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.
Sorry, that should have read “The figure for the SATELLITE estimates is 0.008381.” Got to proofread more carefully!
Yes, that you should have done quite more often.
Keeping also Gauss` teorem in mind all the time:
“Durch nichts trägt sich die Mangel an matematischer Bildung deutlicher zur schau wie durch masslose Genauigkeit in den Rechenschaften!”.
a long read – Explainer: Nine ‘tipping points’ that could be triggered by climate change
Another concern around tipping points is the potential for one to trigger a “cascade” effect on others. A Nature commentary from November 2019, for example, argues that “cascading effects might be common” in the Earth system, warning that this would be “an existential threat to civilization”.
It references a 2018 Science paper that assessed how 30 different potential social-ecological “regime shifts” could interact with one another through “domino effects” or “hidden feedbacks”. The researchers found that, while some regime shifts are more interconnected than others, 45% of these links were possible. It explains:
“Domino effects occur when the feedback processes of one regime shifts affect the drivers of another, creating a one-way dependency. Hidden feedbacks rise when two regime shifts combined generate new (not previously identified) feedbacks; and if strong enough, they could amplify or dampen the coupled dynamics.”
Examples of these links “are starting to be observed”….. aka Major Interactive Feedbacks [MIFs]
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-nine-tipping-points-that-could-be-triggered-by-climate-change
( near bottom of page)
related to more info regarding “due to a long cascade of extreme weather events across the globe. ….and massive fires continue to add to that ghg massively … Eventually all the stars will align everywhere at once.” @ https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/09/forced-responses-sep-2021/#comment-795997
for example
https://gizmodo.com/summer-wildfires-emitted-more-carbon-dioxide-than-india-1847718710
https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/copernicus-summer-wildfires-saw-devastation-and-record-emissions-around-northern-hemisphere
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-pinpoints-cause-of-earth-s-recent-record-carbon-dioxide-spike
Reality Check,
The 2020 CarbonBrief article on AGW tipping points is indeed a lengthy account. But I don’t think the account provided is particularly supportive of the idea of cascading tipping points.
The vast majority concers the “9 tipping points” of its title ‘Explainer: Nine ‘tipping points’ that could be triggered by climate change’ (these being 1. Shutdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, 2. West Antarctic ice sheet disintegration, 3. Amazon rainforest dieback, 4. West African monsoon shift, 5. Permafrost and methane hydrates, 6. Coral reef die-off, 7. Indian monsoon shift, 8. Greenland ice sheet disintegration, 9. Boreal forest shift).
It also considers “other parts of the Earth system that have the potential to display tipping point behaviour” listing as examples ♣ shutdown of Antarctic bottom water formation; ♣ loss of alpine glaciers; ♣ a climate change-induced hole in the ozone layer above the Arctic; ♣ ocean anoxia; and ♣ a change in the frequency and/or strength of El Niño events and discusses ♣ Arctic Sea Ice loss which it considers not to be a tipping point although the ecological damage from its “might well be.”
At this point the article then turns to consider briefly “the potential for one [tipping point] to trigger a “cascade” effect on others” which is the consideration you raised up-thread. And the lengthy account rounds off with a quick consideration of societal/technical feedbacks that may speed our efforts to stop emitting GHGs & put a cap on AGW.
Myself, I find this and other declarations of something-or-other being an AGW “tipping point” to be listing out things which are quite dissimilar and thus poorly described as “tipping points.”
And note that the ‘main’ reference cited on ‘cascading tipping points’, Rocha et al (2018) ‘Cascading regime shifts within and across scales’, is more a wake-up call to the potential of “cascading regime shifts” rather than saying “examples are starting to be observed” (which is a quote from a Nature commentary whose authors include (as well as one of our hosts) those behind the controversial paper Steffen et al (2018) ‘Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene’).
My message is that “tipping points” require a more rigorous treatment that these. They are a serious threat so perhaps I should be saying they demand a more rigorous treatment.
