Be substantive, be polite, be talking about climate.
Reader Interactions
156 Responses to "Unforced variations: Nov 2022"
Michaelsays
This paper discusses the role of the ocean surface microlayer (SML) and the way in which marine biodiversity regulates the climate, and the factors that control marine biodiversity. The authors raise questions about the way in which the SML is taken into account in climate models. To what extent is the SML taken account of climate change models? https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4210551
You asked why in this energy budget diagram the IR from the surface absorbed by the atmosphere (358.2Wm^-2) did not equal the back radiation from atmosphere to surface (340.3Wm^-2). I don’t see a useful answer in the Oct UV thread, although the answers are spread out a bit. (So another one here will be adding to that spread.)
It’s presumably due to the transparency of the atmosphere to IR. If IR has a zero path length before being absorbed by the atmosphere we would expect the surface and the immediate atmosphere to be pretty-much the same temperature and so emitting pretty-much the same levels of IR at each other. Thus back radiation from the atmosphere would equal the total surface emission (398.2Wm^-2). But path lengths are not zero.
Firstly, there is 40.1Wm^-2 from the surface that shoots straight off into space. This is because there are gaps, parts of the spectrum that are entirely transparent in the atmosphere, neither absorbing nor emitting. These gaps will reduce the ability of the atmosphere to radiate back to the surface. Helpfully, this reduces the up-down difference from 57.9Wm^-2 to 17.8Wm^-2, thus effectively the value you were querying in the Oct UV thread.
So secondly, while we know where it is that the surface is radiating from (obviously the surface), the atmosphere will be radiating back to the surface from different distances above the surface, this dependent on the IR’s path length in the atmosphere for the particular wavelength. As these high-up bits of atmosphere radiating IR with long path lengths down to the surface will be cooler than the surface, they will be radiating less IR. On average this reduction in radiation presumably amounts to that 17.8Wm^-2.
JCM, if you are going to dismiss what people are trying to explain by saying you “have a hunch” that they are wrong, what’s the point of them trying to explain? You can keep doing that forever, so it is just a waste of everyone’s time.
You have to provide some input. If you can’t explain why you think the two rates of radiation we are talking about should be the same, then you are obviously not interested in understanding what’s happening.
And if you don’t accept the measurements that tell us what the two rates are, then you are just engaging in conspiracy theories, which is even more of a waste of time.
UAH TLT has been posted for October with an anomaly of +0.32ºC, the second highest monthly anomaly of the year-so-far and up on September’s +0.24ºC. The Jan to Oct anomalies spanning +0.00ºC to +0.36ºC.
October 2022 sits as the 4th warmest October on the UAH TLT record, behind Oct 2017 (+0.47ºC), 2020 (+0.38ºC) & 2021 (+0.37ºC) and ahead of 2019 (+0.29ºC), 2015 & 2016 (both +0.28ºC), 1998 (+0.24ºC) and a bit of a drop to 2003 (+0.12ºC) and 10th spot 2005 (+0.11ºC).
August 2022 sits =33rd in the all-month UAH TLT rankings.
2022 to-date still sits in 7th place in the year-so-far average anomaly rankings with 6th spot now looking the likely outcome for the full calendar year. To drop to 8th would now require the Nov-Dec anomaly to average below a seriously chilly -0.12ºC. To rise to 6th would require the Nov-Dec average to top just +0.22ºC. A further rise into 5th spot would require a worryingly scorchy average above +0.65ºC for the next two months.
…….. Jan-Oct Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.42ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 1st
1998 .. +0.41ºC … … … +0.35ºC … … … 3rd
2020 .. +0.37ºC … … … +0.36ºC … … … 2nd
2019 .. +0.28ºC … … … +0.30ºC … … … 4th
2017 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 5th
2010 .. +0.23ºC … … … +0.19ºC … … … 6th
2022 .. +0.19ºC
2021 .. +0.13ºC … … … +0.13ºC … … … 8th
2015 .. +0.11ºC … … … +0.14ºC … … … 7th
2002 .. +0.09ºC … … … +0.08ºC … … … 10th
2018 .. +0.08ºC … … … +0.09ºC … … … 9th
When I see UAH (or RSS) mentioned reminded how well that the oceanic AMO index overlays that measure since 1979 — at a correlation coefficient of about 0.75 considering how erratic each of them are. Now there is a new paper out titled Millennial-scale climate variability over land overprinted by ocean temperature fluctuations in Nature Geoscience where they claim an ” emergence of a marine-driven low-frequency regime governing terrestrial climate variability and sets the basis to project the amplitude of temperature fluctuations on multi-decadal timescales and longer.”
Every time I see the title of this thread I think to myself that there is no such thing as an “unforced variation” in climate behavior. In reality, every single movement in climate is forced by some other external “forcing”. One can assert that it is a chaotic attractor or an eigenfunction defined by the internal dynamics, but it is actually difficult to verify this is the case — remember that no controlled experiments are possible with the climate, so one can’t generate an impulse and monitor the natural response, So I’m of the opinion that nothing at the scale of the climate will move spontaneously of it’s own accord,
No. Incoming flux – Outgoing flux = surface balance = 0.6 absorbed.
Incoming flux = Net solar + back radiation = 163.3 + 340.3 = 503.6
Outgoing flux = LW emitted by surface + conduction/convection + latent heat = 398.2 + 18.4 + 86.4 = 503.0
Full equation (163.3 + 340.3) – (398.2 + 18.4 + 86.4) = 0.6 net absorbed at surface
Due to increasing greenhouse gases, more heat is being absorbed at the surface than radiated back out, and the planet is heating up. This number is strongly constrained because most of the heat is going into the ocean, and has been observed for about 20 years. Most of the rest goes into melting glaciers, and a small amount absorbed by the land surface and conducted into deeper layers where it is shielded from seasonal cycles.
Another look at your numbers:
>Net Solar + Back Radiation – Atmosphere Absorbed – Window – Turbulent flux of H & LE = 0
(Net Solar + Back Radiation) is the influx at the surface. But it is not equal to (Atmosphere Absorbed + Window + Turbulent flux of H and LE) because the first two of those concern what happens to the flux AFTER it has already left the surface. To get the balance, you need to look at how much is leaving the surface, not what happens to it once it has already departed. The turbulent flux term is correct. Because the system is out of balance, it won’t all add up to zero, either.
>163.3 + (340.3 – 358.2) – 40.1 – (36.8 + 86.4) = surface balance
Your equation is not using the correct terms. The (340.3 – 358.2) = (-17.9) that you’re calling the “discontinuity” is not meaningful. It is the difference between some of the heat that’s being transferred to the atmosphere and all of the heat from the atmosphere that is re-radiated to the surface, in the net amounts. A portion of that radiation might be making several trips back and forth
>163.3 + (-17.9) – 40.1 – (104.8) = +0.5
Was this supposed to be a reduction from your last equation? (36.8+86.4) = 123.2. I don’t follow where
your (104.8) came from.
>The brackets are introduced to highlight my areas of interest.
>Assuming the values are well constrained:
> What is the meaning of the (-17.9)? How is it differentiated from the window (-40.1) by an observer at the surface?
See above. You can’t differentiate the -17.9 from the -40.1 window by observing at the surface because they concern what happens to the LW flux once it has already left the surface.
>Is there a rationale why the +0.5 can’t originate from a perturbation to turbulent flux. It seems rather small compared to the uncertainties in quantifying LE.
Yes, it seems to originate from your math error, rather than anything that’s been measured.
October month has been the warmest in European history.
One is discussing climate.
October has also been the warmest that I can remember here in the Oslofjord by many signals, for instance, no frost at all till now and morning frost comes normally about one month earlier. Potatoes for instance must be picked BASTA! at oct 10th.
Our very exotic wine- tree at 150 moh 60 deg north had sweet grapes 1. sept and kept until oct 20ieth. That is Goldener october, you see. But vino is no good climate indicator because there are so many cultivars and brought out of their natural habitats. A better indicator for us noted along with Köppens climate system is wild oak and apples.
There has been plenty of autumn rain and more is coming. Hydroelectricity comes in order again, electricity prices are falling as we are connected by cables to the EU- network.
Also The sun seems to be in order again, a lot of Aurora Borealis is reported.
But the russians are not in order. We must pray for them. And Uncle Sam is hardly in order either. King Donald Grozny seems to be coming back.
Greta Thunberg seems to be in order, she will not go to Kairo.
JCHsays
“I see 358.2 LW absorbed in the turbulent mixed layer, and 340.3 downward LW.
This is a discontinuity of 17.9 Wm-2.
Can anyone provide physical observation of this discontinuity? A tower site or something which demonstrates it to exist?
Where there is a net 17.9 Wm-2 flux of radiation into the atmosphere from the surface? Seem strange to me. The boundary layer is dominated by turbulent diffusion of mass, heat, and momentum. It’s pretty well mixed.
That is quite a large discontinuity….”
