and polished first, And we are in charge. Give it up!”
C: Barton Paul Levenson does hardly understand the situation and the discussed phaenomenon [sic], and what they are observing, launchinjg [sic] himself as the professional experienced and adult “planetary astronomer on “albedo”!
BPL: And Carbo is STILL trying to defend Pallé et al. 2004 as the last word in albedo, despite having his ass handed to him repeatedly!
Let’s try another analysis. Here are 11 determinations of Earth’s albedo by Earthshine methods:
0.89 Very 1912
0.45 Russell 1916
0.29 Danjon 1928
0.39 Danjon 1936
0.36 Fritz 1949
0.380 Ångström 1962
0.316 Pallé et al. 2004
0.319 Pallé et al. 2004
0.297 Pallé et al. 2004
0.310 Pallé et al. 2004
0.306 Pallé et al. 2004
Now, here are 13 determinations by satellite photometry:
0.3 Kandel and Viollier 2010
0.29 Vonder Haar and Suomi 1971
0.3 Vonder Haar and Suomi 1971
0.284 Raschke et al. 1973
0.3 Jacobowitz et al. 1984
0.3 Loeb et al. 2009
0.313 Trenberth 1997
0.284 Kato 2009
0.298 Fasullo and Trenberth 2008
0.288 Fasullo and Trenberth 2008
0.286 Fasullo and Trenberth 2008
0.298 Donohoe and Battisti 2011
0.293 Loeb et al. 2009
The sample standard deviation of the Earthshine estimates is 0.1724. The figure for the Earthshine estimates is 0.008381. The error bars on the Earthshine estimates is more than 20 times higher.
But is it significant? After all, these are small samples. Well, a Fisher’s F test between two standard deviations is the ratio of their squares: F = s1^2 / s2^2. The number of degrees of freedom is 10 for the first sample (s1) and 12 for the second sample (s2), so we have
F10,12 = 0.1724^2 / 0.008381^2 = 423,1
The critical value at alpha = 0.01 for this F test is 4.296, so the standard deviations are significantly different.
But maybe Very’s old figure is an outlier. Try it without that, and we have s1 = 0.05163. F is then 37.95. The degrees of freedom are now 9 and 12, and the critical value at alpha = 0.01 is 4.388. Nope, the satellite figures are still significantly more reliable.
But I’m sure Carbo will still go on endlessly blathering about how careful Pallé et al. were, listing all the particulars from the article as if he understood them. He just doesn’t understand that you can take all the care in the world, and if the method is intrinsically subject to noise, you won’t get a clear figure.
Ramble on, Carbo. You can become the Victor of albedo. Never give in just because you’re wrong and repeatedly have it demonstrated for the whole world to see! You’re right because… because… well, because you just KNOW you’re right!
Sorry, I got something wrong there. The fit figure for the regression was r, not r^2. r^2 for Pallé’s figures is not 0.4995, but 0.2495, which is even lower. My bad!
New report from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change:
“Nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement”
CNN coverage:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/17/us/catastrophic-climate-change-un-report/index.html
Excerpt:
“The planet is careening toward warming of 2.7 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels — far above what scientists say the world should be targeting — according to a report on global emissions targets by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Scientists have said that the planet needs to slash 45% of its emissions by 2030 to reach carbon neutrality by mid-century. But under current emissions commitments from countries there will be a 16% increase in emissions in 2030 compared to 2010 levels, according to the report. That would lead the planet to warm to 2.7 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the report says.”
Advance version of the report in PDF format:
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cma2021_08_adv_1.pdf
It’s only missing the Paris Goal by 66% of 2010 GHG levels (ie 47.3 Gt CO2 eq without LULUCF)
That’s only overshooting the Paris Goal by 31.2 Gt CO2 eq per year in 2030
Compared with the actual total global emissions of 52.4 Gt CO2 eq in 2019.
Meaning, our current total emissions need to be cut 60% between now and 2030 to be able to meet the Paris Goal of remaining under +1.5C.
Remembering these are ONLY Govt THEORETICAL TARGETS and not what actual GHG levels will be in 2030. See pages 4-5 in report for more details.