Welp, ALL of the things you’ve listed are indeed happening. Let’s say just a few of them come to fruition… Wouldn’t that be enough of a push to send temperatures higher and thus add more energy to the system, which in turn would trigger the other tipping points? I am a confessed layman on these threads so I’m open to further study. Here’s your list and I’ve been reading about most of these things happening on Google News so I know it’s true. lol
1. Shutdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation,
2. West Antarctic ice sheet disintegration,
3. Amazon rainforest dieback,
4. West African monsoon shift,
5. Permafrost and methane hydrates,
6. Coral reef die-off,
7. Indian monsoon shift,
8. Greenland ice sheet disintegration,
9. Boreal forest shift).
It also considers “other parts of the Earth system that have the potential to display tipping point behaviour” listing as examples ♣ shutdown of Antarctic bottom water formation; ♣ loss of alpine glaciers; ♣ a climate change-induced hole in the ozone layer above the Arctic; ♣ ocean anoxia; and ♣ a change in the frequency and/or strength of El Niño events and discusses ♣ Arctic Sea Ice loss which it considers not to be a tipping point although the ecological damage from its “might well be.”
Chuck,
First step in “further study” is to understand the basic physics, cause and effect.
” Wouldn’t that be enough of a push to send temperatures higher and thus add more energy to the system,”
Higher temperatures are the result of adding energy, not the other way around.
MAR is quite correct that the term “tipping point” is indiscriminately applied, and I would say “cascades” would have to be physically characterized as to, again, cause and effect… it’s not just “if one bad thing happens then they all will”. There are various different potential causal chains that are independent of each other.
He is also correct that it would be good to address this more rigorously. If only there were a blog run by climate scientists who could produce an organized discussion on the various phenomena and how they are connected…..
Zebra
“Higher temperatures are the result of adding energy, not the other way around”
Think again. Bolzmanns definition of heat says that heat is energy that goes from A to B because of a temperature difference, where T in A is higher than T in B.
In that case, to add energy to B you must “send” up the temperature in A first.
To cook an eg or a potatoe all through, you must heat or “send up” the temperature of its surface first, not the other way around.
And as for cause and effect you see, there vare more than one and only one category of it, not only Causa efficiens and one and only one way in space and time.
And this fact does often cause mistakes and confusion, at the same time it can also be caused by mistakes and confusion. Believe it or not..
Carbomantus,
You must have a magic oven.
To raise the temperature in my oven when I bake potatoes, I am required to add energy to the oven by burning gas. Chemical energy is converted to thermal energy.
In the summer, I bake potatoes in my toaster oven, and there I add energy to the toaster oven with electricity. Electrical energy is converted to thermal energy.
Only then does the temperature in the ovens increase.
But maybe you could share your magic technology so we could all save money when baking potatoes?
No, Zebra . Before you can add heat energy to any potatoe, you must lit your gas and rise the temperature in your oven or in your boiling water, not the other way around. The process is slightly endotherm with a positive enthalpy.
Other processes may be exoterm and blow up, run wild if you rise their temperature only slightly. because of positive enthalpy reactions.
That is no magic at all.
And causality, cause and effect, is quite often going both ways around at the same time.
People are less aquainted to this because they hardly learnt and trained on the nature 0f thermic and chemical processes and eqvilibria.
Air pressure, osmotic pressure, hydraulic pressure is equal in all direction at eqvilibrium because of that.
That “back radiation” of climate gases, so eagerly denied, is further a fameous example.
Chuck. If something goes past a tipping point it is a huge potential problem, but my understanding is it doesn’t send temperatures higher “per se”. A tipping point just means the process has become self reinforcing and perhaps impossible to stop, even if we reduce emissions.
For example the permafrost is melting and driving up temperatures , and if it cant stop melting because its gone past a tipping point temperatures will just continue to rise on a similar trajectory to previously, although that overall trajectory could well be an accelerating trajectory, because of the positive feedback effect.
