Sorry for delay posting this month, but we’ve been considering how (or if) to go forward with open threads and comments. Looking at the multitude of constructive comments on the “End of blog comments” thread, it’s clear that many people appreciate the possibility of comments here, but that too often it disappoints by devolving into tedious bickering. There were many theories for why! Without necessarily subscribing to any particular diagnosis (there are many that capture some elements of what happens), we have decided to continue with comments for the time being, but with a few modifications.
To encourage people to post less often, but more substantively, we will limit commenters to one comment a day (so make it count!). Additionally, we will try to enforce a ‘one comment, one point’ rule to avoid people just cramming ten comments into one. Moderation of insulting, abusive, or just tedious comments will continue. Think more ‘Letters to the Editor’ than graffiti on the bathroom wall. This will hopefully also allow for more engagement from the RC scientists.
Back in the day, one of the goals of setting up the ‘Forced Variations’ threads was to segregate the more contentious arguments around solutions into one place, but that seems to have run it’s course. Thus we are going to revert to a single open thread, with a slightly broader climate theme than previously. Comments on generic political arguments or other issues that are not directly tied to climate will still be excluded.
We will let this play out for a couple of months and then reevaluate. Let us know what you think.
So with no further ado, let this month’s open thread begin…
The ERA5 re-analysis has been posted for April showing a global SAT anomaly of +0.28ºC, down on March’s +0.39ºC anomaly and roughly as per Jan (+0.28ºC) & Feb(+0.28ºC).
April 2022 becomes the 6th warmest April on the ERA5 record (below 2016, 2020, 2019, 2018 & 2017 but above 2010, 2021, 2007, 1998, 2015, 2005 & 2015. April 2022 becomes the 56th highest all-month anomaly on record.
In terms of the start of 2022, after 4 months it remains as 5th warmest.
…….. Jan-Apr Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.60ºC … … … +0.44ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +0.55ºC … … … +0.47ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +0.43ºC … … … +0.34ºC … … … 4th
2019 .. +0.38ºC … … … +0.40ºC … … … 3rd
2022 .. +0.30ºC
2018 .. +0.27ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 6th
2010 .. +0.23ºC … … … +0.13ºC … … … 8th
2021 .. +0.17ºC … … … +0.27ºC … … … 5th
2015 .. +0.17ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 7th
2007 .. +0.16ºC … … … +0.04ºC … … … 14th
2005 .. +0.08ºC … … … +0.09ºC … … … 10th
2014 .. +0.06ºC … … … +0.11ºC … … … 9th
Two factors to consider. The panels do deteriorate a little over time and mostly early in their life. And increasing temp decreases efficiency. The second factor is probably more significant and more variable on a YOY basis.
Of course, insolation is the biggest variable, an the affect of climate change on that is gong to vary a lot geographically.
We have had solar since 2013. Reporting is with the Enphase Energy Enlighten system. I recently printed a report showing an increase in yearly production from 2018-2021. We are on the east side of central Vancouver Island in Bowser, BC. These are the numbers: 2018: 6,345.5kWh; 2019:6419.9kWh; 2020:6,527.8kWh; 2021:6,642.3kWh. I was somewhat surprised by the numbers with an annual increase.
I am wondering if there are any studies correlating the production of solar power as indicative of the state of the environment. Companies like Enphase would probably share data for researching.
While a +0.06C is technically important, the reality is it is hard to relate to. Solar production relates directly to location and a “relatable” value $$$ albeit small for our system. Have you considered analysis by area using information from local solar production?
I’ll let scientists comment on any possible climate related cause for your most fortunate outcome. If your solar panel count ,orientation or shading conditions have not changed it may be Enphase over-the-air upgrades that have incrementally assisted energy harvesting. Because Enphase does not ‘string’ panels together, their inverters are quite efficient in managing partial shading conditions.
It’s also possible that drought conditions on Vancouver Island have contributed to additional sun hours.
Enphase collects output data from all systems installed in your area. It will not take a major effort on their part to understand if your observations are typical or atypical of similar systems near your installation.
Interesting. Seems to fit with the studies showing increasing insolation on the NA West Coast due to changes in clouds.
I have been with you a long time and consider this publication, continuing education from some of the best climate scientists on the world. That being said, two coments to put forward. Beyond the body of each editorial, the comments often add or flesh out details pertaining to the climate conditions making the entire reportage that much easier to understand and appreciate. Even the contrary comments have value in revealing mistaken interpretation of data.
The second thought is the affirmation of this editor and others opinion on the character of abusive and generally negative commentary. Attitude and affronted comments take away the value and worth of Real Climate. For all those who cannot contain their ego’s and attitudes…Go somewhere else with your soapbox. Please leave what is a world treasure, RealClimate, unblemished by unsubstantiated values and personal attacks of all nature.
**The second thought is the affirmation of this editor and others opinion on the character of abusive and generally negative commentary. Attitude and affronted comments take away the value and worth of Real Climate. For all those who cannot contain their ego’s and attitudes…Go somewhere else with your soapbox. Please leave what is a world treasure, RealClimate, unblemished by unsubstantiated values and personal attacks of all nature.**
Well said. I would like to add that keeping commenters from repeatedly posting spam and false information has led to a degradation of the quality of comments and ideas. People (understandably) get put out and frustrated when bad actors like KIA et al clog up the thread with nonsense and debunked science. It’s tedious to have to continually scroll past all that to get to the quality comments and ideas. I want to learn something new when I visit this site. Thanks
From the Guardian:
Global heating could stabilize if net zero emissions achieved, scientists say
This gives the wrong impression that if “net-zero emissions” were to be achieved, then the Earth’s Energy Imbalance would be zero (setting aside the steady flow of heat from the molten core).
At net-zero emissions (and stabilised surface temperature), the Earth would have an energy imbalance which would be heating oceans, melting ice and thawing permafrost, but not increasing Earth’s average surface temperature.
The Earth would still be warming (i.e. accumulating heat) and there would be consequences. e.g. sea-level rise, dying oceans and permafrost feedback.
“Warming stabilizes” is not only inaccurate: It stops grown-up discussions of the aftermath of “net-zero”.
Can we ask Prof Mann to be more precise with his language?
Re: Geoff Beacon, May 8
The net-zero emissions means a DROP in the atmospheric CO2 (since some of the natural sinks keep removing CO2 even when we stopped adding it). Then, as Hausfather explains:
“This falling atmospheric CO2 causes enough cooling to balance out the warming ‘in the pipeline’“. Hence Mann’s conclusion: “warming stabilizes within a couple decades”
And if we maintain net-zero, or even better if we move into negative emissions, the atm. CO2 will continue dropping – causing cooling that after these “few decades” becomes larger than the pipeline warming. And dropping surface temperatures make the water vapour and sea-ice albedo positive feedbacks, which in the past amplified the warming, now amplify the cooling.
Both Mann and Hausfather see it as a good thing:
Mann: “What this really means is that our actions have a direct and immediate impact on surface warming. It grants us agency, which is part of why it is so important to communicate this current best scientific understanding.”
Hausfather: “The main takeaway for me is that this is good news, because it means that how much warming happens this century and beyond is up to us.”
And which counters the doomers, who knowingly or unknowingly demotivate everybody by implying that t is too late: since we are already locked into a massive warming, then no point doing anything – let’s enjoy what we have, while it lasts, and “After us, Deluge”. This time around – quite literally.
And actually, Geoff’s original story was pretty clear in making that same point:
Yes. Stabilized increases is nonsensically suicidal. This is why NetZero gets trashed by the more systemic thinkers.
Geoff,
You’ve brought up this point in the past, and I think I said then that I agree with you about imprecise, or careless, or sloppy language… whatever you want to call it. But you have to be careful as well if you want to critique the professionals and demonstrate better communication.