This data makes a mockery of every single person and climate scientist who has said and keeps on saying that it is still possible to meet the Paris commitments of 2030 and 2050.
Reality Check says 24 Jun 2021 at 3:10 AM
the funniest LOL impossible item in the article to me was that emissions need to be cut by 50% by 2030 in order to make 1.5C “possible”… that’s too funny, and sad. – This requires roughly a halving of global CO2 emissions by 2030 – Oh boy! That’s a classic fantasy belief if ever there was one.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/05/forced-responses-may-2021/comment-page-10/#comment-792260
Karsten V. Johansen says 24 Apr 2021 at 11:47 AM
relentlessly fraudulent “agreements” like the last in Paris, precisely called “pure bullshit” by James Hansen already early in december 2015
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/04/two-graphs-show-the-path-to-1-5-degrees/#comment-790538
Stefan: “It is not yet impossible to keep warming below 1.5 °C.” and “The second graph shows global CO2 emission trajectories with which we can still limit warming to 1.5 °C, at least with 50:50 probability. [ where 50:50 probability is LUNACY at best Political SPIN at worse Praying to God and hoping it works.]
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/04/two-graphs-show-the-path-to-1-5-degrees/
Joeri Rogelj and his flaky AR6 updated carbon budget numbers double-speak – there is no Carbon Budget remaining – it’s gone up in smoke long ago.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/08/a-deep-dive-into-the-ipccs-updated-carbon-budget-numbers/
Almost every Tweet, every page of his new book and the interviews being done by Mike Mann is counter-factual half-baked hopium – aka Spin aka not true aka misleading disinformation aka at best unfounded illogical opinion)
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann
Including Dr. Zeke Hausfather Aug 12 “There’s grim news in the IPCC report, but also reasons for hope.”
https://twitter.com/hausfath and so many more holding the delusional line of pretending it;s going to be OK if we just act now.
Compared to say Dr Peter Kalmus — There are two fatal flaws with “net zero by 2050.” One is “net zero.” The other is “by 2050”. – Now ain’t that the truth! – https://twitter.com/climatehuman
There is NO ACTION being taken and there has been none close to what’s been needed for over 30 years. So please (PR Climate Scientists especially) Stop pretending, Stop Spinning the Data and Stop spreading fake news anything coming out of COP26 is going to be good, or good enough to address the Climate Change Crisis…. nor the next sections of the IPCC AR6 Reports.
“It’s only missing the Paris Goal by 66% of 2010 GHG levels”
Sorry I made a bad mistake with that 66% number … it’s only 61.5% of the 2010 GHG levels, I should have checked. And that calc doesn’t tell the story well anyway because it ignores today’s actual level of emissions.
Scientists have said that the planet needs to slash 45% of its emissions below 2010 levels by 2030 in order to be on track to achieving the Net Zero ’emissions’ Paris target in 2050.
Total GHG emissions in 2010 was about 47.3 Gt CO2 eq.
A target of 45% below that is about 26.0 Gt CO2 eq by 2030.
Emissions are now estimated to grow to around 55.1 Gt CO2 eq in 2030.
And that’s assuming all countries are able to meet their NDC targets for 2030.
Therefore the UNFCCC is now estimating that emissions will miss the Paris based target of 26.0 Gt CO2 eq in 2030 by 112%.
But to rapidly change course to still hit the 2030 target would mean cutting the current (~56.8 Gt CO2 eq) 2021 rate of CO2e emissions by 54% between now, 2021, and 2030. So the notion of cutting total annual emissions by half by 2030 remains a fairly accurate yardstick.
That equals about 3.4 Gt CO2 eq per year over 9 years, or 6% per year of the current emissions.
Compare that to what was being asked in the original Kyoto Protocol circa 2005.
The Kyoto Protocol set binding emission reduction targets for 37 industrialized countries and economies in transition and the European Union. Overall, these targets add up to an average 5 per cent emission reduction compared to 1990 levels over the five year period 2008–2012 (the first commitment period). Even though the 36 developed countries reduced their emissions, the global emissions increased by 32% from 1990 to 2010.