So therefore MAR seems to have a point. Its not that clear how one tipping point impacts directly on another, but we certainly better find out. And obviously passing a tipping point is a huge risk factor. I do speak as a layperson.
Chuck,
Above, my comment is basically saying “I don’t think the account provided is particularly supportive of the idea of cascading tipping points.” but that tipping points “demand a more rigorous treatment.”
You reply saying “ALL of the things [tipping points] you’ve listed are indeed happening.” I disagree.
Take the first in that list from the CarbonBrief explainer, the AMOC Shutdown. What does the CarbonBrief explainer says about it?
It says the AMOC is weakening and shows a Shutdown would be a big climate tipping point but it says it is not considered a serious threat until AGW reaches +3ºC although there is a great deal of uncertainty with how much AGW is actually required.
So I wouldn’t describe that as an “indeed happening” event. Rather, it is an “indeed can happen” event and one that will have very serious climatic consequences if we do allow it to happen.
And were the AMOC to shutdown, those climatic consequences could be described as ‘cascading’ but I’m not sure it would be useful to describe that as ‘cascading tipping points’ without it being rigorously true.
So that is the top item of the tipping point list and shows why it is surely wrong to say “ALL of the things you’ve listed are indeed happening.”
Mr Rodger, I believe may be taking some aspects in the article (and my comments) too literally and or narrowly. The term “tipping point” does not only refer to the nine large global scale ones. Throughout the article they also discuss various kinds of “tipping points” including when water starts to boil. As the title suggest it is an “explainer”article.
While it is true it focuses on the nine big ones, my comment copied and pasted came from the end of the article … starting at “Another concern around tipping points is the potential for one to trigger a “cascade” effect on others. A Nature commentary from November 2019, for example, argues that “cascading effects might be common” in the Earth system, warning that this would be “an existential threat to civilization”…….. etc
But I didn’t make it perfectly clear those paragraphs were a quotation of the text. Sorry. So where that paragraph says “around tipping points” the article was speaking to the generalities of them and not the nine specific ones discussed in detail. https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-nine-tipping-points-that-could-be-triggered-by-climate-change See?
Plus the 2018 Science paper ( Rocha et al (2018) ‘Cascading regime shifts within and across scales’, ) was not about Nine Tipping Points or in general, it “assessed how 30 different potential social-ecological “regime shifts” could interact with one another through “domino effects” or “hidden feedbacks”.
That paper was not “the ‘main’ reference cited on ‘cascading tipping points’,” as interpreted by Mr Rodger. That ref and that section of the article was about social-ecological “regime shifts”, “domino effects” or “hidden feedbacks” of multiple climate related effects.
I do agree however that the article does get confusing as suggested by Mr Rodger where he says: “listing out things which are quite dissimilar and thus poorly described as “tipping points.”
However, I myself was clear on where it was going and what it was referring to. Because it was in fact these broader aspects, “regime shifts”, “domino effects” or “hidden feedbacks”, and these other smaller/regional scale multiple aspects that I was most interested in.
Because it went beyond the large global scale issues of AMOC, SLR etc and delved into smaller variations on the theme. Namely ::
– “cascading effects might be common” in the Earth system
– how 30 different potential social-ecological “regime shifts” could interact with one another through “domino effects” or “hidden feedbacks”.
– Examples of these links “are starting to be observed”…..
– plus the notion of Major Interactive Feedbacks [MIFs] which was discussed later in the comments section below the article.
So to me, this article was useful on multiple levels, it explained the basic concept of tipping points, got in detail about the nine large climate tipping points, THEN IT delved into other kinds of climate energy social tipping points and Major Interactive Feedbacks which was / is my main interest at present.