I try to avoid “warming” altogether, and stick with “increase in the energy in the climate system”; if you put them together as you did then you are engaging in a definition debate rather than discussing the physics.
I’m still not sure if you understand that once you stop increasing CO2, the “energy imbalance” is temporary. There will be some new equilibrium state, with a higher energy content for the climate system as a whole, for the new “constant” (slowly reducing) CO2 number.
So what we are talking about is the period between stopping the increase of CO2 and reaching that new equilibrium state.
I’m not sure, but It sounds like you are thinking that some “tipping point” has already been reached, where “feedbacks” like permafrost and ice melt become permanent forcings. (Perhaps you could clarify that in more precise language).
But if that is what you are suggesting, it’s contrary to how I understand the physics, and I think the consensus would agree.
Thanks Zebra
How long does it take for the Earth to reach this equilibrium state and to stop increasing its heat content?
Isn’t it several centuries?
During this time, seas keep rising, storms intensify and oceans keep dying ???
I know I’ve said some of this before but are there any clear explanations of post net zero conditions from the climate experts – explanations, which policy makers can understand?
I worry that net-zero is just not good enough and net-substantially-negative is necessary.
Geoff,
I don’t know what detailed analysis is available for the different projected scenarios… maybe someone else can give a reference.
But a couple of points:
1. Whatever happens after you stop the increase in CO2 is so much better than what happens if it continues, that it seems pointless to worry about it, because as a pessimist I think even just getting to that zero point could take centuries… I would be happy if it were just one century.
2. On the optimistic side, the (continuing) energy increase after zero additional CO2 is not necessarily going to produce the identical list of negative effects, which is where I think you may be going astray. As Piotr points out, you may well see ice and snow in various contexts increasing, and so increasing albedo. And, if land temperatures are indeed stabilized, the risk of melting permafrost goes away.
So, as is often the case, the correct answer is: “it’s complicated”.
“And, if land temperatures are indeed stabilized, the risk of melting permafrost goes away.”
I don’t think this is true. What we “think” is going to happen with those things in the future is not fact, it’s forward-looking and, since we’ve never been here before, at best an educated guess, so I find it inaccurate to state that as a declarative. Many effects that were once expected at much higher CO2 levels are already happening. I see no reason to assume we are getting that perfectly accurate today.
Given we are likely to be at 450 CO2, minimum, before we are done. the assumption NetZero equals stabilization is a dangerous and far from certain assumption.
Geoff Beacon,
Although it is as zebra says being “complicated”, I think you are correct to mention the “several centuries” to reach an equilibrium state, if that is not an under-estimation for equilibrium with a future constant global SAT.
There are obviously things today that are a long way from equilibrium with the present level of warming. Not least of these is sea level that under SSP1-1.9 (which sees global temperature peaking by 2050 in AR6 fig SPM8a) is modelled with SLR still increasing strongly a century after 2150 (AR6 fig9.27). The full stabilising of sea level will take over a millennium. (IPCC AR5 talked of 2.3m SLR/ºC warming, so with the 0.25m SLR we’ve seen so far, we can expect 14x more of it at a +1.5ºC equilibrium). Additionally if the warming is enough to destabilise the Greenland ice cap, that will continue to melt down for quite a few millennia before equilibrium.
So if the deep oceans & ice caps require warming to reach equilibrium at present levels (and we can add permafrost to that as it is also going to keep melting for awhile), those warming fluxes are resulting in on-going the cooling of some parts of the surface which would thus logically undergo warming as equilibrium is reached, And in the icy bits, we can also imagine some associated albedo feedbacks as well.
So if there is some areas warming but the global average is steady or cooling, there would then have to be other areas experiencing a compensating level of cooling greater than the global average.
Geoff,
I think the main issue with a comment like Mann’s in the Guardian is that it’s a bit of a red herring. The net zero proposition by any date this century is a useless thought experiment that should be presented as such and not like anything actually achievable.
I also don’t see how the term ‘irreversible’, frequently used to describe ongoing tipping points, suddenly seem to have vacated the dictionary when a thought experiment like Mann’s is being used to describe a possible equilibrium within a few decades.
I am just as baffled as you are.
Peter,
I agree that net zero this century is unrealistic. However:
Geoff’s original comment was correct about imprecision of language, and as I pointed out to him, if we want to criticize that we have to be better disciplined ourselves.
There’s no such thing as an “ongoing tipping point“. Think about it.
People seem obsessed with this idea of positive feedback without understanding what it means. It doesn’t mean that if one square meter of permafrost melts releasing CO2, the melting of all the rest is now “irreversible!!!”.
As far as I know, nobody (among the professionals) thinks we are anywhere near such a condition. Permafrost is contributing some fraction of the total CO2 increase. If you remove anthropogenic sources, so that the total is constant or slowly diminishing, the system as a whole will continue to gain energy for a while… it doesn’t all go to the permafrost. You have to look at the physics of the particular variable in question. If it is correct that land surface temps don’t increase, how does the energy get to the permafrost? And similar reasoning can be applied to sea ice and snow and glaciers re albedo.
I would argue that to reach an actual “tipping point”, where natural forcings through positive feedback would be irreversible, we would be long past the point of no return anyway.
So if you are indeed a pessimist like me, you should understand my point #1 to Geoff.
I must add that also
There seems to be record cherryblossom and “Kron- år” crown year Picea abies L. blossom. That sign corresponds surely with crown- year of apples about everyb 5th year., Malus domesticus and x- domesticus. But that will take solid rain further in the season because until now in Mars & April it has been record draught. It is cathastrophy in the electyricity prices due to this and to Putin.
All should be in order in Ukraina this year due to proper snow in that region earlier this spring, snow even in Tyrkia and over Westfalen. As it looks, it may be a crown- year of wines.
If they could only behave in the climate.
Northern Norway has got quite enormeous of snow with avalanches. The more snow, the better for them. It shurly melts and rushes out each time.
This is a comment from me on the theme long-term weather forecasts and the connections between weather forecasting and ongoing climate change. I have sent it to the publishers of the blog severe-weather.eu , but thought it maybe could be of some interest here too.
Since june 2021 there has been a more and more persistent drought in Southern and especially Southeastern Norway. Already in late september 2021 the water flow in the rivers here was the lowest ever measured (measurements of this began in the early 1950s) and except october 2021 (which had a little above normal precipitation) and february 2022 (almost normal precipitation), all months have had below to very far below normal precipitation. March and April 2022 had no precipitation at all, the driest ever measured for 122 years. Despite all the changes in AO, NAO, time of year etc. the weather patterns have been extremely persistent: almost all precipitation falls in the western/coastal regions of Norway from around 62 degrees N and northwards until around 70 degrees N and 25 degrees E in northernmost Norway. All low-pressure systems move either in a northwestern direction along the coast, or they move to the south and east of Southern Norway.
This seems to be dependent on an extremely persistent high-pressure ridge strechting from Northern France/South Britain to Southern Norway. What now wonders me, is that both these and some other weather patterns (which I mention below) seems to be trending in the same direction in the years since mid 2015, even if the factors that you always mention like the strong polar vortex, the AO, the NAO, La Nina/El Niño etc. are not the same at all.
One such pattern since mid 2015 is that it is persistently colder than normal in the region between Baffins Land/Labrador and western parts of Greenland below the Arctic circle, while warmer to exstremely warmer and drier than normal in especially southern parts of Scandinavia and the european mainland/Great Britain. Especially in the summer and late spring this is the case, but also in the winter. Most extreme were the summers 2015 and 2018-21. It doesn’t matter if we have El Niño like 2015-16 (-17 “superficial El Niño”), neutral conditions or La Nina like 2020-22 (and now maybe 2023?), positive NAO (most of the time in winters since 1996) or negative (mainly in the summers, but not so much since 2017). The brakedown of the strong polar vortex this year in March hasn’t changed the weather pattern in these regions at all, and frankly the forecasts for spring and summer this year mentioned in your postings since March are all just the same, the high-pressure ridge mentioned above is just in the same position all the time, and the temperature and precipitation pattern the same.