Absorbed solar radiation at the surface = 163.3
latent heat = (86..4)
Thermals = (18.4)
————————————————-
Absorbed SW emitted as LW= 58,5
———————————————–
LW absorbed at surface = 340.3
Surface energy imbalance = (0.6)
———————————–
Total emitted LW = (398.2)
———————————–
grand total = 0.00 (balanced)
==================================
zebrasays
For MAR, John P, and JCH
MAR and John: The problem here is that you are trying to give a long explanation for a question that makes no sense in the first place.
Forget the numbers for a minute. JCH does not (or is unwilling to) understand and accept the physical process. He doesn’t quite get conservation of energy, and he doesn’t get that energy takes different forms, perhaps because of his agenda.
Asked why he thinks the energy emitted up from the surface should be the same as that emitted down from the atmosphere, his answer is that “it’s a hunch”.
Until you get him to explain, beyond “it’s a hunch”, the physical reasoning, what’s the point of answering? It’s not a math mistake on his part; he’s just engaging in the Denialist tactic of creating the illusion of actual controversy.
JCH: There is no reason for the two values to be the same; asking the same question over and over is wasting everyone’s time.
Bob Loblawsays
Note that we have a “new” participant in this discussion on energy balance diagrams – JCH.
This is added to JCM from last month, who it appears is now going to have a back-and-forth with JCH. No signs yet of Schurle, in any of his Schurle-esque personas. I would not be surprised in Schurle is dropping his Schurle monikers, and created the new JCH scnreen name to supplement the JCM screen name.
Highly likely they are all the same troll.
JCHsays
The 17.9 JCM is asking about is solar radiation absorbed by the surface that is emitted as LW and reabsorbed by gases, I forget their name, in the atmosphere. There is no discontinuity, and I have been commenting at RC for a very long time.
John Pollacksays
What is the problem? You’ve shown that the surface energy budget balances.
The “discontinuity” arises from your expectation that two dissimilar terms should nevertheless be equal.
Energy enters the atmosphere and is absorbed from a variety of sources: long wave solar, short wave from the surface, plus convection of sensible and latent heat “Absorption” consists of converting other forms of energy into heat, warming the free atmosphere.
Once the atmosphere has been warmed, the heat is converted back into LW radiation. Some of that goes back to the surface (340.3). However, there is no particular reason to expect that the amount that goes back to the surface will exactly match the amount emanating from the surface that is absorbed by the atmosphere (358.2). Atmospheric energy also gets absorbed from other sources. It also exits the atmosphere in other ways. The total energy entering and leaving the atmosphere has to balance, not the amount of LW exchange between the surface and the atmosphere.
Solar Jimsays
Just asking, perhaps this should read “variety of sources: short wave solar, long wave from the surface” ?
John Pollacksays
Yes. Thanks for the correction. I did mean to write “short wave solar, long wave from the surface” as you suggested.
Alastairsays
The total energy entering and leaving the atmosphere does not HAVE to balance, and at present it does not, and the atmosphere etc. is warming. The planet will continue to warm until the energy returns to a balanced condition. In other words when CO2 levels return to their previous level which produced a balance with the incoming solar energy which has not changed.
Just what are you going to find out?
I cannot see your problem
You are giving DATA with 4 chiffres in your system argument and then teacdhintg us of “… the boundary layer that is dominated by turbulent diffusion of mass, heat, ande momentumm that is pretty well mixed…”
… then what is your problem, more than that you are hardly learnt and and aquaintede on how to measure up and quantify a system as you describe it. How to observe, measure and to describe and to quantifty and how to discuss a mess, a complex mixture, a stew and a brew and a turbulent chaos.
JCHsays
Somebody has a problem; it’s not me. It called an energy budget.
It is probably because you are not responsible for your budgets and your accountsw being true and realistic .
I have withnessed that also indeed in the case of money and economy budgets, where the same is often called cheating and bluff or even stupidity in the budgets and accounts.
It is caused through lack of matematical formation, you see.
“Durch nichts verrät sich der Mangelm an matematische Bildung häuffiger und deutlicher und stellt sich zur Schau, wie durch masslose Genauigkeit in den Zahlenrechnungen”.
I have allready made aware of that effect here.
This very fameous sentence opinion is according to the great matematician Friedrich Gauss.
JCHsays
Whatever. Nothing of substance; plenty of diarrhea.
Your religious political racial etnical diarrhoea here is substancially due to your lack of mathematical formation / matematische Bildung, as defined by http://www.Friedrich/Gauss..
Cameron Pidgeonsays
Returning to discussion on the Inflation Reduction Act, what are peoples predictions regarding it’s likely reversal after the US mid term elect elections?
There is a real disconnect between the political elite in Washington and the lived experience of the rest of the population. Economic inequality and political disenfranchisement has been on the rise for decades. Some blame this on the wealthy elite, who have subverted democratic processes to serve their own ends and resist climate action as maintaining the status quo is in their self interest, although this is starting to change. .Others blame a much broader and nebulous elite which includes the political class, intellectuals and some of the wealthy elite while excluding ‘rebels’ in the political and wealth elites.. This group generally sees climate change as anything from overstated to a false narrative created to undermine the rights and freedoms of US citizens.
My hope is that there is enough momentum to resist too much push back from a republican congress but it doesn’t look hopeful.
Well, they will certainly try. I am still hoping the Dems hold onto a majority in the Senate. And Biden still has the veto. The Insurrectionist party may be too busy investigating Hunter Biden’s laptop to get much done. What I expect is that they will send a few damp squibs toward 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, get them sent back to sender and then they will hold the debt and/or budget hostage if they don’t get their will.
So, I may have a whole bunch of unexpected holiday next year.
Lots of wildcards–like who gets indicted in GA, NY and federal court.
Not if one reads. Try talking to an actual anthropologist and reading a book less than 100 years old. Completely incorrect. Egalitarianism dominates human history by a very large margin. The closest one can get to what you regurgitate from outdated sources is that even ancient societies fluctuated between small-group egalitarianism and large-scale egalitarianism seasonally.
I’ve posted sources before that make your statement absurd. Read them, What’s obvious is you have not, yet still post as if you know things.
nigeljsays
Killian.
This book is published in 2012: “Human beings are hierarchical animals…..”
And a very recent source I posted on Octobers UV thread: “As the Stanford study reveals, hierarchy is innate, it’s in our DNA, while egalitarianism is a learned way of being.”
Yes I acknowledge hunter gatherers leaned strongly towards egalitarianism and for a long time but obviously this doesn’t prove its innate. It may have been a learned response that worked for those conditions. I’m also not suggesting extreme forms of hierarchies are a good thing either.
Please provide links to back up your claims humans are inherently egalitarian. I’m not searching back over this website. I’ve kept my response brief because its all getting off topic and I don’t want to annoy people.
———————–
Kevin, on last months UV thread. I agree things needed to just survive clearly include healthcare. Not sure why I didn’t include that. Email me on it all if you want.
Killiansays
Ten years, dude. Don’t try to make that seem OK. It isn’t. Do you have ANY idea how much we’ve learned in anthropology and archeology in that time? Apparently not.
And then there’s the issue of the dominant paradigm, which is wrong, but still dominates, and which you clearly don’t have the background to critique appropriately.
Some things never change, eh?
nigeljsays
Killian.
“Ten years, dude. Don’t try to make that seem OK. It isn’t. Do you have ANY idea how much we’ve learned in anthropology and archeology in that time? ”
As others have pointed out to you, just because some material is very recent does not necessarily make it correct. Boyles gas laws and Einsteins equations are hundreds of years old but still valid despite the occasional crank trying to prove them wrong.
I posted two links showing humans are innately hierarchical. You have to prove these are wrong by going through them line by line and showing in precise detail why you disagree and providing links to appropriate peer reviewed sources to back up your criticisms as appropriate. Quoting an alternative view does not necessarily prove the previous view to be wrong.
“Some things never change, eh?”
And yes some things never change. For example you are still making claims about source material but don’t back them up with links to specific sources, and you are still making ad hominem attacks on people ( ” and which you clearly don’t have the background to critique appropriately.” And you dont even know what my full qualifications are.
You are also letting the issue of whether hierarchies are innate or not distract you. Humans could perhaps still adopt a more egalitarian leaning culture given some peoples have adopted such a culture ( hunter gatherers). But how far we go doing this should to fit in with the nature of our society which is still going to be quite complex and high population for a long time. In my view trying to run such a thing completely without hierarchies would be inefficient, and its not clear that an egalitarian structure would ensure good outcomes.
Do you realise over 90% of intentional (alternative) communities that attempt egalitarian structures fail within a few years? I googled the issue and the following comments offer some insights:
“Why do 90% of intentional communities/eco-villages fail? Because it is much harder to get along with people than you think.”
“Broadly intentional communities fail for a few big reasons:”
“Open admission policy – “everybody is welcome”. It just doesn’t work. You wind up with more people than you can support, people with mental health issues, people with criminal behavior, people who make no contribution to the group (“dead weight”)”
“Financial problems – bad money management, and / or unrealistic expectations about business. For example farming is often not very lucrative. It is very common for there not to be enough income to support the group”
“Disagreements / fighting inside the group. Who is in control, how are decisions made? This goes all the way down to “who is going to clean the bathrooms” and “who didn’t wash their dishes?”.”