For example MIFs include: Ocean Heating & Acidification; Rising airborne Water Vapour; Decline of Cryosphere Albedo; CO2-fertilized Peatbog Decay; Permafrost Thaw; Forest Dieback; Soil Desiccation, and Methyl Clathrates Collapse. Plus regional heat waves, drought, soil moisture, flooding and the like. And their current and future cascading impacts on ecological and social systems and more.
The climate science I have seen over the years and today has more or less shown these aspects can and do play out like tipping points do, like cascading events and impacts as well.
These events and impacts are in my mind far more comprehensible (and real to people) than the ongoing focus by the IPCC reports and some expert climate scientists on the very large scale, far distant items like AMOC, WAIS and SLR etc I believe these problems often go over the heads of the average lay person, news media consumer.
I think mainly because the multiple impacts of these big “tipping points” are never connected back to people’s everyday direct living experiences, and so they find it hard to relate to the problem, and also because they are placed so far into the future rather than in the here and now. (which has been shown to be a problem in climate communications and relevance to people’s lives, needs and the economic impacts. )
This is what I found most useful in the article. Not only did it put some meat on the bones of these large scale climate tipping points, it also addressed the smaller scale issues as well.
For example this related info I posted on FR yesterday …………….. see here: -https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/09/forced-responses-sep-2021/comment-page-2/#comment-796192
Recently I mentioned cascading risks in the near future. Here’s an interesting paper that spells out.
Climate change risk assessment 2021 – Research paper
https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/2021-09/2021-09-14-climate-change-risk-assessment-quiggin-et-al.pdf
quoting Page 37
Part 04 – Cascading Systemic Risks
Systemic risks stem from the consequence of those direct impacts – materializing as a chain,
or cascade, of impacts – compounding to impact a whole system, including people,
infrastructure, the economy, societal systems and ecosystems. Quantifying the
probability and severity of systemic risks is not possible due to their complex
nature. However, an elicitation exercise was conducted with 70 experts to capture
the major dynamics and impacts that climate scientists and sector risk experts are
concerned will occur as direct climate impacts increase in prevalence and severity.
Page 38 see Figure 19. Summary diagram of the major systemic risk dynamics identified by an expert elicitation process – https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FASUuv8WEAMUzeu.jpg
Climate hazard
Changes in rainfall patterns
Drought
Major heatwaves
Agri drought
Wildfires
Storms and cyclones
River and coastal flooding
Impacts of concern
Pests and diseases
Water scarcity
Crop Failure
Too hot to work outside
Loss of infrastructure
Loss of livelihoods
Loss/shifts in ecosystems
So the term Tipping Points has multiple uses and applications. Mostly in Climate Science it relates to the very large scale long tail Tipping Points including AMOC, WAIS, SLR or the loss of the Amazon.
On other occasions it may have different applications. The major systemic risk dynamics listed above could also be seen as examples of tipping point effects. As do ideas like “regime shifts”, “domino effects”, “hidden feedbacks” or “Major Interactive Feedbacks”.
General Semantics and Scientific Jargon does cause confusion. I really agree with that.
I appreciate all you have been posting and your patience in responding to people. I want to make an observation which I do not mean as, nor want you to perceive as, criticism.
The rather complex language of clarification above caused me to reflect on what I think separates pragmatists, (true) skeptics, etc., and certain modes or styles of analysis, from the norm. Namely, there are so many primary vs secondary vs tertiary conversations that go on that then need rewinding and reviewing, as above. The reason why I almost never get caught up in secondary and beyond issues is quite simple: If you haven’t settled the First Order questions, the secondary, et al., are moot.
Systems fall down and go boom, It’s nice to quantify it, but the problem lies in people *waiting for it to be quantified before really believing it. However, various kinds of system failures are known to occur. We do not need additional knowledge about them beyond their basic characteristics: They collapse at a certain point of stress, or they collapse at a (perceivedly) random point of stress. Chaotic systems are not yet predictable.