That being the case, I wonder if not some other factors are beginning to overwhelm the ones which your writings about long-term forecasts focus upon. These factors could be: 1) more meltwater from especially western parts of the Greenland ice sheet cooling the waters between Baffins Land/Labrador and Western Greenland and thus cooling the air masses in this region, maybe slowing of the Gulf Stream system doing the same (one branch of the North Atlantic Stream going south of Greenland has been weakening since the late 1970s, among other things destroying the cod-fishing in Western Greenland), 2) retraction of the polar sea-ice-cover in the Barents Sea and warming of the seas in Northern and Western parts of Europe (not quite consistent with weakening of the Gulf Stream system…), 3) very strong warming of the Middle East, South Asia and Northern Africa in the summers especially which has also been persistent for decades now (and strangely never explained in the litterature, it seems to me) and 4) maybe a pattern in the gradual spreading of greenhouse gas emissions with the Westerlies from the main industrial and densely populated regions in Eastern USA, Western Europe, Middle East and South Asia? Since the CO2-level in the troposphere is now higher than in at least 15-25 million years my thought is that maybe we are entering a different mode in the global wind and temperature patterns, and this is altering some weather patterns that are not dependent on the El Niño/La Nina, NAO, AO, polar vortex/sudden stratospheric warming episodes etc. as these have been acting until fx. around 1990?
Another point here is that the warming seem to warm the continents more than the oceans, this is well-known and in accordance with climate modelling. One consequence seem to be more precipitation along parts of the coast and over the oceans, while the regions with continental climates become more dry. As far as I know this is also in accordance with climate modelling results, please correct me if I am wrong. Now I wonder if the tendency towards more drought in larger parts of the continents, fx. here in northern Europe in the years since 2014 is related to this.
I hope this is within the new rules for commenting. Any comment would be very welcome.
Hr Johansen
Now it is raining again and we have planted potatoes. The very reliable indicator Prunus padus L is not yet at blossom, but it blossoms in Drøbak. The Storm.no weather forcast says light steady moderate rain in Oslo after 20. mai.
They have had snow and rain back in southern Russia and Ukraina in Mars-April.
So I believe that it is the fameous “polar vortex” the Jet- stream or Midgardsormen- Jørungandr, that lies around the world biting itself in the tail by weak van der waals forces and makes snaky meanders. It is said that those meanders will be more stable as the climate heats up.
I take this for the best explaination yet.
At the moment, the NAO index barometric pressure in Reykjavik dividet through the barometric pressure at the Azores seems to turn and change over.
Yes, here in SE England we seem to have swapped our maritime climate for a wet and dry one (again). Only two days of useful rain in the last five weeks here in W Sussex. Met Office have upgraded the wildfire risk in Surrey to amber. This is the third consecutive prolonged dry spell in spring, interspersed with wet or very wet periods (winter 2019/20 very wet and mild, summer 2021 wet in SE England).
No rain forecast in my home town for the next week at least. Quickly consuming stored rainwater on my allotment to keep transplanted crops alive. One benefit of the persistent dry weather is the slug activity is well below normal.
I need to get to grips with how to grow UK crops in a UK climate that seems to have lost much of its high frequency variability and in recent years seems to be heavily influenced by these blocked weather patterns.
Dear Sirs, I just thought of something. If Methane gas and a bunch of other industrial gases are far worse global warming things than just carbon dioxide, when jet aircrafts travel through the sky, do their jet engines suck in a lot of these extreme-warming gases and destroy them? We had a “Little Ice Age” back in Shakespeare ‘s time, when that Krakatoa volcano erupted, and emitted so much Methane gas, which creates countless sunlight reflecting droplets floating throughout the Earth’s atmosphere, cooling it and diming the sunlight so that vital food crops don’t grow, and famine was everywhere! If we do have another massive volcanic eruption like that, which does the same thing, could some kind of jet aircraft burn up the excess Methane gas up there so at least our food crops keep growing?
Re: Robert G Schreib Jr , May 8.
1. Methane is a greenhouse gas, so it warms Earth, not cools it. It didn’t create “countless sunlight reflecting droplets“. The cooling was due to SO2.
2. Volume of air going through jet engines is miniscule compared to the volume of troposphere, so is the ability of jets to “burn the excess CH4”.
Thank you for taking time to change the comment policy. Let’s hope it will work for the benefit of us all.
Straightforward and highly impactful climate solution: Austria is offering a climate ticket valid for all public transportation countrywide. Price 1095 EUR/year or 3 EUR/day.
https://www.railtarget.eu/passenger/bb-austria-released-klimaticket-multi-pass-for-all-platforms-including-rail-anywhere-in-the-country-for-3-eur-1059.html
Go ahead and ask your elected officials for a similar offer in the US. While doing it, remind them that we deserve a contemporary passenger rail system in America, including high-speed rail. As rail is the cleanest means of mass transportation, another climate solution.
Price 9 EUR/month or 0,3 EUR/day
https://www.berlin.de/en/news/7443153-5559700-9euro-ticket-for-public-transport-to-sta.en.html
The cost to the state are estimated €2.5 billion / 3 months.
In many places, its capacities will probably also have to be increased – which is specially good news for citizens in rural regions. After the first 3 months (6-8/2022) we will see how many car drivers would switch to public rail and bus transport – and how much Russian fuel could be saved with it.
Economic, positive effects can also be achieved by shifting freight transport to rail or, for example, by setting a speed limit on german highways.
Hr Schürle
The railway anywhere stands and falls wityh the railway restaurant. I have seen that in Holland and it rules anywhere. If that is the place where you meet and invite your business class guests, then the railway is OK and in order. If not, you rather buy a new car.
Speed limits in Germania have allways been obvious.. In the East, and even in the west.
Very happy to see that “Unforced Variations” lives on!
But the 1 post a day is going to make useful conversations virtually impossible. Let’s hope the evaluation period leads to choosing moderation over limitation or these boards will be of little use and they may as well just make their posts and leave it at that.
Well, there’s my one.
Yes!
Volcano Tonga ejected huge amounts of water into the upper stratosphere. Some scientists estimate the release at 100 megatons. The water vapor concentration is the highest at 25 hPa for at least the last 20 years. What effect on the climate should be expected?
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1562573/v1
https://twitter.com/simoncarn/status/1505678985556107264
[Response: Undetectable. These reported effects are very localised (in comparison, Pinatubo had an -3 W/m2 effect on the *global* radiative forcing). – gavin]
Question for Moderators:
Does the one-per-day limit and other policies apply to UV only?
It seems that the “Demarcation” thread, which could have led to an interesting discussion, has been buried under the usual blah-blah-blah of repetition, among the usual suspects, with the usual personal stuff, and certainly not on the topic itself.
It is the topic posts like that, that you people produce, which are the most interesting and educational here. To me, it doesn’t make sense to police UV but let those be destroyed.
Study on geoengineering that seems quite useful: “Risk–risk governance in a low-carbon future: Exploring institutional, technological, and behavioral tradeoffs in climate geoengineering pathways.” Published in the Risk Analysis Journal. It includes a wide definition of geoengineering: Carbon capture and utilization and storage;, Afforestation and reforestation; Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage; Biochar; Soil carbon sequestration or enrichment; Ocean iron fertilization; Enhanced weathering and ocean liming or alkalinization; Direct air capture; Blue carbon and seagrass; Ecosystem restoration; Space mirrors; High altitude sunshades;
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.13932
Yup. Saw that. Says exactly what one should expect if one practices risk analysis: The highest risks lie with tech-based responses, the lowest with N-bS.