They said it was too tough to do any better. The damage to the economy would be too great. Now here we are in 2021, and the same problems exist, only far worse. Now there’s very expensive damaging major extreme weather events caused by climate change to deal with as well.
I skimmed the advance version. It actually had sections on gender and on indigenous peoples. Hilarious. :)
Thomas Sowell did a video on this report long before it was published:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qypnQkdg89g
;)
KIA: Thomas Sowell did a video on this report long before it was published
BPL: And that doesn’t tell you anything? Not very capable of critically assessing your own sources, are you?
That 2.7 is exceptionally vague without a time frame.
It’s meant to +2.7C to 2100 Killian. This UNFCCC report matches up closely with other analyses/calculations too.
See – UN Climate Press Release / 17 Sep, 2021
Full NDC Synthesis Report: Some Progress, but Still a Big Concern
The available NDCs of all 191 Parties taken together imply a sizable increase in global GHG emissions in 2030 compared to 2010, of about 16%. According to the latest IPCC findings, such an increase, unless actions are taken immediately, may lead to a temperature rise of about 2.7C by the end of the century.
The 16% increase is a huge cause of concern. It is in sharp contrast with the calls by science for rapid, sustained and large-scale emission reductions
https://unfccc.int/news/full-ndc-synthesis-report-some-progress-but-still-a-big-concern
This +2.7 to 3 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels before 2100 is not new news.
The 16% is growth on top of the 2010 CO2e emissions level. The baseline yardstick for emissions in the Paris agreements and NDCs.
The +2.7C assumes that is the outcome IF nations achieve their COP26 targets out to 2030 and 2050 … ongoing. There is no guarantee they will, or can meet them.
Given so many NDC targets are based on impossible to achieve NET/Carbon dioxide removal tech and inflated theoretical forest/soil carbon Sequestration increases over the short term to 2050 it is almost guaranteed that this +2.7C mark in 2100 will be smashed as well – unless something massive psychologically, economically and politically really soon.
The other interesting point is the “projected” 2030 emission levels versus other marks:
10. Total global GHG emission level (without LULUCF), taking into account (ASSUMING FULL) implementation of the latest NDCs of all Parties to the Paris Agreement, is estimated to be around 55.1 (51.7–58.4) Gt CO2 eq in 2030 which are:
In 2025, 58.6 per cent higher than in 1990 (34.6 Gt CO2 eq)
15.8 per cent higher than in 2010 (47.3 Gt CO2 eq) and
4.5 per cent higher than in 2019 (52.4 Gt CO2 eq);
In 2030 59.3 per cent higher than in 1990
16.3 per cent higher than in 2010 and
5.0 per cent higher than 2019.
Total global emissions in 2019, which are estimated at 52.4 Gt CO2 eq without LULUCF (and around 56.0 Gt CO2 eq with LULUCF).
(2021 emissions are projected to be slightly higher 1-3% than in 2019, see IEA etc data. )
64. Total global GHG emission levels (without LULUCF) taking into account implementation of the latest NDCs of all Parties to the Paris Agreement are estimated to be around 55.1 Gt CO2 eq in 2030
65. (if/buts, constraints, excuses, outs, plausible deniability)
Most Parties’ NDCs are unconditional, at least in part, with many including more ambitious conditional elements. The implementation of most conditional elements depends on access to enhanced financial resources, technology transfer and technical cooperation, and capacity-building support; availability of market-based mechanisms; and absorptive capacity of forests and other ecosystems.
Total GHG emission levels resulting from implementation of the unconditional elements of the NDCs are estimated to be 56.5 Gt CO2 eq in 2030
REF https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cma2021_08_adv_1.pdf
As usual this is a very poorly designed and therefore quite confusing report.
Will Steffen, says so, too: See my post (likely) down thread.
Scientists have said that the planet needs to slash 45% of its emissions by 2030 to reach carbon neutrality by mid-century. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/17/us/catastrophic-climate-change-un-report/index.html
No, that’s wrong. The goal was needing to cut to 45% below the 2010 level of GHG emissions (which was 47.3 Gt CO2 eq without LULUCF) That needs to be emphasized and it rarely is.
Therefore, as I said above., the current hypothetical and impossible target to reach is now cutting emissions by 66% below our current level today between now and 2030.