Add to this existential threats and appropriate risk analysis and you have all your *need* to know about tipping points to analyze our situation. If unfamiliar, look up trophic flows for a nice treatment of this issue.
It’s all a game of Pick-up Stix and nobody knows when they will all fall down, but we *do* know it is likely to be faster than scientists can predict. How do we know this? 1. It’s the nature of extremely complex systems pushed way beyond their limits, like a new driver getting a Maserati as their first car and wrecking it the first time they hit the gas. And, more prosaically, it already has been,
The great failing in the climate issue is THE First Order issue has not been properly vetted: What is sustainability? The currently accepted definitions are inadequate. GIGO. If you cannot define what you are trying to create, how do you create it? These fora are a microcosm. I tried twice to start that conversation here and twice it was shut down with vitriol. I mean, people were ANGRY about discussing it. I get the same anger, frustration, scoffing, Ad Homs, etc., anywhere I raise the point. Do we need to know anything more about our chances of success addressing this massive drug addiction to resources? First Principles: A problem cannot be solved by refusing to understand it.
I tweeted with a climate scientist today who told me a new type of steel-making plant was sustainable. I, unsurprisingly, was incredulous. But, hey, the UN, et al. have for decades defined “sustainable” in such a way as to make anything one wishes squeeze in under that umbrella. Repeat the Big Lie often enough…
And the same is true of tipping points. People know the definition, but they do not seem to have a *feel* for them. Or, like climate before this, they simply cannot believe it could be happening, so they aren’t. But tipping points don’t need our permission or our belief, and all *we* need to know to properly respond to them is 1. they exist, 2. they are essentially unpredictable even in a non-linear (but mathematically predictable) system of sufficient complexity, 3. the greater the forcings, the greater the speed and magnitude of changes, 4. and we are pushing this system WAY beyond anything short of Chicxulub, so 5. not only should we be expecting tipping points, there is no reason to **not** expect them sooner rather than later, but 6. far. far too many people literally are unable to conceive of the world around them quite suddenly falling apart.
So, we define the most important word in the world inadequately, we set climate goals that are obviously inadequate to the danger, we watch the 6th Great Mass Extinction take 80-955 of all the important stuff and think that’s alarming without realizing we’re already on the downside of collapse.
We get cute with tipping points because we do not begin from tabula rasa, we do not analyze our situation through First Principles and First Order thinking. We are off in the weeds, way off into the depths of the jungle while all the time thinking we are on the road to a bright techno future. Because tipping points, my dear fellow, are known to exist, but has anyone ever seen one? Have *you* seen grolar bear?! PROVE these tipping points are coming! Give me the MATHS! Logic, schlogic! But we need no maths. We just need to think. But who wants to think everything they take for granted as “life”, as “normal”, is as insignificant to Mama Nature as a gnat is to us?
So, when I say X, Y or Z by 2050 is suicidal, because tipping points, because 2C by 2030 or whatever, only the Doomers can hear it. But they don’t set policy.
Go ahead, discuss the intricacies of tipping points, no harm, no foul, just don’t lose sight of the fact they are already here: ASIE starting to fall in 1953 was a tipping point. Passing 300ppm before that was a tipping point. Global populations of flora and fauna falling was a tipping point. that’s at least 3.
Now go take a look at a bifurcation chart because I just made this really simple for our Dear Readers: You need no math, no papers, no official pronouncements, just get a chart, find the third bifurcation and see what comes after. Then admit to yourselves we’re probably beyond the third, too.
A picture is worth a thousand words. When I looked at seasonal ASIE going back to 1900 or so and saw the tipping points standing out so clearly, at least to me, I knew exactly where we were in the timestamp of Climate Change. That was some years back, probably in the 2010-2012 time frame, and I’ve been screaming bloody murder ever since.