This isn’t rocket science, which begs the question, why do so many either not get this or ignore this?
Rhetorical question.
@Killian
What does it mean – N-bS
The link nigel junior posts above says:
To determine and examine the risks and tradeoffs that may arise within and resulting from climate geoengineering pathways, our knowledge base relied on a large pool of semi-structured interviews with prominent experts with expertise about 20 climate geoengineering options:
Carbon capture and utilization and storage;
Afforestation and reforestation;
Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage;
Biochar;
Soil carbon sequestration or enrichment;
Ocean iron fertilization;
Enhanced weathering and ocean liming or alkalinization;
Direct air capture;
Blue carbon and seagrass;
Ecosystem restoration;
Space mirrors;
High altitude sunshades;
Stratospheric aerosol injection;
Cirrus cloud thinning;
Marine sky or cloud brightening;
Albedo modification via human settlements;
Albedo modification via grasslands and crops;
Albedo modification via deserts;
Albedo modification via clouds;
Ice protection.
BTW, I found a graphic that shows the potential of the “carbon sequestration in agriculture” measure you advocate.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/figures/summary-for-policymakers/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png
I think one of the most important measure: “additional irrigation” has unfortunately been forgotten there.
It is a well-known fact that photosynthesis requires water.
In our German forests (~50°NH), 60-80% of the trees are already diseased or even dead. The causes: first the drought, which then induces pests such as the bark beetle but also forest fires. Storms then often finish off the forests.
Most crops are C3 and C4 plants, which require around 1000L of water to assimilate 1-2Kg of carbon.
The water volume of 1335km³ additionally retained over land areas that I have proposed has the potential to absorb ~9Gt CO²/y additionally, which actually corresponds to ~25% of the total human global emissions.
You can place these 9Gt CO² in the graph yourself – reforestation and also your carbon sequestration also work better with sufficient water. In his graphic, Zeke Hausfather simply forgot about spreading deserts and global water shortages.
Reducing the runoff via sewers, streams and rivers into the sea by that volume and turning it into evapotranspiration will reduce sea level rise to zero – if you like it or not, it will also create additional clouds/albedo and improve the transport of energy from the surface to the atmosphere.
Nature-based solutions. But this is not a useful term. building a sea wall out of sand could be a N-bS and be nearly useless. We need regenerative systems responses, to be a bit more specific.
The IPCC knows nothing about regenerative design/regenerative ecological engineering. Do you remember the 2007 report and how it included nothing on cryosphere dynamics, yet confidently predicted 30-some centimeters as the top end of SLR by 2100?
This is like that. The IPCC has nothing to tell you about N-bS that is worth your time.
Killian asks:
Apparently I remember that ‘faut de mieux’ estimate rather better than Killian; there was nothing “confident” about it whatever. Here’s what the text says:
Well, that’s what they say about it on page 420, because on the next page, they add:
Then there’s some more yadda before they get to the bit about dynamic ice loss:
Then they present a couple of alternate methods of projecting SLR, but end thusly at the very bottom of page 421:
If all that is “confident,” then as Dorothy Parker said, “I am Marie of Rumania.”
Oh, and the AR4 worst case SLR wasn’t 30 cm, it was 59. (Table 10. p. 420; Figure 10.33, p. 421.)
Funny…. but I recall YEARS of it being stated all over hell’s half-acre that SLR was just not a big deal, well under 1M, precisely because of that milquetoast statement. 95%?????? But that doesn’t say “confident” to the public? Sure you can point to the 5%, but that is *not* what people tend to take away from such a statement.
As ever, you are avoiding the point to support poor/weak conclusions.
Then you quote where they say “by a similar amount.” Well, the 5% already covered it , so that’s redundant. But, WOW! A whole 70cm? Man, that’s really going out on a limb!
Even then there were scientists saying the numbers were definitely going to be higher. I know because it was one of those comments that got me focused on climate when I had been paying most attention to energy issues at that point.
Go one with your middle-of-the-roadery. It’s maladaptive, but you do you. And try to remember what the *public* perceives is what matters, not what the scientific jargon specifically says 95% confident they were right? My statement stands. As ever.
I suggest you stop taking swings just because you know how to type. We need germane discussions, not nitpicking on quarternary issues. There were much more interesting discussions you could have spawned from my post. Useful ones.
MS: Reducing the runoff via sewers, streams and rivers into the sea by that volume and turning it into evapotranspiration will reduce sea level rise to zero – if you like it or not, it will also create additional clouds/albedo and improve the transport of energy from the surface to the atmosphere.
BPL: No it won’t. You’re forgetting the Clausius-Clapeyron law. We can’t do a thing to increase or decrease the amount of water vapor in the air.
@BPL: – ” No it won’t. You’re forgetting the Clausius-Clapeyron law. We can’t do a thing to increase or decrease the amount of water vapor in the air. ”
YES I CAN – You’re forgetting that the Clausius-Clapeyron law is only valid in a closed system.
The Clausius–Clapeyron relation characterizes behavior of a closed system during a phase change at constant temperature and pressure.
The atmosphere as a spherical shell is only closed at the top (tropopause) and below (earth’s surface) – you will not find any horizontal limits on a sphere. No matter which region you are in, you are constantly surrounded by neighboring regions from which a wide variety of air temperatures, water vapor content and atmospheric pressure conditions are imported.
In Las Vegas and the remaining ~ 50 million km² of desert on earth with daily temperatures of 50°C and 20% rH, the Clausius-Clapeyron relation does not work because there is simply no water available for evaporation, which inevitably leads to higher air and ground temperatures at the surface.
The rising hotter and drier air ensures that clouds that may be present at higher altitudes increasingly dissolve and thus even more short-wave radiation arrives at the earth’s surface.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/extremely-hot/
By Stefan Rahmstorf and Dim Coumou (2012)
” … since weather is highly stochastic and global warming can also affect the circulation patterns of the atmosphere. …
… So now you lost evaporative cooling, the incoming sunlight turns into sensible heat rather than a large fraction going into latent heat. That is a non-linear feedback, and not an imagined one. … ”
In those dry, regional conditions I can evaporate a lot of additional water – as long as I have the water volume and the area available. And these additional water volumes will NOT significantly increase the total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, but rather within a few days will leave the atmosphere as precipitation, due to the short residence time of water vapor.
My 1335km³ of additional irrigation/evapotranspiration only INTENSIFIES the water cycle
(1 – 1.5% of the annual rainfall over land areas) while the water vapor content of the atmosphere remains more or less the same as you know.
So if you’re clever enough to connect a garden hose to your brand new attic rain barrel, or pee on a tree (which I doubt) rather than pouring your water down the drain – you too are able to increase the amount of water vapor in the air or even raise the water table. –
MS: In Las Vegas and the remaining ~ 50 million km² of desert on earth with daily temperatures of 50°C and 20% rH, the Clausius-Clapeyron relation does not work because there is simply no water available for evaporation, which inevitably leads to higher air and ground temperatures at the surface.
JP: Your numbers look very strange. Far from having daily summer temperatures of 50C, the record high in Las Vegas is 47C. Even Phoenix, which is hotter, has only reached 50C once since 1895. 20% RH is quite high at that temperature. The moisture would have to be advected in from the ocean.
MS: The rising hotter and drier air ensures that clouds that may be present at higher altitudes increasingly dissolve and thus even more short-wave radiation arrives at the earth’s surface.