That is a massive cut of 66% below total global emissions of 52.4 Gt CO2 eq in 2019. That is not going to happen,
So it begs the question: Why isn’t every climate scientist already warning the public and the few sane Politicians of the world, about these real facts and the implications of what that means for the world?
It’s not like this news. It was known long before the AR6 WG1 was completed. It was known before the UNFCCC completed their latest NDC report.
Why the ongoing denial of reality – of the known facts?
Why the ongoing snake-oil that being able to achieve the Paris Goals of remaining under +1.5C was possible last year, possible this year and still possible today?
I have a Dream – that one day all climate scientists will be as energized, as animated, as active, as outspoken and critical about the Falsehoods surrounding the Mythical Paris Goals and complain about the lack of URGENCY and the INACTION by all world Governments and Societies to address the Climate Crisis as the Climate Scientists have been about defending themselves,, their own individual Scientific work and Papers, their Climate Models, and their Profession.
We did not need to wait for a report out of the UNFCCC in Sept 2021 for this knowledge, this data and it’s implications to be shared widely with the world by Climate Scientists during the last several years!
When will the Climate Scientists start holding all Politicians, Political parties, national Leaders and the UNFCCC System to account, name names, and tell the whole world about it?
Alas the nightmare continues unabated instead. :-)
“When will the Climate Scientists start holding all Politicians, Political parties, national Leaders and the UNFCCC System to account, name names, and tell the whole world about it?”
Probably about the time they hold the folks mentioned in the black and yellow rectangle in this article responsible – scroll just a little way down the page – you’ll see it:
https://metallicman.com/laoban4site/is-it-clear-enough-for-you-its-time-to-hunker-down-or-get-ready-to-rumble/
If you really believe the material you post you just aren’t very bright.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/dec/07/blog-posting/complex-tale-involving-hillary-clinton-uranium-rus/
Here’s a clue for you from your own link:
“We previously reported on what we know about the Uranium One deal and to this day the details remain murky.”
Typical selective quote of a denialist, that misses the main points in the link I posted. Namely that the case against Clinton is non existent.
re the latest UNFCCC NDC Synthesis report above about Net Zero by 2050
quote – “to reach carbon neutrality by mid-century”
Could it be that the Net-Zero by 2050 plan does not mean, is not equivalent to ‘carbon neutrality’?
SEE James Dyke There is a dangerous misconception about net zero. Many think that it’s obvious or trivial. It is not. It is a specific delaying response to climate change that has captured academia.(the IPCC, climate science/scientists included) https://twitter.com/JamesGDyke
Climate Extremes: ARC Centre of excellence
CLEX Seminar Series 6: James Dyke 16 Sept 2021
Net Zero: fact, theory and wishful thinking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSp3Kl3LXxQ
Quoting from the lecture several times:
I’m trying to make something of a case about it’s not just just
the application of net zero it’s the very concept of net zero which
might be problematic. Net zero can be seen as a development
but distinctly different from something like carbon neutrality.
Carbon neutrality is simply balancing emissions of carbon
dioxide with its removal. How do you remove carbon dioxide?
Well there’s low tech ways such as planting trees there’s high
tech ways such as direct air capture and there’s everything in
between. Net zero is not just carbon neutrality but you wouldn’t
think that if you look at some simple definitions.
SEE https://youtu.be/VSp3Kl3LXxQ?t=348
“… we reach net zero when the amount we add is no more
than the amount taken away ”
This is not true. This is not what net zero actually means. This is
kind of carbon neutrality extended to all other forms of registered
forcing, all other greenhouse gases, so it’s a kind of like a
greenhouse gas neutral. Net Zero is importantly different.
Net Zero, yes it includes all greenhouse gas emissions, but within
science based targets on emissions reductions, as opposed to
relying solely on offsetting ..