Because tipping points. Because logic. Because probability. Because Chaos. Because observed rates of change.
and when I read today the last three years a change in clouds has changed EArth’s albedo to the degree the last three years of additional solar forcing has equaled 20 years of anthropogenic forcing, I didn’t blink. I mean, of course it did, because climate must go faster and faster because it quite literally cannot go slower and slower unless we make it do so.
And, so, finally, we have the last straw. The crash has happened. We have one chance and only one chance expressed as two choices: Believe in tipping points and accept the pathway left to us is a scale of simplification so fast it is nearly inconceivable – yet utterly doable! – or keep believing tipping points are unicorns.
Just an aside…
PS to clarify this comment — “Examples of these links “are starting to be observed”….. was not about the large scale global tipping points.
It was about Major Interactive Feedbacks [MIFs], plus “the 30 different potential social-ecological “regime shifts” could interact with one another through “domino effects” or “hidden feedbacks”.
Which I then connected to other comments:- related to more info regarding “due to a long cascade of extreme weather events across the globe. ….and massive fires continue to add to that ghg massively … Eventually all the stars will align everywhere at once.” @ https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/09/forced-responses-sep-2021/#comment-795997
Such as in full :-
The problem I see nowadays is that paradigm/system is existentially threatened by global warming climate change plus a slew of other LTG type of constraints and biosphere degradation eg first off humans running out of food (and water) due to a long cascade of extreme weather events across the globe. Then there’s the fractured financial/economics house of cards we live in.
Eventually all the stars will align everywhere at once. Next year, 3 years ahead, 5 years, who knows when. But eventually they will align to wreak havoc and all the global systems will be strained until they Pop — and possibly simultaneously on every continent at once .
—-
In closing I am seeing these matters as far more urgent, more serious, and more compelling than the longer term large scale global tipping points in the future of SLR and AMOC etc.
Why? Because these are things in the here and now and impacts and events that everyday can more readily identify with as being really serious.
eg. Multiple, large scale, global Crop Failures from extreme climate impacts over the next 10 to 20 years is something that might make people stop and sit up and pay attention. Because most/many people already know things like this are already occurring where they live.
A crop failure here and there is manageable in a global system. But when multiple failures ovccur across multiple continents at the same time, one after the other causing extended global shortages, massive price hikes or hunger then this is what another kind of Tipping Point looks like.
Especially once it impacts the Economic, Trade, and Financial systems at the same time. These things are coming. They have already happened to varying degrees in different nations and global regions at different times.
Once they happen in multiple regions of the world all at the same time …. then many more people end up out of work. Food prices soar. Energy prices soar. Transportation fails. Imports stop. Businesses lose money. May even go bankrupt. Governments lose Tax revenues. GDP goes down. Debt goes up. Risks of a recession spike.
Most everyday people can relate to these kinds of impacts from a climate on steroids that is running out of control, when they are explained to them clearly. Because these kinds of Impacts can and/or have affected them personally at some time or other in the past already.
The IPCC and the Media and Politicians are NOT talking about these matters that everyday people could understand and relate to directly. Instead Michael Mann et al are talking about the AMOC and how it might cool European temperatures next century or sooner.
Everyday people don’t understand that. Nor can they work out what it might mean to them personally. So they do not care. Cannot care about things like that. They switch off!
I suppose they might, but it’s a moot issue on the take-action side because that tipping points exist AT ALL and are possible AT ALL is all you need to take action. Further, since a true chaotic tipping point is unpredictable, it doesn’t really matter if we know what they exactly are from a risk and mitigation perspective.
In fact, if you can see a tipping point happening, it’s already too late. Ergo, the important message here is, RUN!
Er… CHANGE!!!!
Er…. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR !
:-)
Further, since a true chaotic tipping point is unpredictable, it doesn’t really matter if we know what they exactly are from a risk and mitigation perspective.
OR WHEN it might happen. That’s unimportant. Irrelevant. Surely?
That’s it been noted means it’s a problem, whose causes need to be addressed, and pronto, aka Now.