“Getting enough group residents to do enough work to make the commune go. There is never a shortage of people who want to sit around and do nothing. Lots of people are willing to be “planners” or “managers”, fewer are eager to be ‘workers’. Some businesses, like farming, can turn out to be much harder work than people expect.”
“In some “open relationship” and “free love” groups, jealousy caused disagreements and splintering.”
“Angry neighbors. If you make people angry enough, they will find a way to get rid of you. They will report you for violating health codes, laws , how you treat your children (Child protective services,), how you treat your elderly (Social services), how you use your land (Zoning board.) The core problem at Rajneeshpuram was they bought a piece of land that wasn’t zoned for the use they wanted. And they really pissed off their neighbors.”
“Death of the “charismatic founder” is a very frequent cause for groups to break up.”
I know what you are proposing is not precisely like the preceding description, but the description does demonstrate some very real problems that are relevant to things you have posted.
The Guardian article is a bit more heartening because it does have at least a few success stories. I suspect our civilisation will slowly develop some sort of hybrid model that is semi egalitarian.
Killiansays
“As others have pointed out to you, just because some material is very recent does not necessarily make it correct.”
You literally know nothing of the topic and related topics, yet will not stop bloviating, i.e. just because a thought exists does not mean you should write it for all to see how little you understand. But, of course, the Straw Man is all you have, eh? Some things will never change it seems. After all, who said only recent evidence matters? What I did say is your thinking is WAY out of date and that is reinforced by you citing old literature.
Again, some things will never change.
Since you know nothing of sustainability/regenerative systems, why are you posting on the topic? Upon what basis do you place your mewlings against scientists who have worked directly with indigenous people? That is beyond arrogant. Had you *ever* taken the time to learn even the slightest thing about these issues, you might have something to say, but you have not and that is obvious from your, as ever, out-of-date and very White, biased comments.
Personally? I have spoken directly with a fair number of indigenous people myself and the egalitarian nature of their decision-making processes has been a universal feature thus far, and that is backed up by the scholarship of the *researchers.* This is not something you have done. Why risk your lily-white beliefs and assumptions? Those conversations are freely available for you to listen to – but you won’t.
Oh, my, two links that “show” people are “innately” hierarchical? Well, God, thanks! ‘Cause last time I checked show in that sentence would be equal to prove, which such scholarship could not possibly do no matter how good – but we all know neither logic nor science are of any interest to you – and to prove such behavior is innate would mean it would not be possible for there to be egalitarian societies. That, dear Lily-White, is nonsense. As your comments always are.
“For example you are still making claims about source material but don’t back them up with links to specific sources”
Yet another flat-out lie. I have pointed you to anthropologists, listed links to their work, and quite clearly previously stated the existence of my own ethnographic interviews with indigenous people are available online.
You. Are. Lying.
Again.
BTW, it is impossible to use Ad Homs towards you: You are quite repetitive in your use of logical fallacies and outright falsehoods. You will forever frame calling you on such crap as Ad Hom when it is mere truth.
“You are also letting the issue of whether hierarchies are innate or not distract you. Humans could perhaps still adopt a more egalitarian leaning culture given some peoples have adopted such a culture ( hunter gatherers).”
Good lord. You contradict yourself. Or prove you have no idea what innate means. I know, I know…. you merely misspoke…. again. And again, And again.
“Do you realise over 90% of intentional (alternative) communities that attempt egalitarian structures fail within a few years? ”
Now you’re lecturing me on my area of expertise? Again. Arrogant. That ecovillages/intentional communities have had a high failure rate – some say as high as 95% – is due to egalitarianism? Evidence? There is ZERO legit scholarship on that. You are making an assumption based on the correlation of egalitarianism with people seeking just societies. Egalitarinism is not something I have ever heard cited as the reasons for failures. You might consider a few things like too static a population since indigenous populations are very non-static, or attempting to live within an economy that is diametrically opposed to the society they are embedded in. Or perhaps the attempts at idealized idea about relationship models that people attempt without the hundreds or thousands of years of experience and history that underlies the development of unique societies, or…. so many other things. But, no, it must be egalitarianism that caused the failure, eh, Lily-White? Can’t have any brown folk influencing our future, eh?
You don’t think, you merely troll. You see bone you don’t like the look of and you must grind your teeth on it. You are the ONLY person on the boards who responds to literally every posting, every comment thread. Just. Stop. You offer the weakest commentary on these boards bc it is so utterly pointless.
Your little list of complaints? Could be said about any other community on the planet. Your “scholarship” is non-existent.
You know nothing and understand less. E.g., please list the characteristics of egalitarian/regenerative societies, please.
No googling. (Though that wouldn’t help you.)
nigeljsays
Killian.
You still haven’t substantiated your claim that humans are not innately hierarchical with an actual link and copy and paste. Or a quotation from a book ( be aware I will check on the internet, or with the writer to make sure its an accurate quote). How long do we have to wait, and how much of your wild claims, and personal drivel do we have to wade through to find something of substance that backs up your claim?
Richard Creager and myself have provided links and specific books and copy and paste all clearly showing humans are innately hierarchical. I (along with others) beat you in your own so called area of expertise every time because you frequently cant substantiate your claims with proper scientific citations, or even just informed but objective articles, maths, or relevant cogently argued detail.
By the way there’s no contradiction in what I said. The link I posted and the copy and paste clearly stated humans are inherently hierarchical but can LEARN to be egalitarian. There’s nothing wrong or illogical about that. Try actually reading the link.
Killiansays
You still haven’t substantiated your claim that humans are not innately hierarchical with an actual link and copy and paste.
And you’re a liar. I have repeatedly sourced what I have stated above. Truth is irrelevant to a bigot, however. To deny the histories and the present-day societies of living cultures is disgusting.
And here’s yet another proving your bigotry needs to be shoved back down your inappropriate, bigoted throat:
That is the THIRD anthropologist I have given direct links to with all saying exactly the same thing. You cling to comfortable bigoted and racist tropes, long debunked. No surprise from the guy who started out nearly seven years ago calling simplicity primitive and implying that was somehow a BAD thing. Bigotry. From beginning to end.
Seven years of wasting everyone’s time and spreading your bigotry. Shame on you.
Equality is hardly about the age of books in terms of 10E2 years more or less.
If you look to reality now, All russians are equal now exept for Puttler, who is more equal than the others all from Krjeml and throughout Russia.
And look to Kiev. All Ukrainians are very equal now exept for Zelensky who is more equal than any of the others in Ukraina and Kiev. . But one of theese equals are above the other in the grades, according to both of them of what they are saying and what people are saying about them. .
A worst class example of equality above anyone else in the grades now is Jens von Stoltenberg, Chairman of NATO, former prime minister of Norway on behalf of the labour party where all are equal exept for the Party Secretary, who is much more equal than the others, and they all try and equal him. And they feel above anything and anyone else in the grades according to that.
Thus make up your mind. Who is more equal now, Joe Biden & his Kamala, or King Donald Grosny?.
And what about Greta Thunberg, How equal is she?????.
PS
Drunken sailors are unequal DS.
Richard Creagersays
K: All social creatures are hierarchical. Egalitarian= less overt/rigid hierarchies. Read De Waal, maybe start with “Our Inner Ape”.
Killiansays
You read de Waal. He’s wrong. Why bother? Go talk to some indigenous people. de Waal should consider doing so. Go talk to Peter Gray, Helga Vierich. People who have worked with indigenous people. Listen to the interviews I have done on Clubhouse, Regenerative Governance club. Read people who make sense – obviously NOT de Waal. He studies *primates*, for chrissakes. He wrote a book about humans, based on his suppositions drawn from *primates*, not studies of humans.
This is nigel-level thinking!
Egalitarian means a wide range of versions, but to say all egalitarianism is a version of hierarchy is nonsense. As Vierich would likely point out, what *you* might think is hierarchy is not what you are assuming it is.
Richard Creagersays
Killian- “He studies *primates*, for chrissakes.” Let’s see….debating innate social predilection in humans. De Waal studies social structure in chimps and bonobos, the two ape species genetically closest to humans. Let me think……hmmm……could that POSSIBLY be relevant? Think harder, Killian.
Killiansays
No, it really isn’t when you hundreds of sustainable human societies to study and people who study them. Why the everlasting $%@# would you default to bonobos over studies of humans to understand humans?
Given de Waal is getting it wrong – at least according to nigel – don’t you think you should not be so shitty in your response?
So, yes, do think harder. You’re failing.
Donald Neidigsays
World annual energy consumption is currently about 600 exajoules, amounting to
an instantaneous energy dissipation into the climate system of 1.9 E13 Watts, or
about 0.04 Wm-2 over Earth’s surface, most of which must eventually cascade into
heat. This seems significant, but I’ve never seen it mentioned in climate energy
balance calculations. Can anyone please comment? -Don
Ray Ladburysays
It isn’t significant compared to the imbalance caused by greenhouse gas absorption. Mr. Sun is very bright–so much so that even the bites taken out of the re-radiated thermal emissions of the planet still dwarf human energy consumption.