SEE https://youtu.be/VSp3Kl3LXxQ?t=417
AND https://youtu.be/VSp3Kl3LXxQ?t=448
But a crucial element that I need to first discuss is this this kind of
notion of science-based targets
– Science determines the impacts of warming
– Society mainly politicians with others determine targets or a threshold for warming, 1.5-2C
– Science can then determine your greenhouse gas budget before you exceed that threshold
– Society then determines how those greenhouse gas budgets are managed
There’s a certain pie, you can only have so much of the pie,
who gets to have which slices and how big are those slices
will be. So already you can see the Net Zero intimately involves
climate science within the management of the threats, the risks,
that climate change represents.
SEE https://youtu.be/VSp3Kl3LXxQ?t=461
RCPs representative concentration pathways, review. we’ll
talk about the shared socioeconomic pathways later
SEE https://youtu.be/VSp3Kl3LXxQ?t=552
This means is that Net Zero does not just mean
ending anthropogenic radiative forcing
I don’t think net zero means that. It’s not just about ending
radiative forcing. It’s about the use of science, it’s about the
use of science-based targets, it’s about trying to manage
climate risks within what’s meant to be a science
informed climate policy system
SEE https://youtu.be/VSp3Kl3LXxQ?t=589
SEE research paper Ref- Negative emissions and the long history of carbon removal
Wim Carton et al First published: 27 August 2020
https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.671
– Net Zero is built on the narrow techno-economic framings
that characterize integrated assessment modeling IAMs.
– Earlier scholarship, particularly from the critical social
scientists, is seldom engaged with by the negative emissions
research community
–the importance of seeing continuity in the carbon removal
discussion and call for more engagement with the existing
social science scholarship on the subject
Net Zero is the latest manifestation of the climate policy
system wrestling with the need to undertake rapid decarbonization
and largely kicking the can down the road again.
SEE https://youtu.be/VSp3Kl3LXxQ?t=698
iow Net Zero has become a kind of apparition, a mirage in the desert, that does not exist in reality.
Please do continue on listening, because now it gets interesting.
Our case against net zero
SEE https://youtu.be/VSp3Kl3LXxQ?t=783
Basically, if I hear him correctly, what is missing in the Net Zero Policy framework is the very science informed part of the process. The policies, the NDCs, the targets the entire Net Zero framework is not in fact based upon credible observations, is not evidence based nor is it informed by genuine Science or the scientific method.
SEE earlier article – Climate scientists: concept of net zero is a dangerous trap April 22, 2021
https://theconversation.com/climate-scientists-concept-of-net-zero-is-a-dangerous-trap-157368
Simplicity at the center of all efforts is the **only** way to do this. It was 9bvius ten years ago.
But so many can only hear what PhDs say. Sadly, they don’t know much about mitigation.
Yes I am tending to agree along simplicity lines too. Have for a very long time but never really dug too deep into it before. The whole system seems entrenched that it’s self-fulling along lines of growth etc. where it’s the inertia (we do it this way) just keeps chugging along. New tech renewables merely expand the energy supply rather than offsetting any FF energy use as the systems inbuilt Growth dynamic continues *unabated* (… excuse unintended word pun…. ala what abatement in FF use) )
Now it seems to me coming back to look at the details of what’s been happening in the agw/cc world of dramas any notion of voluntary simplicity, even Kevin Anderson style, society wide are beyond the realm of possibility. And involuntary will get short shrift too.
I am inclined to only see small pockets of sustainable groups communities having any chance of getting through the progressive negative impacts of climate changes and what that’s going to do to every aspect of modern civilization progressively over time.
Something unexpected might happen, and the nations of the world and their govts will suddenly see the light, but seriously I cannot see that happening. The need of the economic system to prevail and grow is so entrenched in our psyche and of governments and leaders etc and the desires of society I cannot imagine it changing …. not until the really dire impacts of global warming and breakdown come home to roost. But then well, the place is pretty much stuffed by then.
I do see a change in how some sections of the climate change ‘solution industry’ are viewing the situation, the problem more holistically, that it isn’t only seen as a climate change problem that agw/cc is but a symptom of a greater cause/problem (eg LTG and Systemic Inertia Psychology issues etc) but I think it’s still too late to make any difference now. (I could be wrong, and hopefully I am)
Existing voices and accepted practices and social/science ideology and mindsets is still too entrenched aka STUCK in place eg the idea that simply switching to renewable energy from FF energy – and shutting down the evil fossil fuel industry who are the ONES to BLAME as causing the problem – is THE Solution to all this.