JP: You have the meteorology wrong. The extremely high temperatures are produced because subsidence prevails aloft, and descending air warms and dries out. That’s what dissolves the clouds. If you ever had 50C with 20% RH in the U.S. Southwest, the region would erupt into violent thunderstorms as the rising air reached the lifted condensation level around 675mb. It takes far less extreme conditions to produce “monsoon” rains. In places where you might actually get 50C and 20% RH, such as near the Persian Gulf, it is because a shallow layer of moist maritime air is prevented from mixing vertically by a subsidence inversion. Instead, it mixes horizontally with the dry air further inland.
MS: You’re forgetting that the Clausius-Clapeyron law is only valid in a closed system.
BPL: It isn’t. It’s valid for atmospheres as well. Don’t just make stuff up, Macias, it’s too easy for people to check.
Hr Schürle
Mr Levenson is right for once here, however short.
How can you immagine that natural laws only rule in closed systems, in the test tube, in the chemical bottle, in the closed barrels and cans of isolated calorimeters and pressure or vacuum tanks and not frurther out in open air wild nature and in the very universe when no such restrictionjs are defined and set to them?
You are obviopusly lacking the deep cdhosmological and holistic artistic wisdom of Hermes Trismagistos and Tycho Brahe. Despicio suspiciendum Suspicio despiciendum and Microcyhosmos in Macrochosmos/ Macrochosmos in Microchosmos.
How can you possibly study science in the lab and in the chemical bottle and in the aqvarium and out in wild nature and in the solar system, on the moon and further on if that is not so? How can any principle be appliciable to anything next?
Just how can you understand and use Aladdins lamp or the PNEVMA in the drums if the spirits and ghosts do not come out fom there and enlight the very situation even yourself? How can Edisons lamp sell and spread to the very world and into the climate if it is not appliciable and valid everywhere?
@BPL –
In thermodynamics, a closed system can exchange energy (as heat or work) but not matter, with its surroundings.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Diagram_Systems.png/330px-Diagram_Systems.png
The atmosphere is one of the Earth’s most efficient integrators. The atmosphere connects to almost every part of the Earth system—the lithosphere (i.e., solid earth), the hydrosphere (i.e., oceans), the cryosphere (i.e., ice), and the biosphere (i.e., life from microbes to plants to animals).
The atmosphere transports energy and atmospheric constituents—
In the atmosphere, water is always trying to achieve a balance between evaporation and condensation while never really succeeding. The conditions under which the phases of water are in balance require 100% relative humidity and as you know they depend on only two quantities—the amount of water and the temperature.
Equilibrium conditions, often called saturation, are expressed mathematically by the Clausius–Clapeyron Equation – but the real global mean relative atmospheric humidity is only ~78% and it is decreasing with climate change – not stable.
A 7% higher evaporation with a temperature increase of 1°C usually ensures an intensification of the water cycle – !!! but not in the expanding deserts and also not on sealed, urban areas, the cleared forests or regions that have too little water available on the surface due to summer drought or are deliberately drained by humans.
When these drier land areas are additionally irrigated, evaporation, rH, clouds and precipitation increase with a slightly higher total water vapor content of the atmosphere.
@JP & BPL – ” Your numbers look very strange – You have the meteorology wrong ”
— The topic you’re answering to is about the intensification of the hydrological cycle – not meteorology in the US Southwest.
At 50°C and 20%rH (16.6g/m³), Clausius-Clapeyron lags far behind the saturation (83g/m³) – regardless of whether Las Vegas or India is experiencing extreme heat and drought.
Even 42°C and 35%rH are suitable here in Europe (50°NH), for example, to reduce crop yields and exacerbate water shortages, etc…
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep38752
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-022-00912-7
The Sahara is expanding northwards at about 27 km/y, while the continents are losing about 100 km³ of water/y. This trend can only be countered with additional water retention and irrigation over the land areas. Just like the Egyptians did 4000 years ago and still have to do it today if they don`t want to starve.
In the current energy balance, the value for evapotranspiration over land is 38W/m².
This value can be increased by artificial irrigation, which correspondingly reduces the values for sensible heat flux and thermal up surface radiation.
It should actually be known since Aristotle that increased evaporation also increases cloud formation and precipitation – only BPL and a few others are still standing in the forest and cannot find their fly or a tree to pee on.
MS: It should actually be known since Aristotle that increased evaporation also increases cloud formation and precipitation – only BPL and a few others are still standing in the forest and cannot find their fly or a tree to pee on.
BPL: What is your obsession with urine about, and why should we care?
Nobody disputes that more evaporation leads to more clouds, all else being equal. But all else is probably equal since nobody knows if clouds increase or decrease with increasing world temperatures. Cloud extent depends on more than airborne water vapor.
Your scheme to increase clouds by increasing airborne water vapor won’t work, since we can’t increase airborne water vapor by any useful extent. The Clausius-Clapeyron law again.
This raises questions about whether MS ideas are useful. “Effects of global irrigation on the near-surface climate….We found that irrigation alters climate significantly in some regions, but has a negligible effect on global-average near-surface temperatures….”
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1004&context=nasapub
@nigel junior – Thanks for your helpful link. Their conclusions:
* While direct evaporative cooling is important, at least as much cooling
seems to be caused by indirect effects such as increased cloud cover. *
also confirm my concept as far as quantitative global cooling is concerned.
Although the connection with an actively lowered sea level rise is completely missing, I am confident that in the future many people and also scientists will no longer view it as pessimistically unstoppable and depressed as they still do today.
The paper you linked describes the cooling effect of 2600km³ of artificial irrigation on just 18% of the agricultural area (2% of the land area). This is about twice the volume of water that corresponds to the current annual sea level rise (~3.4mm).
Unfortunately, the paper says nothing about how the origin of the water (groundwater or river water) is quantified. Let’s assume that half of the volume comes from groundwater and half from river water – thus only switching from groundwater to river water alone
!!! can stop sea level rise !!!
However, in order to increase also the cooling, evaporation rates and cloud cover accordingly, there is another 82% agricultural area, but also 1.5-2 million km² of urban areas are available that can be equipped with water retention measures.
A technique that was practiced 1500 years ago in one of the driest deserts in the world certainly has the greatest potential for rewetting moors and forests. https://hidraulicainca.com/
I don’t think there’s much question about that. The math has never added up.
MS, you seemed to miss the main point in the study that .”We found that irrigation alters climate significantly in some regions, but has a NEGLIGIBLE EFFECT on global-average near-surface temperatures….” which is why your various schemes simply don’t work, as you have been told many times by many different scientists on this website..
There is no real usefulness for a paper that only addresses irrigation. We irrigate to achieve ends, not just move water. And, with regenerative agriculture, the need for irrigation is greatly reduced, even eliminated in cases. (There have always been plenty of farmers who relied solely on rains, btw.)
I find MS’s ideas basically redundant: Keep the water on the land you never have to waste energy and resources bringing it back. Occam’s Razor.
The term is written as both N-bS and NbS: Nature-based Solutions.
Yes, regenerative design begins with considerations of water management. We can grow food in areas of as low as 6 inches per year of rain. It’s all about infiltrating, capturing and holding the water.
@Killian – ” We can grow food in areas of as low… ”
— My tip for the future agricultural industry are indoor greenhouses with vertical growing, hydroponic systems, artificial watercooled LED-lighting and optimized growth conditions including CO² fertilization with up to 10000 ppm.
In a 100m high building in the middle of a big city, a farmer can produce (depending the plant species) up to ~15,000 times the harvest all year round than on the same area as outdoor farmers, using only 5-10% of the needed water.
Not only does he produce and sell his own agricultural organic products, PV, wind power, biogas, fertilizer and heat, but saves the earth a great deal of logistics, packaging, pesticides and absorb lots of CO².