The geothermal flux density averaged over the globe is 0.087 watts per square meter, the surface solar illumination is 188 watts per square meter (165 absorbed), and the back-radiation striking the surface is 327 watts per square meter. Compared to the solar and terrestrial radiation, both the geothermal and the human civilization flux densities are too trivial to make a difference.
Piotrsays
DN: 0.04 Wm-2 over Earth’s surface, most of which must eventually cascade into
heat. This seems significant,
Not really. First, assuming that your numbers are correct they are small – in comparison anthropogenic greenhouse gasses forcing is over 1.4 W/m-2.
Second, greenhouse emission are something we could do something about, We can’t do much about reducing significantly the amount of energy consumed – and that what we could – increasing efficiency, reducing demand and switching to wind/solar – would have MUCH larger impact on the radiative budget via reduction greenhouse gases than via reduction of energy dissipation.
Piotrsays
Oops, “over 1.4 W/m2” is for the CO2 alone, not for “greenhouse gasses“. I.e. the direct heat dispersion is even more insignificant. in comparison.
Donald Neidig,
As others have pointed out, global Primary Energy use stands at 160,000Twh (with the bit that isn’t renewable 139,000Twh or 0.031Wm^-2, although this ignores the energy generated from LUC) is small beer in thre run of things, as this SkS graphic, smaller than the warming from the molten core of the Earth and only 4x the energy input in the tides, and is entirely dwarfed by solar warming.
But unlike these mentioned comparisons, FF+nuclear Primary Energy is increasing, from 98,000TWh (+0.022Wm^-2) in 2001, so averaging a rate of +.0.00046Wm^-2/y since 2001.
The increase in CO2 forcing 2001-21 is given by the NOAA’s AGI at +0.6Wm^-2 or +0.03Wm^-2/y, so 66x greater. (I must admit, that is a bigger ratio than I was expecting.)
Donald Neidigsays
Thanks to all for your responses. Yes, insignificant now. Still, it seems odd that the effect bears no mention. However, as I recall, global energy demand/consumption increased by nearly a factor of 10 in the twentieth century. As the fraction of heating by GHG declines, I wonder what the fractional contribution by energy consumption might become in another few hundred years. Renewable energy sources (solar and wind) are largely exempted as contributors, but the space available for them will become inadequate if energy demand increases by more than another order of magnitude in the future. And non-renewable energy sources (e.g. nuclear) may then become significant contributors to sensible heat production… Just thinking far ahead.
Of course, as Gavin has pointed out in the past, exponential trends don’t stay exponential forever. Often, not even all that long.
Ray Ladburysays
Donald,
The Club of Rome (authors of Limits to Growth and follow-on studies) did take this into account in some of their simulations. If you posit 100% pollution-free energy, thermal imbalances eventually become important and cause collapse. Not gonna hold my breath, though.
Steven Emmersonsays
A new, peer-reviewed study concludes that global sea-level rise could be up to 0.9 m by 2100 and 2.5 m by 2300 if global warming is +2 C by 2100 (RCP2.6/SSP1-2.6).
Killiansays
Only 2C by 2100. How cute.
Can I have a unicorn, too?
And only 0.9 if 2C? Also cute.
The amount of reduction in consumption that would require simply isn’t even on the table… or even in the room at the moment. Go regenerative? Sure. We can be back to < 300ppm well before 2100 should we pull out heads out. But we're not pulling our heads out and consumption roars along.
Until there is a real shift in the rise in temps, I'm assuming each most recent increase in the slope of the temp curve is the new short-term normal until the next upward shift hits. We'll be damned lucky to stay under 3C. And that would require multiple unicorns given the rates of increase in rates of increase we are seeing.
Steven Emmersonsays
@killian Read the study. It makes more than one projection.
Looks like the link is busted. Can you re-post it?
Killiansays
And? I responded to what you posted. Is that a problem for you for some bizarre reason?
Barry E Finchsays
Donald Neidig Depends on what “significant” means. AR5 GHGs totalled 3.45 w/m**2 since 1750. I haven’t looked for AR6 yet but the 0.04 Wm-2 is a forcing that’s 1.2% of the GHGs forcing 1750 to 2012.
Barry E Finchsays
Addendum, I forgot. I been commenting about this for 8 years (bods keep saying Earth is just been heating by humans burning stuff) but I just forgot that it’s actually a lot more than your 0.04 Wm-2. I just used 45 terawatts for the heat for 40% efficiency of generators & ICE plus some wiring heat loss, just a stab in the dark, so correct yours & mine above to 0.09 Wm-2 which is 2.6% of AR5 GHGs totalled 3.45 w/m**2 and is what I’ve replied to a couple hundred GooglesTubes bods for 8 years. So it’s a non-negligible forcing and I occasionally mildly wondered your question.
Piotrsays
Barry E Finch: “2.6% of AR5 GHGs 3.45 w/m**2 [is] a non-negligible forcing,”
To answer you in the words of … Barry E Finch: “ Depends on what “significant” means“.
For me, 2.6% it is not “significant” given the error bars on some of the major radiative fluxes, and
more importantly, given that anything we could do to reduce the energy dissipation – increasing efficiency, reducing demand, and switching to wind/solar – would have MUCH larger absolute impact (in W/m2) on the anthropogenic greenhouse gases forcing, than on energy dissipation.
+
JCMsays
Thank you for the variety of responses.
The balance of the actual atmosphere is described by:
Solar absorbed into atmosphere + H + LE + Thermal IR radiation absorbed by atmosphere – Thermal IR back radiation to surface – Thermal IR emitted by air (gas) to space – Thermal IR emitted by clouds (liquid & solid) to space = 0
Such that the observed imbalance at TOA, or Surface, can only be described by Net Solar, Convection i.e. LE + H, and IR window. The medium of atmosphere itself is balanced, described in the diagram.
Net Solar surface + Back Radiation – Atmosphere Absorbed – Window – H – LE = 0.5
163.3 + 340.3 – 358.2 – 40.1 – 36.8 – 86.4 = 0.5
TOA boundary balance described by:
Total solar absorbed – OLR = 0.5
In summary, it appears to be the only degrees of freedom in the system are the factors of solar absorption, convection into the atmosphere (H + LE), and IR window.
These factors increase (or decrease) the total thermal energy. It should be noted LE is not independent from solar absorbed. LE is inextricable from cloud formation. Furthermore, cloud formation process is inextricable from the IR window…
@MA Rodger provides a convincing argument, relating to IR path length. However, I would argue the air is radiating dependent on its temperature. I am seeking observational evidence of the discontinuity of air vs surface temperature. This has not yet been provided. At what height is back radiation derived? At the surface? Near the surface? At some other height?
Moist surfaces might exhibit cooler temperatures than the air, and dry surfaces might exhibit warmer temperatures than the air. Presumably the net is -17.9 W m-2 away from the surface. Is this the argument? More dry surfaces? If that’s the case, let me know. How does this relate to radiative exchange equilibrium? How does this relate to turbulent flux?
@zebra make accusations of conspiracy ideations. I have no interest in this line of reasoning. I assure you I am interested to understand what is happening. @zebra makes reference to accepting the measurements. This is precisely what I’m after, the measurements. Perhaps even a single observational site which may support the case. Not provided. Avoidance, distraction, and accusation represents someone at a loss for reasonable argument. A lost cause.
@John Pollock makes reference to the surface factors, but makes no reference to the window. This does not address my original questioning of the nature of -17.9 W m-2 discontinuity. Only @MA Rodger attempts to address this, in addition to @BPL.
@John Pollock then jumps to his preferred conclusion that “Due to increasing greenhouse gases, more heat is being absorbed at the surface than radiated back out, and the planet is heating up.” @John Pollock has discarded the various other factors of his formulations, including net solar absorbed and turbulent flux. @John Pollock has ignored the discussions of Dr. Schmidt in regards to EEI and the relation to solar absorbed https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/09/a-ceres-of-fortunate-events/ . @JohnPollock relies on the derived transparency of window 40.1 and does not address this convenient derived term. @John Pollock has ignored several relevant factors in favor of his preconceived solution.
@JCH I’m afraid I have not understood the argument.
I remain at a loss based on this variety of solutions. I see responses ranging from conspiracy ideation to outright ignorance (blindness) of various inconvenient factors. I see a reliance on assumptions, and derived values. I see unclear and under-annotated solutions. I observe nobody addressing the factors outside their preconceived ideology. I see nobody providing the observational evidence for which I have requested. I see nobody providing a coherent response. I see very little consistency in the solutions provided.