I cannot see that more / better / bigger climate science, or AI Modelling, the IPCC reports and the UNFCCC system are part of a genuine long term holistic Solution to boiling like frogs in a pot. But whatever. I don’t know. Life can be full of surprises.
In the 1990s my view was of early acceptance of the implications climate science knowledge, I have seen impacts of global warming where I have lived for over 20 years already. Why anyone could be surprised by today’s increasing extreme weather and droughts fires and biosphere impacts etc, really surprises me,
Most have missed these shifts in the Norms except the better science studies. And the approach of Kyoto etc, made perfect sense to me then, and that obviously the world would rise to the occasion and meet the challenges and move off FF energy use.
That climate deniers still persist truly stuns me. That governments still refuse to take effective actions to address the problems rationally, to minimize it, or blame others for it, also stuns me. (foolish I know) Both are like alien beings to me so disconnected from our living space are they. They are simply toxic people. They make my skin crawl, and I cannot get far enough away form them.
But I honestly never thought, never imagined this is where we would be post 2020. Not in my wildest dreams or nightmares did I expect this to be our shared reality today.
So look at how wrong I can be about things!!! Don’t listen to me, My judgement has been pathetic.
Now it seems to me coming back to look at the details of what’s been happening in the agw/cc world of dramas any notion of voluntary simplicity, even Kevin Anderson style, society wide are beyond the realm of possibility.
If it’s already happening, how can it be “beyond the realm of possibility?”
My bad wording (word salad) I suspect.
The notion of voluntary simplicity is what seems to me beyond the realm of possibility.
I didn’t mean could not practically be done. It could be done and where applied it’d probably work well except wouldn’t put a dent on increasing global emissions.
To clarify, as in the idea/concept it’s potential and benefits, the only sustainable course of action left – is not found extensively across the board, world wide, at a scale large enough to make a difference. Not that I have seen.
The topic itself, outside of niche activist and indigenous circles, is not on the agenda being promoted much in the main stream, be it the media, social media, govts etc in UNFCCC contexts, nor within the IPCC system and climate science circles, economics nor often in climate action circles either, and so on.
Put more simply Killian, my reading is that the idea is not catching on. That’s what I mean by it’s looking beyond the realm of possibility. Especially when coupled with the fact that time is fast running out to bend the needle.
Whereas crazy things like DAC will probably proceed and be funded for decades.
To clarify, as in the idea/concept its potential and benefits, the only sustainable course of action left – is not found extensively across the board, worldwide, at a scale large enough to make a difference. Not that I have seen.
Of course it hasn’t happened in full. Neither has any other supposed pathway. That is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it *is* happening and only in, literally, the last year has the need for it begun to be taken seriously outside the specific degrowth hubs. But we not only have individuals, groups and communities *doing* simplification (Via Campesina, GEN, Transition Towns, various Permaculture-based sites, etc.), we have “serious scientists” saying we must drastically change the system and look to steady-state-type systems.
The start of any absolutely new system is almost always extremely slow in the beginning. This is not surprising. But saying it can’t be done is just bullshit, ignorance, and the worst kind of doomerism. I am not delusional. I have said for the entire period I have been very active on these issues (15 years), that the likelihood of success is low, but the possibility of success is 100% because it is simple to get to simplicity – but will not be easy.
The key is always, in all things, awareness that change is *necessary.* That tipping point has come WRT climate in general, but not yet WRT to the depth, breadth and nature of the changes needed – but discussion of simplification-esque solutions is orders of magnitude more common than it was just 2 or 3 years ago, I’d say. It’s still a shallow parabolic, but it is parabolic, and everyone posting here, and likely all of those reading, understand the implications of a parabolic rate of change.
Reality Check talks about voluntary simplification not catching on at scale. I agree, and I’ve been saying that here for years. IMHO its because humans are MOSTLY too materialistic, and because of other psychological impediments. And IMHO a deliberate, massive and rapid degrowth agenda would be very destabilising.