At least in theory, ~15,000 times the building area can be substituded and will be free in the open land in order to permanently store further CO² on reforested areas.
Such LED-light heating systems with negative emissions (CO²) are also interesting for private household use – you can even build those grow chambers by yourself at very little cost. Just tell me, if you like more infos.
https://www.lumen-laden.de/products/coolmac-300-1500w-grow-chamber/
MS said “My tip for the future agricultural industry are indoor greenhouses with vertical growing, hydroponic systems, artificial watercooled LED-lighting and optimized growth conditions including CO² fertilization with up to 10000 ppm.”
My tip for you: Choose regenerative. There are better options to manage temperatures. Always remember: Natural before mechanical, mechanical before high-tech. What you propose would be the very last option, not the first. And, sustainability and good design are *always* determined by local conditions. Cookie-cutter solutions are maladaptive.
Cheers
@Killian –
K. – ” There is no real usefulness for a paper that only addresses irrigation. We irrigate to achieve ends, not just move water. And, with regenerative agriculture, the need for irrigation is greatly reduced, even eliminated ”
K. – ” We can grow food in areas of as low as 6 inches per year of rain. ”
— YES KILLIAN – THAT`S REALLY GENIOUS !
It seems that you have reinvented photosynthesis in your regenerative laboratory – thanks to your ingenuity it now works without water. With only 15mm/y of rainwater, you are now standing as a super hero in the middle of the Sahara or Atacama desert in front of lush corn, wheat fields and tomatoes in full juice and let yourself be celebrated by millions of desert dwellers who would have died of starvation without your genius .
But when you wake up, you will find that most cultivated plants have to evaporate ~100L of water through their leaves to build up 1kg of fresh mass (~80% water content).
So you have to reckon with the fact that your annual harvest/m² with 2 ingenious cherry-sized tomatoes will be quite sparse. Genetically engineered drought resilience doesn’t help here either.
The Dutch greenhouse tomato grower laughs at you and sends you his tomatoes 3 times around the world to compete with you on your marketplace.
Like you, I am really convinced of regenerative agriculture and of the great potential of bringing CO² underground this way – but without water it makes no sense. Even in regions where there is still plenty of annual precipitation (>~800mm), irrigation is an issue, since in many regions the maximum water requirements of plants, trees and people occur together with ever hotter and longer periods of drought.
If, after 2 weeks of drought, the humus content in the soil has also dried up, the farmer without irrigation loses crop yield and profit or even ALL with each additional day of drought –
Without irrigation, he also limits evaporation, cooling and cloud formation in the region, of which the paper you dubbed superfluous provides a very convincing analysis.
0.7W/m² higher latent energy flow over the global land areas through irrigation and higher evaporation of approx. 1000km³ water cool down the earth temperature by approx. 0.2W/m² or 0.05-0.1°C due to an improved cloud cover.
The authors and Nigel junior find this negligible, but further advantages of better availability of water over land are obvious, as long as the additional water volume is not served by lowered groundwater levels, but by rain and river water it is a typical no regret measure , which kills many birds with one stone.
– stabilized sea level
– Less flood damage
– better resilience to drought or lowering of low water levels
– Thicker potatoes and farmer’s income
– lower water prices
– an additional cooling capacity of 680KWh for the ground and the surrounding air in summer for every m³ of irrigation
– higher cloud formation especially in summer and thus a higher albedo over the global land areas with a cooling effect on the average global temperature of the earth
– Maintaining or improving the CO² assimilation of terrestrial plants
(1-2Kg carbon adsorption / m³ transpired H²O) = 4- 8Gt CO²/y.
– Less wind erosion, species loss… and much more.
Global warming (water) cooling – clearly as unnecessary as a goiter – just doesn’t interest our master of regeneration.
Desertification —> Water Scarity —> food security – no problem as long as Killian can bury enough organic material in the dry ground and still can grill a steak near the pool.
@nigelj – ” Space mirrors ”
What does a space mirror have to look like in order to withstand cosmic radiation and space debris for many years ?
Which area does it have to shade in order to generate a cooling radiative forcing of e.g. -1W/m² ?
” High altitude sunshades “
Can these sunshades also be natural clouds that would result from additional artificial irrigation ?
Do clouds pose any unknown risks to humans and/or nature ?
Why do many of the experts in climate geoengineering want to improve the albedo of the sky when improving the albedo on the earth’s surface would be much easier, cheaper and faster to do ?
(brighter cities, agriculture, …better albedo for any outdoor product designed by humans)
I can respond to at least some of those questions. The orbital debris and radiation environments are going to depend on the particular orbit in which they are deployed. If the devices are deployed in Earth orbit, presumably, you’d want equatorial orbit. At low altitudes, the radiation environment is dominated by protons, but you often have to deal with atomic oxygen and a lot of orbital debris. Protons get worse as altitude rises to a few thousand km above Earth’s surface. In part, this is why you don’t have a lot of orbital debris. In Geostationary orbit, the electrons are pretty fierce–and for a sunshade, you don’t have any shielding.
If instead of Earth orbit, you put the sunshield at L1 (an attractive option), it’s have to be huge, but it would maximize effectiveness by being between the Sun and Earth. Here, the radiation environment is dominated by occasional solar particle events. Not much orbital debris here.
No matter where you are, you’d need the ability to keep your station–so the shade would have to have propulsion, avionics,…
@Ray Ladbury
My question to nigel junior (who appears to be on vacation) was more about the nature of these mirrors. Which material, thickness, area does this mirror have to have in order to withstand proton bombardment and possibly smaller meteorites.
Above all, the question of how high will the cost/m² be for such a reflective surface far out in space and how many decades will it take to build it up ? – why not simply invest today
$ 2 – 3/m² to cool urban areas with highly reflective paints (e.g. cool roof regulation / California 2010), what with something similar cooling effect would probably be x thousand times cheaper and faster.
In that sense, the science involved in these space mirror projects could dissipate and invest money and brains in more realistic research. IMHO the same applies to science, which deals with marine cloud brightening, direct air capture or stratospheric aerosol injection.
macias shurly, May 16: Can these sunshades also be natural clouds that would result from additional artificial irrigation ?
Both mirrors and clouds increase albedo, but unlike mirrors – clouds ALSO do warming (absorption of IR by water).
For the clouds part – the net effect depends on height of the clouds, on whether they are made of liquid droplets or ice crystals, on day or night etc. As a very general rule of thumb – during day: low dense clouds cause net cooling (their albedo cooling exceeds warming due IR-absorption) although much less than a comparable-size mirror, while high “wispy” clouds cause (a small) net warming (their albedo cooling is less than their IR-radiation warming). At night both types of clouds cause warming – since they still absorb IR, but there is no solar light to reflect. That’s why cloudless nights are so cold.
But this is only half of the problem. Your artificial irrigation increases evaporation, but until the air reaches 100% humidity (or more -in clean air without many CCNs (cloud condensation nuclei) the clouds do NOT form – so zero albedo cooling, while quite a bit of EXTRA warming due to extra conc. of water vapour in air.
And since the artificial irrigation is done by definition in … dry places – the amount of water vapour you have to emit into the air just to reach 100% humidity, and thus the amount of EXTRA IR absorbed, may be quite large.
Combine these two effects:
– the warming by increasing the humidity + by the water in the clouds + the fact that there is no cooling but only warming at night,
– with cooling during day at low heights
and net effect is much smaller – and it may go either way – cause small global cooling or warming.
Not mentioning environmental consequences of increased artificial irrigation – drying out and collapsing of aquifers, or degrading the soil by salinification and toxic pollution: as the irrigation water evaporates it leaves behind salt, pesticides and other pollutants- see the fate of the Soviet cotton fields along the rivers flowing toward the Aral Sea.