I will not even address https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/10/unforced-variations-oct-2022/#comment-806806, for this relies on the adoration of a green tech salesman who cannot be in the least trusted anymore for objective scientific opinion. I find the tactics disgraceful and damaging to the cause of climate change communication and persuasion. I pity anyone who pays money to learn objective science from @Barry E Finch’s idol. It is precisely the presentations I have seen from his idol that enhances my sense of skepticism. The congressional testimony, twitter feed, and tiktoks are an embarrassment to the discipline. There remain very few who have not sacrificed their scientific credibility on the subject of climate. One of the few which remains includes Dr. Schmidt which is why I continue to visit this website.
My personal observation is that the reductionism and assumptions employed here in the comments ‘may’ be causing net damage to environmental policy recommendation. Atmospheric physicists claiming authority on all matters of environment. In my jurisdiction the protections of ecology, including wetland, soils, forest, habitat, and identification of hazard land are being eroded in favor of highly uncertain reductionist values, a politicized confusion. For example, guidance is provided to protect endangered bears by purchasing an electric vehicle and consuming a vegetarian diet. At the surface it sounds absurd, but it is reality. Prophets of atmosphere with the audacity to undermine true environmental values. And they are succeeding, to the net detriment of us all, IMO. Including the fabric of ecological systems.
It seems to me the masses have been convinced, so part of me hopes you folks are right. But it might be worth providing a coherent and consistent description of cause and effect, free from convenience and active ignorance. I observe a truly remarkable set of collectively incoherent responses for a subject which is claimed to be well characterized.
zebrasays
And you still haven’t answered the question, which I and John P have pointed out, as to why one would expect the radiation down from the atmosphere should be the same as the radiation up from the surface.
The atmosphere and the planet’s surface are completely different systems, with different compositions, physical characteristics, and inputs. But you insist that they would radiate at the same rate, because of your “hunch”.
Apart from this irrational misconception, anyone reading what you just wrote would see that it is full of conspiratorial ideation. Perhaps you should refine your arguments and not just keep repeating them essentially verbatim, over and over and over.
Barry E Finchsays
JCM 27 OCT 2022 “Is it possible the latent and sensible flux values have been under estimated … I am not usually convinced by theoretical derivation, so if you know of any observation studies let me know”. Precipitation is measured at numerous places, so not a theoretical derivation. I don’t know about the other possible contributor to error, sensible flux, thermals conduction-convection.
So, last time I asked why China is desperately trying to increase fertility rates given their previous 1-child policy.
Compare and contrast… different countries, different goals. What’s up? (Not just China v Egypt, applies to others.)
A different question I asked was whether people were familiar with Henry George. As I said, I don’t agree with his Cornucopian thinking, but of course he wrote at a different time.
I do find his understanding about resources to be quite on point though. And while my application of the principle as a solution is typically elegant, I wonder why you people looking for a more elaborate policy structure aren’t thinking along the lines he suggests. It’s complicated, but I believe some of it has been applied in isolated cases.
Regarding Henry Georges and Zebras novel ideas. The “elegant solution” of putting all land ( including currently privately owned land) into public ownership looks like a good theoretical idea that would reduce the power base of the elite. However if Biden suggested something like this the legislation would never get passed, not in a million years. It would almost certainly be viewed by most people as communism on a grand scale. You have to consider human nature and how much you can stretch the Overton window with the public. Zebra owes it to us to explain exactly how he would get his plan implemented and make it stick.
Other elegant solutions include Killians simplification plan, and various academics proposals on massive and rapidly applied reductions in energy / mineral use. They come up against the same problem of human nature, and practical constraints, also how to unwind a massively complex industrial society in a way that doesnt trigger a collapse of that society. Perhaps it can be done, but it doesn’t look like something that would be quickly done.
Elegant solutions. Meh. Give me practical solutions that might actually happen.
Piotrsays
Nigel: “,Elegant solutions. Meh. Give me practical solutions that might actually happen.”
Hear, hear. Any plan that demands a radical change in the way the human civilization functions better show a realistic mechanisms in which this change can be accomplished and then sustained.
Otherwise, it is a futile daydreaming at best, and a recipe for going to hell in a handbasket, at worst, with the promises unfulfilled, while the existing social mechanisms (food production, laws, economy, trade, technology) that have, however imperfectly, supported the human population in the past, weakened or destroyed.
Marx theory was quite elegant, counted on the best in the people’s nature (assumed that and based on this – promised social justice, effectiveness and realization of the full potential of humanity.
Yet, the attempts to implement it in practice – resulted in the very opposite of these promises.
A democracy and market, on the other hand, presume the worst about us and, with different degrees of success, design checks and balances and systems that channel the selfish choices of individuals to also benefit the society as a whole.
As they say: “The elegant is the enemy of the practical“. Or : “The road to hell is paved with elegant solutions“. Or something like that.
zebrasays
Piotr, since you wrote a reasoned and coherent comment, let me explain what you may have missed in my argument.
My elegant solution (nothing to do with Henry George except his basic principle about resources, which is fundamental, like conservation of energy in physics) relies on a well-documented observation of human behavior.
Which is that when women are empowered and economically secure, the rational majority acts in a self-interested way by having 2-1-0 children. We have multiple examples of this, (and I keep pointing out China, and still no answer about the government reversal on fertility.)
So my solution for having a sustainable human presence (not for Nirvana tomorrow), which is to have a population that is small relative to resources, is certainly consistent with many aspects of “human nature”. Once you get there, the social structure would very likely maintain it. You wouldn’t have to be hunter-gatherers with no technology, but logical self-interest would result in better choices about consumption, and a more egalitarian socio-economic structure.
This is in contrast to the complicated proposals of George and Marx… hence the use of the term elegant.
As for Marx, especially given recent history, one might argue that there is an inclination towards Feudalism in Russia that has continued through various periods, where the names have changed but the structure has been pretty much the same. It’s that Authoritarian psychology I keep talking about, that continues to be reinforced.
And getting back to George, I think I saw recently that Putin had actually admitted that one reason for his desperate craziness was the rate of the Western push towards using less of the resources that he controlled. (Which of course has now accelerated haha.)
nigeljsays
Zebra says “My elegant solution (nothing to do with Henry George except his basic principle about resources, which is fundamental, like conservation of energy in physics) relies on a well-documented observation of human behavior.. .is smaller global population.”
Zebra is dodging and side stepping. Last month he championed Henry Georges approach to resources, which was essentially to put land an mineral resources into public ownership (read his wikipedia entry).. Its clearly an elegant idea, and might be quite helpful, but it will never get done politically, and runs into some practical problems. There is clearly nothing “fundamental” about it like a law of physics.
It would also greatly help if Zebra had actually stated what his main “elegant solution” was. Then there would be no confusion. Zebra is the guy around here lecturing everyone on “clarity”.
Smaller global population. Zebra has explicitly stated 300 million people so very small. Elegant, and I certainly don’t oppose the idea, but it faces huge hurdles. Although population growth is slowing generally as a natural demographic transition, where population growth has stopped or population is shrinking, its now meeting resistance from government’s worried that there will be too many elderly people and not enough young people to support them! So although it looks like there is an established inevitable population decline, governments will probably manage to slow the rate of decline down! This is the problem with all elegant solutions – they run into huge hurdles.
And even if human fertility drops fairly fast to 1.5 – 2 children ( a reasonably realistic number) it wont get to 300 million people for hundreds of years, and global population wont even stop growing for decades. So we have to be careful we dont see it as a panacea.
And what can we do to hasten a natural population trend anyway? Is anyone seriously suggesting a global body on the issue like the IPCC? Family size issues are too sensitive for that. So the whole smaller population concept is likely develop its own course country by country, and it seems like a bit of a distraction.
One thing Ive read in studies is easy availability of contraception has been the key feature in slowing population growth and smaller families, above all the other factors like economic security, general education, womens overall rights (important that those are). Promoting contraception will always be helpful.
And don’t get me wrong. I’ve thought over population is one of our biggest problems ever since I was a young teenager. Smaller global population makes some sense. But its not going to be easy getting there and its not a panacea.
Piotrsays
zebra: Piotr, since you wrote a reasoned and coherent comment, let me explain what you may have missed in my argument
Soooo, what you are really saying is that my usual comments are poorly reasoned and incoherent, right? And that you overlooked it, and kindly explained to me where I missed your argument. How …noble of you.
Since you keep lecturing others on the effective communication – how would grade yours? I mean – do you recommend patronizng tone toward others and obnoxious patting oneself on the shoulder?
As for your clarification – it made things worse, not better. Originally, you brought in Henry George. As Wikipedia puts it: he “ is best known for his argument that the economic rent of land (location) should be shared by society: “We must make land common property”.
If this is Gorge’s “understanding about resources I am not sure I agree with you that it is as fundamental as “ conservation of energy in physics” ,
But that’s apparently beyond the point, anyway, since your pointing to Henry George was simply … name dropping, with your solution having “nothing to do with Henry George” – since yours is, ta-daaam! “having a population that is small relative to resources”
Whau. How do you define “solution”? I ask because:
– Taken as a statement of fact – it’s no “elegant solution”, it’s a tautology.
– Taken as a goal – it is no solution either – is taking credit for what happens anyway, much the same way George W. Bush instead of GHG emissions cuts proposed lowering GHG-INTENSITY (GHG emission/GDP) – at the exact same rate that the economy was reducing its energy-intensity for the competitive reasons anyway.