Of course simplification might be forced on us by shortages of materials, but it doesn’t look like that would happen fast enough to greatly help mitigate the climate problem. And values might change making voluntary simplification attractive at scale, but don’t hold your breath waiting. I think it will take time. And we could probably get levels of consumption to fall to SOME extent, but probably not enough to be a primary solution to the climate problem.
This is why I mostly promote green energy as being the primary solution to the climate problem, and the most realistic one, all things considered, despite its own set of problems. And I mean a zero carbon energy grid and transport system etcetera , If we have to resort to sucking carbon out of the air that will be painfully costly.
I’m a little bit doomy about being able to keep warming under 2 degrees but I think we have a realistic chance of keeping it getting above 3 or 4 degrees.
Thank you for bringing up careening in so timely a fashion, Animist.
Tomorrow is National Talk Like a Pirate day .
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/09/the-continuing-crisis-in-semantic.html
By the way–and sorry if I’m repeating news already noted here but missed by me–we can now say that it was a pretty good year for the Arctic Sea Ice–at least in terms of annual minimum extent.
It appears that the minimum (per JAXA extent) was reached on the 12th, at a comparatively healthy 4.61 million km2. That’s more than a million up on last year’s 2nd-lowest extent, and well above the 2010s decadal average.
Graph here:
https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent
The picture per NSIDC data is different in detail but not in substance. They have a good discussion here:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
The usual suspects will crow some about this, but there’s clearly no reason to think it’s anything but variability (AKA weather). And it will be interesting to see what the September PIOMAS update says–we’re still awaiting that, but I note NSIDC’s comment:
So it may well turn out that the minimum was a rather less rosy event viewed through the ice *volume* lens than it was for ice *extent.*
Kevin McKinney,
No need to be sorry as you haven’t missed comment on the 2021 Arctic SIE minimum.
And there certainly is evident “variability” in the annual Arctic SIE minimums but I’m not sure that it could be properly described as “AKA weather”. In the last two decades there has been more at work than variation between years as there are signs of interdecadal variation which doesn’t shout “weather” to me.
Things were simple up to the end of the last century with the trend in melt pretty constant through the final couple of months of the melt season. So SIE at (a) the start of July, (b) the start of August and at (c) the annual minimum was all trending down at about -60,000 sq km/yr or so.
But those three trends accelerated from the end of the century, only to decelerate over the last decade, this with (a), (b) & (c) accelerating/decelerating in-step but at different rates.
So today the linear trends (which remain a good approximations for the full period) now show (a) -70,000 sq km/y, (b) -80,000 sq km/y, (c) -95,000 sq km/y.
What is not yet evident is whether in coming years the acceleration/deceleration will make a nonsense of the continuing linear decline in SIE, whether it will do no more than oscillate about the trend or whether it will settle down and set a new rate of decline for a while.
As for the annual wobbliness, that was always high but wobbliness is now increased at the minimum, so weather is apparently having a bigger impact on the minimum in recent years relative to the start of the satellite record.
And if you take off the trends, the SIE at Aug 1st is a pretty-good predictor for the annual minimum. This 2021 was 4th meltiest on Aug 1st and would slide to 11th place for the annual minimum. But relative to those full linear trends, it was on the icy side of the trend by more than any year since 2004 at Aug 1st and by more than any year since 2001 at the minimum.
This predictability at Aug 1st is the result of weather in earlier weeks impacting the rate of late-season melt.
The reduction in volume combined with a significant increase in extent, and probably area, speak to ocean heat content and bottom melt, those Pacific “heat bombs” and Atlantification, in my opinion.
Also, viva la Nina,,,?!
“…there certainly is evident “variability” in the annual Arctic SIE minimums but I’m not sure that it could be properly described as “AKA weather”.”
I was referring specifically to this year’s good result, which does seem to me to be down mostly to a relatively cool summer, probably related, as Killian notes, to La Nina. Dr. Serreze of NSIDC apparently agrees:
Which leads us to the fact that those good folks have now called the annual minimum, tentatively:
Full post here: https://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/arctic-sea-ice-has-reached-minimum-extent-2021
Your comments about the differential trends are interesting. I’ll have to have a look at the updated trends for *maximum*, but I’m out of time just now.