Finally, the increased evaporation would ultimately rain out = directly into the ocean or indirectly – onto land and then into the ocean by rivers. Wouldn’t this sabotage your previous scheme – you wanted to store extra water on land to counter sea-level rise, right?
So it seems that we have a solution (your rain barrels) in a desperate search of a problem to solve… ;-)
@Piotr
Why don’t you just want to read the condensed knowledge of the most recognized experts before repeating your accumulated ignorance and misinformation about clouds and my strategy for the 5th time.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter07.pdf
“… without clouds 47W m–2 less solar radiation is reflected back to space globally
(53 ± 2 W m–2 instead of 100 ± 2 W m–2), while 28 W m–2 more thermal radiation is emitted to space (267 ± 3 W m–2 instead of 239 ± 3 W m–2).
As a result, there is a 20 W m–2 radiative imbalance at the TOA in the
clear-sky energy budget (Figure 7.2, lower panel), suggesting that
the Earth would warm substantially if there were no clouds. ” (page 935)
It’s best to start on page 933
7.2 Earth’s Energy Budget and its Changes Through Time
learn the difference between CRE (cloud radiative effect) — cooling net effect = ~ 20W/m²
and
7.4.2.4 Cloud Feedbacks in a warmer climate ( αC = 0.42 W m–2 °C–1 ) (page 971)
Better understanding of how clouds respond to warming has led to more confidence than before that future changes in clouds will, overall, cause additional warming (i.e., by weakening the current cooling effect of clouds). This is called a positive net cloud feedback.
FAQ 7.2 | What Is the Role of Clouds in a Warming Climate? (page 1022)
Why don’t you macias shurly learn to read your own source? WHERE does it supposedly contradict my arguments, namely:
:
1. that unlike space mirrors that increase albedo WITHOUT absorbing IR, clouds do both – which means that their albedo cooling is at least partially countered by IR absorptions by the water in the said clouds ?
2. that to even form clouds – first you need to increase the water vapour concentration to 100% or more of relative humidity.
So your clouds albedo cooling is offset NOT ONLY by IR of the water in clouds, BUT also by all the additional water vapour you had to put into the air (say from 50% to 100% rel. humity) just to even create any clouds.
And your proposed now increasing of evaporation – RAISES sea level by returning water directly or indirectly to the ocean, which is in the direct contradiction to your previously stated scheme of reducing sea level by preventing water from returning into the ocean.
@Piotr
Clouds have been around for 4 billion years and with their albedo they have always made the earth cooler (~20W/m²).
Space mirrors to cool the earth do not exist – and they will not exist in the future either. Nobody can be stupid enough to fund a job that costs $ xxx Mio. while on the surface of the world the same job costs only $ 2,50.
(only 99% confidence – because there are quite a few experts like you)
BTW – if you criticize a concept, you should at least have read it. But nothing is written there about space mirrors and aquifers, which I supposedly want to pump out. It’s the other way around – I intend to fill them up,… and without pesticides and salts.
Hr Schürle
white clouds with very high albedo do not cool down the earth. They are the follower and consequense of earth ande oceans heatintg up. See Le Chateliers principle. Not a climate force and driver but a consequense and thus a negative feedback.
A certain fameous Richard Lindzen has consceived his “Iris- theory” based in this fact, but it is highly dubious that it can be strong enough to stop and to counteract and cool,down again the expected CO2-AGW. in near future.
Here you must learn to reallize regional and global magnitudes, scale and proportions in it.
During the fameous Snowball Earth- period 700 million years ago, there was extreemly “fine” weather wit blue sky and brilliant sunshine and very clear starry nights worldwide. We can guarantee.
And during max pliocene from 50 to 5 million years ago there was quite much warmer than in 0ur days with huge grey and cloudy and rainy weathers and less sunshine and deserts worldwide. That can be easily seen by fossile evidence. Kao- Lin sediments even at high latitudes and huge fameous sediments of Lignite brown coal entail a quite enormeously green and rainy and cloudy world with Megafauna that ate down all those vegetables.
All this is fossilized facts and natural principles that will be impossible for you to countgeract with your tiny rainbarrels
What rather matters is the CO2 and the H2SO4 content of the atmosphere on major climate forcing or catalytic level,… and the major weather patterns that come and go rather irregular stochastic on regional level, that decide where and when it rains or dries up.
Not even Thor managed to beat up Jørumgandr or to drink the oceans empty ,
Macias Shurly: Clouds have been around for 4 billion years
Thank you, Captain Obvious. When you get to answering the two points I made let me know.
This risk-analysis framework looks useful even for “ordinary” climate mitigation approaches. For example, the “social backlash” tradeoff is fully in effect in the United States for solar PV: U.S. solar expansion stalled by rural land-use protests.
The reduction in usual suspect noise has already turned Friday the 13th into an auspicious date for National Jumping Frog Day
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/05/district-of-columbia-to-celebrate.html
GISTEMP has posted its LOTI numbers for April showing a global SAT anomaly of +0.82ºC, well below March’s +1.04ºC anomaly and down on Jan (+0.91ºC) & Feb(+0.89ºC) as well.
April 2022 becomes the 7th warmest April on the GISTEMP record (was 6th in the ERA5 reanalysis), below April 2016, 2020, 2017, 2018 & 2010 but above 2014, 2007, 2015, & 2021. April 2022 becomes the -75th highest all-month anomaly on record in GISTEMP (56th in ERA5).
In terms of the start of the year, after 4 months 2022 in GISTEMP (like ERA5) remains as 5th warmest.
…….. Jan-Apr Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.25ºC … … … +1.01ºC … … … 1st
2020 .. +1.17ºC … … … +1.01ºC … … … 2nd
2017 .. +1.06ºC … … … +0.92ºC … … … 4th
2019 .. +1.01ºC … … … +0.97ºC … … … 3rd
2022 .. +0.92ºC
2015 .. +0.86ºC … … … +0.90ºC … … … 5th
2018 .. +0.85ºC … … … +0.84ºC … … … 6th
2010 .. +0.83ºC … … … +0.72ºC … … … 9th
2007 .. +0.80ºC … … … +0.66ºC … … … 12th
2021 .. +0.77ºC … … … +0.84ºC … … … 7th
2002 .. +0.75ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 16th
2014 .. +0.72ºC … … … +0.74ºC … … … 8th
The IRI/CPC ENSO Forecast through recent months has been showing increasing likelihood of La Niña conditions stretching to the end of the year with the likelihood of an El Niño shrinking very low.
For any and all techno-future pipedreamers (and nuclear is included for all the reasons noted before):
Simon Michaux: “Minerals Blindness”
https://us04web.zoom.us/j/79978309316?pwd=QkN4ZFowL2JhS2xvUEo4dDYzeEpUUT09
A little reality on energy, technology, resource limits, etc. Climate policy has a rather narrow window. That’s about to become clear to a lot more people…
Chill. Killian, the climate policy Overton Window has been thrown open by the prospective interaction of galactic cosmic rays with dark matter dust bunnies
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/05/garbagemen-of-galaxy.html
I have been calling the equation for the logarithmic forcing of surface temperature by CO2 concentration,
F = S*log(c/c0)
where S is the climate sensitivity constant, c is the CO2 concentration and c0 is a base concentration, typically 280 ppm.,
the Arrhenius law, in honor of his 1896 original research.
Is this a correct name?
No, the Arrhenius Law is something in chemistry. This is the radiative forcing equation, and was most recently associated with a paper by Myrhe et al. (1998).