Furthermore – the demographic transition which is the only mechanism you are talking about – SLOWS population GROWTH (adding the current billion took 11 years, adding the next one should take 14), but to reduce the current population more than 25-fold (to the sustainbale level of 300 mln (?) ) would take many centuries/milennia, if at all.
I..e NOT the time scale required the stabilize Earth’s climate.
So my and Nigel’s scepticism toward your “elegant solution” is not because we don’t understand it, but becuse we thought it through. Which I am afraid can’t be said of you.
zebrasays
Piotr, yes, the comment to which I responded was different from the comment that you just made, because the latter is kind of a ranty list which you often produce, rather than paragraphs that flow together.
But the point of what I have been saying is that people keep proposing unrealistic solutions without first examining the underlying principles.
What George pointed out was that poverty and inequality were related to resources, not necessarily to “capitalism” or “market economy”. We have the term “rent-seeking” from the concept of rent… meaning, someone owns the ‘land’ (resources) and receives wealth without making an actual contribution to society.
What the small-population scenario does is reduce the value of the land. And even though we are far from that end-point, even bending the population curve down could have an effect on economic choices. For example the reference I give here:
So you see the competing forces at work; think about it in terms of the entire planet.
And yes, it is like conservation of energy, where people respond to the details when the water-vapor trolls making up complicated nonsense, instead of pointing out that they have the basics wrong.
nigeljsays
Zebra.
“And even though we are far from that end-point, even bending the population curve down could have an effect on economic choices.”
Yes, but the operative word is HOW do we bend the curve down? Because unless Zebra can come up with a realistic, detailed workable plan, he is no better than the other stubborn cranks with their crazy schemes that he criticises. Which is somewhat ironic.
And we know what things are driving smaller family size, so his plan needs to be more than that. And imploring people to do more is not much of a plan either. So what’s the novel plan?
I admit I can’t come up with a novel plan on population. Governments are probably doing all they can on population related issues, and I doubt we can influence them to do more. Governments don’t generally like intruding into family size matters, except for conservative governments and then they tend to want people to have more children. This is another sticking point in Zebras smaller population ideas. He criticises other peoples climate mitigation ideas because they get push back from conservative interests, but cant see the same problem applies to his own ideas.
This is why I tend to focus most effort on promoting renewables, because they are plausible and more could be done and we have some chance of shifting the position of government, individuals and organisations and even conservatives. This is probably also why the IPCC focuses mostly on renewables, and not so much on population issues.
I agree with Nigel and Piotr–the problem with population as ‘control lever’ is that we don’t in fact have good control over it. The globe has mostly gone through the ‘demographic transition,’ or is visibly in the process of doing so now. But we’re still seeing population increase because enormous demographic inertia is built into population structure itself.
However, it’s not operating uniformly across the world. Much of the ‘first world’ has now been in sub-replacement mode for long enough that population structure is now driving population decline–and the proportion of the global population for which that is true is going to keep increasing for a long time yet. (It’s the ‘shadow’ or ‘echo’ of the transition.) That means that even if mortality does not increase–perhaps a dubious assumption–population decline is going to be ‘baked in’ during the 21st century and beyond.
But by definition, “control” means the ability to ‘speed up’ as well as to ‘slow down.’ Population decrease is a problematic issue as well–Japan is a frequently-cited example in this regard. An old population is not a highly productive one.
It’s possible to use ‘brute force’ approaches on both sides of the fertility equation, so to speak. The example of the Chinese ‘one child’ policy is too well-known to require elaboration, but on the other side of the ledger, the Romanian Communist government took pretty draconian measures to increase the fertility rate. Apart from creating an ‘orphan crisis,’ these policies largely succeeded in propping up ‘natural increase’ until the fall of Ceaușescu. But then came the revolution of 1989, and the Romanian population has been shrinking since 1990.
Evidently, ‘brute force’ approaches may not be sustainable over time. Which leaves cultural ‘soft power’–policy plus vision. It’s ironic that Zebra criticized my ideas for requiring cultural change–also something we don’t really know how to control, to be fair–when it’s also necessary for his ‘elegant solution.’
Which brings me back to the question I’m interested in: what might a truly sustainable society look like? Killian has put some good principles forward (though I’d love to see some more practical ‘meat’ put on those ‘bones,’ personally.) It would seem that there’s broad agreement that a smaller global population should be part of the picture; and based on the considerations above, I’d make explicit the underlying assumption that the goal isn’t just a smaller population, it’s one that is reasonably stable. Well and good so far!
For my part, I’ve proposed a shift away from the culture of disposability and the ideology of consumerism. An area of interest here–OK, let’s admit it’s at least potentially problematic–is the role of technology as it relates to both culture and demographics. Few wish to cede ground in medicine, and contraception specifically is clearly a crucial question WRT demographic stability. What medical technology can be supported with a smaller population and economy? And how about information? We’ve seen a revolution in our lifetimes; but the pre-requisites as they exist now involve some of our most sophisticated manufacturing capabilities. Can that be sustained, and if so, how?
What else? Barton, you’re the only practicing science fiction author regularly posting, AFAICT. What say you?
zebrasays
About Woodpecker Scalp Capitalism
(A present for Kevin; seriously, you will find it worth reading.)
But I expect Killian would not like it since it occurs naturally through self-interest, not by virtue of his moralistic pronouncements from on high.
Why don’t you play the game a little yourself:
What would be the self-interested choice for generating electricity if there were a stable population of say 30-40 million for the Eastern half of the USA?
Would it be to have a portion of the population that could be employed in other activities (e.g. medical research and health care) digging up and transporting coal? Or setting up and taking down fracking infrastructure? What makes sense to my imagination is that the population would be concentrated along the coast, and there would be plenty of room for wind and solar, and hydro. Wind turbines on those regenerative farms sounds about right.
The point is that you change the paradigm; as I’ve pointed out in the past, labor becomes more valuable, and it makes no sense to “own” certain categories of resources. Do you think it would make sense to drill for oil in the Arctic if the world population were 300-500 million, and it could be distributed in various optimal locations as I just described? Consider, as I’ve also pointed out, how panicked the oil-igarchs have become over just the prospect of a reduction in demand.
As to bending the population curve, come on; as you just said that’s happened in developed countries without intervention by the government. But it is the result of the neo-liberal, self-interested, “consumerist” society that you want to eliminate.
nigeljsays
Kevin.
In my view the key factors in the sustainability issue are per capita consumption, waste, and population size. Changing these variables downwards can be beneficial, but can clearly cause massive unintended problems if done rapidly or incorrectly. Becoming sustainable will therefore take time, and will involve a lot of practical compromises, and is more of an exercise in harm minimisation. Welcome to the future. The real future. Not the dogma.
nigeljsays
So “Zebras solution” to “bending the population curve down” turns out to be “the demographic transition and the liberal market economy”. Things that are happening anyway? That most of us here appear to support? What utter plagiarism and what a total bore.
You, unable to falsify these arguments – respond with your … unsupported opinions about me (e.g. “ ranty list which you often produce“). All while sidestepping my main criticism of your original post – of your “elegant solution” that everything would be hanky-dory if only the world population were … 25 times smaller than it is today. To which my (and Nigel’s) previous critcism still stands:
“ – Taken as a statement of fact – it’s no “elegant solution”, it’s a tautology [ everybody knows
that a smaller population would reduce anthropogenic impacts]
– Taken as a goal – it is no solution either – it just taking credit for what happens (demographic transition) by itself anyway, And which won’t happen fast enough – we need to reach net zero emissions in the next few decades, not in many centuries or millenia from now.
So, your “elegant solution” in, garbage out.
zebrasays
Piotr, I had a friend who had impeccable literary credentials, but his native language was Russian. His English was, to be kind, less than perfect, but, because he was so respected in his own language circles, he was unwilling to accept that, and produced a strange mix of reasonable sounding but often wrong communication.
It’s hard to tell if you are making similar language errors or just engaging in typical rhetorical fallacies.
For example, when you say something is “a tautology”, it really doesn’t fit my understanding of the term:
This has nothing to do with “what everybody knows”,
And to say that reduced fertility is not a solution because “it occurs naturally” is also difficult to understand. Do you mean it is acausal, like in quantum physics?
This is what I mean by ranty lists, where you don’t explain things clearly.
And just for the record, perhaps you should look at all my previous comments to Kevin where I stipulate that I am talking about sustainability, not some magic instantaneous solution to current conditions. Pretending otherwise is indeed a clear rhetorical fallacy on your part.
What I’m pointing out is that the relationship between population and negative environmental effects is non-linear, so that bending the curve down as quickly as possible would result in synergistic benefit. Consider the examples I gave.
Ray Ladburysays
I would note that in the countries where fertility has fallen fastest, it has been because people–especially young women–had new opportunities become available, causing them to postpone having children while at the same time improving their welfare.