For example, the climate drivers that one day would cause the AMOC to flip, hit a tipping point will be impacting destroying changing destablising a hundred other important and critical things decades and centuries before the impact on the AMOC Tipping is in anyone’s face.
Therefore, the AMOC, the WAIS, Greenland, SLR African monsoons and all the rest of the big issues pushed by climate scientists to nth degree are, seriously, irrelevant issues.
There’s more than enough IN OUR FACE CRISES TO STOP and ADDRESS long before those things.
As Killian says, if the time arrives when those things can be seen happening it’s decades to centuries past being too late.
Why this isn’t already common knowledge accepted and discussed openly blows my mind. Why people like Mann are always taking about the bloody AMOC and SLR makes absolutely no logical practical sense to me at all when there are hundreds of other aspects to climate change and the energy use and crisis already on our lap he could address and which the PUBLIC could and would relate to.
The same thing applies to the blasted UNFCCC wasting their breath endlessly talking and arguing about Net Zero in 2050 and after that.
It’s a waste of time a waste of breath. Deal with things happening NOW already if Govts want some electoral support they will be flooded in it if they dealt with REALITY TODAY and the next year first.
Madness, sheer bloody-minded madness it is.
The UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement should be flushed down Glasgow Toilet !!!
PS
there is an Exception to that rule …. Coral Reefs will be gone before or by 2050 due to Bleaching Events ….. that’s a Tipping point of much relevance in the shorter term, because damage is already been done everywhere already. It’s not only a crisis it’s an emergency right now.
After that is the constant damage from Acidification of the Oceans and its impacts on not only coral reefs now, but the entire Biosphere in the Oceans … and the cumulative destruction of human FOOD sources right now as well.
So screw scientists hypotheticals about SLR and the WAIS and AMOC in a century from now. Today is hard enough to deal with and fix, or slow down or solve.
There’s even a word for it people – getting one’s damn PRIORITIES straight. :)
New research on the physical mechanism of whats happening: “Rapid fragmentation of Thwaites Eastern Ice Shelf, West Antarctica”
https://tc.copernicus.org/preprints/tc-2021-288/
The 2021 Atlantic hurricane season Accumulated Cyclone Energy has now topped 100 according to the Colorado Uni Tropical Met Project. (I note the old Wikithing ACE calcs page shows a lower value that is more different than just rounding errors, but even there ACE>100 is sure to arrive very very shortly.)
The 2021 Atlantic hurricane season becomes the sixth year in a row with ACE>100. The record 1856-to-date shows prior runs of years with ACE>100 have never managed more than 4 years-in-a-row and that is a pretty solid statistic (unlike storm-numbers which can be adjusted significantly for the pre-satellite era).
Over the last couple of decades hurricane seasons with ACE<100 have become quite rare with only a third of the years since 1995 failing to reach ACE=100. Through the record up to 1994 it was two-thirds failed to reach ACE=100.
2021 is also looking to run out of storm-names as there are only two names left while there is apparently a lot of life left in the season with a couple of high-probability portential storms queuing up in the easterns Atlantic.
Running out of storm names has happened twice before (2005 & 2020 while the 20 storms of third-placed-for-storm-numbers 1933 would have still had one name unused if they had actually used names back then) with 2021 running 12 days behind 2020 (by arrival of the 19th storm), 11 days ahead of 2005 and 32 days ahead of 1933.
ECS and clouds have emerged yet again in analysis of CMIP6 models with Gjermundsen et al (2021) ‘Shutdown of Southern Ocean convection controls long-term greenhouse gas-induced warming’.
Previously with the ECS in CMIP6 models showing a far greater number with higher ECS than in CMIP5, researchers identified a cloud issue was responsble, specifically the extratropical clouds and how the level of feedback depended on the ice/water levels in these clouds. CMIP5 showed icier clouds which would become relatively shinier as they warmed, thus providing a stronger negative feedback. And the flip-side, if such cloud is indeed wetter they are already shinier and the negative feedback will be weaker.