Barton, thank you! That was enough to determine that this approximation for the forcing was stated in IPCC 1990, on page 100/414 in my browser, where it is attributed to Wigley, 1987. I have encourporated this discovery as
https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/748/climatology-background?page=1&scrollTo=8350
The Wikipedia page on Arrhenius quotes his 1896 paper as stating what amounts to the logarithm for the increase in temperature with the increase in carbon dioxide. So I have edited the BNC Discussion forum to incorporate this, calling the equation for Δt the Arrhenius-Wigley rule:
https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/748/climatology-background?page=1&scrollTo=8350
To state matters again here, this is not a scientific ‘law’ but rather a simplifying, constitutive rule for the approximate calculations.
The RSS TLT numbers have been posted for April with an anomaly of +0.68ºC, well up on March’s +0.58C, Feb’s +0.49ºC and Jan’s +0.54ºC. (The SAT records show April with a drop in anomaly – GISS April with the lowest anomaly of the year-so-far.)
April 2022 sits as the 5th warmest April on the RSS TLT record (=4th in UAH TLT, 7th in GISS SAT & 6th in ERA5), April in RSS behind Aprils 2016, 1998, 2019 & 2020 and above 2010, 2017, 2005, 2021 & 2018. April 2022 is 49th in the all-month RSS TLT rankings (=50th in UAH, =75th in GISS SAT & 56th in ERA5).
After the chilly early months of 2022, the first third of 2022 in RSS TLT rises (from 11th spot Jan to March) to become the =7th warmest start to the year (=9th in UAH).
In the SAT records. (GISS & the ERA5 reanalysis) 2022 Jan-Apr slots into 5th place, higher placed than the TLT records as the El Niño wobbles elevating 1998 & 2010 are far smaller down at the surface.)
…….. Jan-Apr Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.08ºC … … … +0.81ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +0.89ºC … … … +0.82ºC … … … 1st
2019 .. +0.74ºC … … … +0.75ºC … … … 3rd
1998 .. +0.71ºC … … … +0.58ºC … … … 8th
2010 .. +0.70ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 5th
2017 .. +0.66ºC … … … +0.69ºC … … … 4th
2022 .. +0.57ºC
2021 .. +0.57ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 6th
2018 .. +0.55ºC … … … +0.54ºC … … … 9th
2007 .. +0.54ºC … … … +0.42ºC … … … 13th
2015 .. +0.53ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 7th
2005 .. +0.52ºC … … … +0.47ºC … … … 11th
I am starting to see more research articles on using machine learning (ML) to solve sticky climate variability topics than those that apply physics models. What happens when these start working well but no one understands why? That’s what’s happening with neural net ML models of language, see this https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/noam-chomsky-and-gpt-3?s=r
Actually doesn’t sound too much different than the “just-so stories” that climate scientists often use to explain natural variability ;) The best way to avoid this is to prefer physics-based ML models over pure statistical ML models.
MS, There are only enough empty aquifers globally to store one years worth of sea level rise (at current rates of sea level rise). Saw an analysis on this. Therefore the whole exercise is pointless and is just a massive. waste of huge quantities of money, time and resources. When will you ever understand this?
@nigel junior – ” Saw an analysis on this. Therefore the whole exercise is pointless ”
I have the impression that you have problems filling your own bathtub and also suffer from Alzheimer’s – because I answered this very question to you and everyone present (Piotr, BPL, Carbonito) 3 months ago.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/02/unforced-variations-feb-2022/#comment-801955
Unfortunately, you don’t have the slightest idea to discuss the water cycle and the global energy balance. If you have seen an analysis of the existing water reservoirs, then please post the link and the facts – this saves me the time of having to explain everything to you 5 times.
You constantly deny that arid regions will become even drier in the future and that desert areas and waterscarcity will increase. But our experts in everything don’t need water, not for their food security in the fields, not for dry rivers and lakes, not in the desert, nor in the hell they are headed straight for
– with their big mouths.
@carbonito – ” white clouds with very high albedo do not cool down the earth ”
The same applies to you – you have absolutely no idea about the global energy balance, which is part of the basic knowledge about climate.
We have known here in the forum for a long time now that you are in lively exchange with Thor, the Pope and Mickey Mouse – but you should also listen to the IPCC from time to time. I posted 9 days ago.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter07.pdf
“… without clouds 47W m–2 less solar radiation is reflected back to space globally
(53 ± 2 W m–2 instead of 100 ± 2 W m–2), while 28 W m–2 more thermal radiation is emitted to space (267 ± 3 W m–2 instead of 239 ± 3 W m–2).
As a result, there is a 20 W m–2 radiative imbalance at the TOA in the
clear-sky energy budget (Figure 7.2, lower panel), suggesting that
the Earth would warm substantially (~+5°C) if there were no clouds. ” (page 935)
– otherwise you ( and your grandchildren) will find yourself blamed in the middle of the internet with your clueless claims.
MS.
“If you have seen an analysis of the existing water reservoirs, then please post the link and the facts –”
Find the information yourself. You are claiming we can fix the sea level rise problem by storing water in old aquifers. Did it occur to you to actually do any research on how feasible that actually is? What volume is available in old aquifers? How far you have to transport the water? Apparently not yet you expect us to take you seriously.
“You constantly deny that arid regions will become even drier in the future and that desert areas and waterscarcity will increase.”
Never denied it. Stop LYING.
Nigelj
I come to that it is a study of surrealism, that also has got its formal and ideological roots and principles. And that is a trained tradition for many.
I recommend to try rather and see it as such and in that connection. .
@MS The topic you’re answering to is about the intensification of the hydrological cycle – not meteorology in the US Southwest.
If that was the topic you wanted, why did you post incorrect information about temperatures and humidity in the US Southwest? Why should anyone accept your reasoning about the hydrological cycle when you make mistakes about the basic meteorology of desert areas, including large scale vertical motion and the generation of clouds? You seem to be proposing that we import huge amounts of water into desert areas.
@JP – ” You seem to be proposing that we import huge amounts of water into desert areas. ”
And why do you post incorrect information about “what I propose ?
I propose to globally retain more rain & river water between 60°NH – 60°SH whenever where ever possible to increase soil moisture, ground water levels and evaporation.
I`m not so bussy in the deserts for certain reason, but even in deserts there are new ways to have more water available
Above I only explained to @BPL and Carbonito, that the atmosphere is an open system and not a closed system – exactly because it can exchange matter(e.g. water). The Clausius-Clapeyron equation by definition is only valid in a closed system and gives you an exact amount of water(vapor) content at a given air temperature when the air is saturated (100%rH).
C.-C., BPL & Co. expect ~14% more water vapor in the Atmosphere in a 2°C warmer world – but that is not what we observe on earth. We observe decreasing mean rH, cloud cover and increasing sunshine hours, that increase the incoming shortwave radiation and temperature at the surface specially when there is less or no water present at the surface.
Global Desertification, hot and dry conditions are not weighted out by wet regions that will become wetter.. I estimate that we have only 11,5% more evaporation in a 2°C warmer atmosphere.
That corresponds to ~300km³ of water missing in the atmosphere. So to doubt in general that I can bring additional watervapor to the Atmosphere in hot & dry condition – is just a silly BPL-joke.
.
https://www.contactrelief.com/media/assets/weather-insights-2018-08-20.003.png
Maybe the right place for him to exercise…
It’s not unusual for an Atlantic hurricane season to start after the end of May although the last seven years have managed to kick off with at least one storm before the end of May.
So a bit later than recent years and 2022 looks like it may be kicking-off with a second-hand storm.
Cat 2
Hurricane Agatha formed in the Pacific and has now made landfall in S Mexico. The predictions are presently that the remnants will pass across into the Gulf of Mexico where it may re-form as the first storm of the 2022 Atlantic season.