The most effective knob we can turn is putting more money and effort into educating girls and young women, followed by also providing more education possibilities for young men, and increasing employment prospects for both.
It is not as if there is a shortage of work that must be done to transition to sustainability. We just have to find an economic system that can support the people doing that work.
nigeljsays
One of the problems with Zebras (and Killians) comments is they assume people have read a whole lot of other comments they have made, some ages ago. Comments have to be self contained!
I have no trouble understanding Piotr’s comments, because he understands things need to be self contained, and he quotes what other people say and responds directly to it., and he’s clear and its obvious what he means by tautology given the context.
Killiansays
Ray, there is no economic system that can, at least, none that exist today as a “modern” economy. A simple observation of what happens to any modern economy in contraction: Massive crises. And that’s just a 20% or so contraction. The Great Depression (GD) was nearly half of GDP and it caused massive problems which were only solved fully by a global war.
Seems like a bad choice in the context of a collapsing ecosystem.
Also, critical issues this time are 1. we’re looking at at least an 80% decline, and thinking people who do systems and resources are looking toward 90%+. There is no surviving that, imo, without massive changes economically, socially, politically. 2. 40% of Americans, e.g., were still farmers at the beginning of the GD. Many more would have been serious gardeners. This time? If the economy goes, the food system goes with it.
The issue isn’t what kind of economy, it’s how quickly people realize we need a non-economy, aka nested Commons. If you can explain how anything short of that gets us through what is coming – and this is the *best case* scenario – I’m all ears.
Since this thread has grown quite lengthy, let me clarify that I’m responding herein to comments by Nigel and Zebra. (As hyperlinked–assuming I didn’t screw up the somewhat fiddly and involved process somewhere. My kingdom for a preview and edit function!)
Nigel, thanks for a succinct statement of what you find central. I think I have some concept of what immediate steps you’d find useful. But any specific thoughts on the longer term (as that’s what we’ve been discussing here?)
To take one instance, you speak of the importance of ‘harm reduction.’ Any ideas about how that should be measured, how it should be weighted, and possible processes for its mitigation? I’m interested in anything that comes to mind.
Zebra, thank you for your gift. It’s interesting, to be sure, though I’m not quite certain how you view it in relation to our discussion to this point, the obvious relevance to the ‘potlatch practices’ bit notwithstanding. Do you see the Yurok use of money as manifesting basically the same impulse as “neo-liberal, self-interested, “consumerist” society?”
If so, I wonder how you read the concluding paragraph of the piece:
The Indian peoples of northwestern California—Yuroks, Hupas, Karuks, Tolowas, and others—have tended to use money and wealth alike as master symbols of that which creates and enlivens the great diversity of meaningful forms in the world. Theirs has been, if you will, a spiritual economy. Non-Indian Americans, I think, have generally and ever-increasingly tended to reduce the many meanings and values of life-forms to the arbitrary monetary exchange values of those forms, putting virtually everything up for sale: a radically material economy. There is an enormous difference.
Buckley draws a clear distinction between a “spiritual economy” and a “radically material one.” It may provide the best answer here to defining “consumerism” in the sense I’ve used it: an ethos in which material gain becomes not just the measure of all else, but an absolute, primary ethical good.
By contrast:
What the Yuroks and their neighbors have always valued is a balanced variety of wealth, not simply an abundance of money. For example, while in theory a wife might be worth three hundred American dollars, such a simple payment would be without honor.
Elsewhere in your comment, you ask why I request a science fiction writer when imagination would suffice. Well, my imagination is pretty good; I’d immodestly submit in evidence my latest album, Damage, which came out September 30. (Perhaps most easily appreciated in relation to the current topic is my cover of Bob Dylan’s “Rainy Day Women #12 & 35.”)
However, I don’t think *any* single person’s imagination suffices. And it’s fascinating to hear what other minds come up with! I’d love it if Barton were to weigh in–but also anyone else interested enough to think about the question[s] for a few minutes.
I must also respond to your concluding statement:
But [the demographic transition] is the result of the neo-liberal, self-interested, “consumerist” society that you want to eliminate.
First, is it really? We seem to be agreed that the demographic transition underway is a near-global phenomenon. But I’m much less sure that “neo-liberal, self-interested, “consumerist” society” is really a valid description of the breadth of societies that are undergoing that transition. At least, there are quite diverse levels of development and broad differences in culture among these national and regional societies. Perhaps you would care to elaborate on what you see as important in this regard, and clarify just what aspects of ‘N-L S-I C S’ are so widely operative?
Second, you really must distinguish the pars from the toto. I have no wish to “eliminate” any society whatever; eliminating or deprecating the ideology of consumerism–i.e., “radically material economy”–would be (IMV) transformative, not eliminationist.
Oh, I meant to point out also that the album contains a fair bit of climate-related stuff, most notably track 2, “Petitionary,” which is out-and-out cli-fi in lyrical form.
Kevin, you ask about making society sustainable in the long term. I guess the obvious thing is living within planetary boundaries, and achieving the key UN sustainable development goals. They have already done a lot of work on those and this should be respected.
The UN plan wont satisfy the purists because it allows for more economic growth in poor countries and a good deal of industry in developed countries, but I don’t think we have practical alternatives that would catch on and which would be workable. I gave up on utopias ages ago.
Interesting, and worthy of some study and thought. But on the face of it, the SDGs seem to me more a compromise collection of ideals rather than a coherent picture of how a sustainable world might work–especially over longer time frames. (Not altogether a criticism, as they are aimed toward change in the near term–action items, you might say.)
Perhaps the leading example is SDG #8:
Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all
So much for visions involving ‘downsizing’! Yet in the near term, growth is necessary; since the rich nations have extremely limited tolerance for giving up what we have, and poor nations even less for remaining poor, the only solution is to make the ‘pie’ bigger.
SDG #10:
Reduce inequality within and among countries
And besides, as Ray has said more than once, there’s lots of work to do to transform our energy economy in ways needed to make progress on climate.
Which, BTW, is SDG #13:
Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
Regarding Henry Georges and Zebras novel ideas. The “elegant solution” of putting all land ( including currently privately owned land) into public ownership
They invented the Commons? How do you manage to never know what the hell you are talking about? That has been the most common form of economic division for the vast majority of human history.
Just. Stop.
The Overton Window? Do you think that came first, say, 300k years ago and we have fit humanity’s behavior into that ever since? Why do you insist on suggesting completely abstract constructs are somehow immutable? The “Overton Window” is irrelevent in the context of the necessary paradigm shift. It doesn’t matter what the majority are willing to do, only what they must do if they wish to survive.
And stop talking about human nature. You don’t have any idea what that is. After all, that such a concept even exists and is in any way useful, if so, is in no way a fact. It is a theory in the most colloquial sense: No agreement that it even exists.
Alongside such varying and frequently conflicting normative uses of the expression “human nature”, there are serious disagreements concerning the concept’s content and explanatory significance—the starkest being whether the expression “human nature” refers to anything at all. Some reasons given for saying there is no human nature are anthropological, grounded in views concerning the relationship between natural and cultural features of human life. Other reasons given are biological, deriving from the character of the human species as, like other species, an essentially historical product of evolution. Whether these reasons justify the claim that there is no human nature depends, at least in part, on what it is exactly that the expression is supposed to be picking out. Many contemporary proposals differ significantly in their answers to this question.
Why, then, do you base so much of your argument on this nonsensical concept and, worse, base on the era YOU live in – the most irrational and broken time in all of human history?
Just. Stop.
nigeljsays
Killian@ Nov 30, public ownership and the hunter gatherer commons are two different things! Public ownership is defined as state or government ownership (refer Cambridge dictionary, or McMillin dictionary, or wikipedia) and ancient hunter gatherer peoples had no concept of government or the state, or ownership as such, and certainly not in the modern sense.
You mentioned that there is no consensus that human nature even exists. Fine I accept that, but its fairly obvious that people aren’t making significant lifestyle changes around reducing consumption for several deep seated psychological reasons, and I’ve already listed these (one below). How on earth do you not appreciate these things, given you have a psychology degree?
You mentioned on last months page (?) that perhaps people would be more proactive in making voluntary lifestyle changes like big reductions in consumption if they were told climate change is an existential threat. Clearly we should tell people the risks to lives, but I draw your attention to the covid issue. Despite it killing millions of people, many people still deny covid is even a problem, and the rest have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to wear masks and home isolate by the force of law.
So I’m not wasting my time promoting silly ideas about 90% reductions in consumption to be achieved on short time frames. I will concentrate on things I believe have at least some small chance of catching on like renewables and achievable lifestyle changes related to consumption and other issues. Indeed the only tangible difference we have made to emissions trajectories is the replacement of coal and some oil and gas, with wind and solar power.
I find your attempts to tell me to just stop or shut up be the absolute height of arrogance, and clearly they are having the opposite effect to what you intend. But even that seems to go over your head.