Hi Kevin – The mid-month PIOMAS gridded thickness, and hence volume, numbers can be seen at:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/09/facts-about-the-arctic-in-september-2021/#Sep-21
I’ll try and embed an image in a moment, but in summary:
“Volume calculated from the thickness data currently show that 2021’s minimum was reached on September 7th at 4.64 thousand km³, which is the 8th lowest value in the Polar Science Center’s record.”
https://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/piomas-trnd-20210915.png
Thx, Jim!
Just a little reminder that one of the variables left out of most analyses of future climate and, particularly, our responses to it, is time. This one factor makes every approach being considered by Gov’s and Inc’s, at best, a minor contributor: None of them can be done in the time we have.
https://twitter.com/MrMatthewTodd/status/1440441535644930056?s=20
Will Steffen gettin’ real.
KW:
“Seems we both made mistakes reading the graph
Sep 1 Arctic = 5.174 = 0.146 outside 90% range
Sep 1 Ant = 18.747 = 0.102 outside 90% range
I was completely wrong about the 6 times (I wrote down the wrong end of the range) but both are outside the 90% range by similar amounts”
TWOE:
Keith, the other thread I saw you in saw you declaring that you hadn’t used smoothed data when in fact you had. Now you are hotly declaring A is 6x > B when that is far from the case. If confirmation bias makes you get basic facts wrong, then I hate to think what it’s doing to every judgement that requires an understanding of nuance.
I’m sure, if it suited your purposes, you would not be so quick to equate 0.146 and 0.102. (Not that it makes sense to treat the two poles as though they are in a competition anyway.)
Please note the year of the quote below. We have no excuses for the last 40 years of abject failure to acknowledge and act on the damage we have done.
“I don’t think anybody has summarized what is happening on
the face of the Earth.
In order to change our ways, we seem to need to terrify ourselves,
anticipating tidal waves and catastrophes. Now those
things may come off, and the San Andreas fault may shift. But
we can’t do much about that. What is really happening is something
for which we, as human beings, are personally responsible.
It is very general. Almost everything we say applies everywhere.
The real systems that are beginning to fail are the soils, forests,
the atmosphere, and nutrient cycles. It is we who are responsible
for that. We haven’t evolved anywhere in the west
(and I doubt very much elsewhere except in tribal areas) any
sustainable systems in agriculture or forestry. We don’t have
a system.” – Bill Mollison 1981, Treefrog Permaculture PDC course
#permaculture
#climatechange
#RegenerativeDesign
You see, it all starts with Observe: Long, thoughtful observation over thoughtless short-term action.
“Climate
The effects of this on world climate are becoming apparent
both in the composition of the atmosphere and in the inability
of the atmosphere to buffer changes. In any month now, we will
break the world weather records in some way. In my home
town, we are very isolated and buffered by ocean and forest.
But we had in succession the windiest, the driest, and the wettest
month in history, in two hundred years of recording. So
really what’s happening in the world climate is not that it is
tending toward the greenhouse effect; it is not that it is tending
toward the ice age; it is starting now to fluctuate so wildly
that it is totally unpredictable as to which heat barrier you will
crack. But when you crack it, you will crack it an an extreme
and you will crack it very suddenly. It will be a sudden change.
Until then, we will experience immense variability in climate.
That is what is happening.
We can just go cutting along, and in maybe twelve more
years we won’t have any forests.
There is still another factor. It would be bad enough if it were
just our cutting that is killing forests. But since the 1920’s, and
with increasing frequency, we have been loosing species from
forest to a whole succession of pathogens. It started with
things like chestnut blight. Chestnuts were 80% of the forests
that they occupied. So a single species dropping out may represent
enormous biomass, enormous biological reserve, and a
very important tree. Richard St. Barbe Baker pointed out that
the trees that are going are those with the greatest leaf area
per unit. First chestnuts, with maybe sixty acres of leaf area
per tree. Then the elms, running at about forty. Now the beeches
are going, and the oaks, the eucalypts in Australia and Tasmania.
Even the needle leaf trees in Japan are failing. The Japanese
coniferous forests are going at a fantastic rate. So are
the Canadian shield forests and the Russian forests.”