Now again on the subject of cloud, but this time tropical cloud, just-published Gjermundsen et al (2021) has found that CMIP6 models with higher ECS have less deep ocean warming which results in the loss of low tropical ocean cloud and resulting warming. But the greater deep ocean warming in the other models with lower ECS does prevent the warming but only by “delaying global surface warming by centuries.” I don’t think such a delay would be entirely helpful at reducing AGW.
Sooo… the amount of additional sunlight is equal to the anthropogenic forcing over the last two decades. I’m assuming there are other factors, but taking this literally wouldn’t that mean doubling the rate of warming? And, they mean the increase over the last three years, which is the period of increase involved equals 20 years of anthropogenic forcing, then the next 9 years would equal 60 years of forcings, to 2039 120. or since 1900. and to 2048 would equal all forcings during the industrial error till today.
IF all that is correct, and I may have to become a praying man, if so, then the “baked in” 1.5 ~ 2.0C jumps to 3.0 ~4.0C. does it not?
You all know I am numbers semi-literate, so do be kind and please, please, please tell me I have completely gotten this wrong by several orders of magnitude.
Please.
Pretty please with polar bears on top…
https://phys.org/news/2021-09-earth-dimming-due-climate.html
Killian,
The commentary you link-to is based on the researches of Goode et al (2021) ‘Earth’s albedo 1998-2017 as measured from earthshine’ which has already received some comment up thread.
To directly compare this +0.5Wm^-2 reduction in albedo with a similar-sized climate forcing is incorrect and to attribute it to a trend over 3 years is even more wrong. Such a forcing would result in an imbalance in the planetary energy balance. If that had just appeared as an additional forcing over the years 1998-2017 or 2014-17, we would expect to see some evidence of it in the Ocean Heat content. We would expect to see some significant of acceleration in ΔOHC through the period in question but the rate of ΔOHC shows no sign of any acceleration through the last dozen years or so.
Of course, if it were comparable to a forcing and responsible for an additional 8 Zj pa being accumulated in the planetary climate system, maybe it has managed to find somewhere else to hide all that extra energy. Any thoughts where that somewhere else may be?
UAH TLT has been posted for September with a global anomaly of +0.25ºC, the highest anomaly for the year-to-date. 2021 UAH TLT monthly anomalies Jan-Aug for 2021 sat in the range -0.05ºC to +0.20ºC.
September 2021 was the 6th warmest September on the UAH record, behind Sept 2019 (+0.45ºC), 2020 (+0.40ºC), 2017 (+0.39ºC), 2016 (+0.30ºC) & 1998 (+0.28ºC).
Septembert 2021 sits =54th on the highest all-month monthly anomaly list.
The first three-quarters of 2021 comes in as the 7th warmest Jan-Sept on the UAH record. For 2021 to snatch 2015’s 7th place in the full-year rankings would require UAH’s Oct-Dec 2021 to average +0.17ºC or more.
2021 sits in the previous top-dozen Jan-Sept as follows:-
…….. Jan-Sept Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.43ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 1st
1998 .. +0.42ºC … … … +0.35ºC … … … 3rd
2020 .. +0.37ºC … … … +0.36ºC … … … 2nd
2019 .. +0.28ºC … … … +0.30ºC … … … 4th
2010 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.19ºC … … … 6th
2017 .. +0.24ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 5th
2021 .. +0.11ºC
2002 .. +0.10ºC … … … +0.08ºC … … … 9th
2015 .. +0.09ºC … … … +0.14ºC … … … 7th
2018 .. +0.09ºC … … … +0.09ºC … … … 8th
2005 .. +0.07ºC … … … +0.06ºC … … … 10th
2007 .. +0.06ºC … … … +0.02ºC … … … 13th
2014 .. +0.03ºC … … … +0.04ºC … … … 12th