JCHsays
JCM
The atmosphere receives energy from these sources:
1. absorbed solar radiation = 77.1
2. thermals – 18.4
3. latent heat – 86.4
4. LW radiation – 358;2
——————————
total energy absorbed in the atmosphere – 540.1
—————————————————–
energy lost to space by the atmosphere – (199,8)
—————————————————–
energy from atmosphere that is absorbed by the surface – 340.3
======================================================================
There is a discrepancy:
Solar absorbed by earth system = 240.4
LW emitted to space = 239.9
——————————————–
imbalance = .5
===========================================
Should be 0.6
===========================================
SW absorbed by surface = 163.3
————————————
Thermals = (18.4)
Latent = (86.4)
—————————————
unaccounted for absorbed solar at surface – 58.5
——————————————————
portion not absorbed by atmosphere – (40.1)
portion added to surface heat content – (0.6)
————————————————-
portion absorbed in the atmosphere – 17.8
————————————————-
discrepancy – 0.1
————————————————-
your number = 17.9
================================================
Barry E Finchsays
Just in case anybody is mildly interested the specific simple talk by the accomplished green tech salesman and part-time physicist whom I adore but am not yet stalking is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PAbm1u1IVg and does not include any analysis of measurement, only the most basic synopsis of the understood physics. Note that it’s a totally different understanding of the physics from the explanations I keep seeing in the “social media” which indicate that certain gas molecules absorb some of the radiation from the surface (apparently only from the surface) and then “re-emit” radiation back to the surface in response, hence the tropospheric temperature lapse rate has no effect on this effect. This “”re-emit” radiation back to the surface” version contains a scam in my opinion in that it states that these gas molecules do nothing but hang around waiting for radiation from the surface that they are permitted to absorb, and never MANUFACTURE any of their own radiation by collision because, of course, if they did then perhaps they’d send more radiation of their own upwards than the surface radiation that they absorbed, and thus cause cooling of Earth instead of warming. Of course, it’s the tropospheric temperature lapse rate combined with the obvious fact that cooler things radiate less than warmer things (collide less often) but cooler things aren’t obliged to absorb less radiation than warmer things which would cause these gas molecules in the air NOT TO send more radiation of their own upwards than the surface radiation (actually any radiation from below) that they absorbed.
JCMsays
Here’s the latest excursion into intellectual darkness.
to push the reductionist ideology. Look climate change!!
Someone clearly spending far too much time looking at GCM outputs, in search of nuggets to support his chosen cause. having totally lost sight of responsible communication. Perhaps these people actually believe in the superiority of their discipline to describe environmental change.
“I’ll just google some photos of lakes. Look, a dry one. That fits my worldview”.
A lazy and inexcusable misrepresentation. Someone trained in mathematical simulation way out of his depth. One who blocks and shouts down environmental stewards in favor of his computer simulations and simplistic worldview. Surely a great guy, but one who has fooled himself – up to his neck in it now.
Participating with the hordes of new “climate” scientists drowning out debate and causing ongoing misallocation of resources; creating ignorance of causal factors of environmental disruption. Completely flooding earth science. A political wedge, and environment forgotten in the shuffle. An entire discipline and funding framework overrun by private interests.
A keen commenter notes on lake Granbury quoting from the local the Water Authority FAQ
“the fact that property lines come to the water’s edge is not relevant to the lake’s intended purpose.”
the reservoir “has never been nor will it ever be a constant level lake”.
A fake and misleading TikTok from a trusted academic; a microcosm of an entire state of mind. Not evil, simply ignorant.
nevermind the river completely silted up behind the dam, the morphology totally choked out by development. No room to breathe. A population having tripled in the catchment since construction of the shallow reservoir. Infiltration non existent, baseflows all over the map. Catchment storage reduced to nil. Periods of hydrological and temperature extremes. A barren landscape. Desertified, desiccated, like concrete.
“The ecology of the watershed reflects a history of negative disturbances including improper grazing procedures, soil erosion, lowered water tables in some areas, declining native grasslands and altered river ecosystems.”
That’s putting it mildly!
Not one watershed plan or study finds any clear global temperature anomaly association with Lake Granbury.
“Many watershed characteristics are important in determining the quantity and quality of water entering the lake, including climate, slope, vegetation and, particularly, soils composition. Wildlife and human activities become particularly important when they exceed the natural capacity of the watershed to assimilate changes.”
Oh really?
No relevant precipitation trends
“https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10402381.2015.1074324?”
What are the obvious trends? Erosion, land clearing, desiccation, water-takings, irresponsible watershed governance, fragmented biology, ecosystem services wiped out.
There will not be one useful bit of information derived from GCM outputs to make responsible local watershed management decisions if they continue to be misused and abused. Will the dynamic downscaling help? pulease!
Promises of nebulous climate amelioration has flipped the script totally upside down. Watersheds are now the afterthought. An asterisks appended in fine print, with the headlines pointing to CLIMATE. A litany of mis-directions, ill-informed, trampling upon key aspects of watershed management. No respect of system dynamics. A reductionist worldview. Cut the emissions at your COPs, do not pollute our local environmental politics.
Allegedly unsophisticated land managers know exactly what the problems are for Lake Granbury. Solutions will not be found in wind turbines or energy transformation, no-matter how far one stretches his imagination. This story repeated across many 10s of thousands of catchment districts globally. Environmental politics reduced to a wedge issue relating to emission of trace gases. *cough
There is certainly a place for climate pundits, but they must never displace and undermine responsible governance, awareness, education, and investment. The discussion is way out of balance. One must have some sense of self-awareness about this before going in front of special committees to deliver narrow minded judgements.
It’s all really going off the rails. Climate change this, greenhouse effect that. Look at my useless oversimplified greenhouse effect schematics on youtube. Time to get a grip! How many people do we need parroting this same old stuff? A science stagnant for decades. what’s the point?
What he means to say in the TikTok is that residents have adapted to a certain watershed hydrological regime. When you completely disrupt catchment characteristics your property value and enjoyment might be impacted as a waterfront landowner. Global average temperature anomalies may also have some sort of secondary impact that is not really discernible, and surely pales in comparison to the direct impacts we have as local communities on our water resources and heat dynamics. Emission cuts are nice to have, but in the real-physical world there is much more to the story.
Are the “climate studies” departments really this sheltered, siloed, and deluded? Surely these photo examples will be used in an undergraduate lecture this week to show the horrors of trace gas emission…a shameful miseducation of eager and impressionable students.
I simply ask for some clear description of some peculiarities in the foundational diagrams. I get mostly defensive responses, beaten down with a cudgel. Some useful responses too. It could be the result of environmental perspectives in steep decline since at least prior to 1988. Trying to keep the floodgates closed to prevent a scientific outwash comparable in volume to the drainage of glacial Lake Agassiz & Ojibway in my homeland.
In my jurisdiction watershed management budgets have been slashed once more this month, with about $2 million allocated from the legislature. Meanwhile, $5billion going to EV subsidies and manufacturing alone. Private special interests. A factor of what, 2500x. This is what gets you the votes. It’s absolutely reckless – and we will continue to pay the price for this gross error of judgement and negligence from academia and other institutions. When pointing this out you run up against a brick wall from the virtuous, malinformed, deeply-confused, mob. A science which exists at the interface with policy and social consciousness. Impassioned and emotional. A naked assault on varied perspective with hostile accusations and defensiveness. A group who has actually fooled themselves and believe their reductionist theoretical frameworks over the blatant reality before their very eyes, right in their own hoods. Go outside and take a look. I implore you.
BPL: You don’t actually read the climate science literature, do you?
jgnfldsays
FYI: The definition of “stagnant” is NOT “the science continues to collect thousands of pieces of information, showing previous other hypotheses wrong, and finding further corroboration without finding competing hypotheses”.
Silvia Leahu-Aluassays
I do have an opinion about the soup: I fully support their action. It reminded me of one of the famous ethical dilemmas: a museum is on fire, inside there is a dog and a unique painting, you can save only one, which one would you choose? I hope the protesters had that in mind too, as they tried one more time to point out our trivial preoccupations with and fetishization of our artifacts as opposed to life and the biosphere.
Given how many people were offended that they dared attack a unique painting (like any painting it can have zero value or absurd money-laundering level value, but as de gustibus et coloribus non disputandum, I will not select a value), I am afraid those people are choosing the wrong answer with deadly consequences.
I hope the debate started by the two courageous, biophilic and rational young women and their group will go further and question the huge investment in and ecological footprint of all art and other museums, while there are millions of unhoused people, the energy required to operate them could be used by people in need, the land occupied by the museums could have a myriad of truly valuable uses, the list of opportunity costs is long. Plus our brain capacity could have much better uses, how to solve the climate emergency is a critical one, than obsessing about any piece of art that nobody would care about if it weren’t marketed by the one percenters, the bourgeoisie and the art “experts” who cannot not find a more useful line of work.
I’m sorry, but this is as wacky as what we get from the Denialists much of the time.
I can think of any number of human practices that use land and resources which many might consider frivolous and more useful for housing. For example, cemeteries, which use up large swaths of urban areas, where housing is in short supply. Also, (my bold)
Each year, burials in the United States use 30 million board feet of wood (each board foot is 12 inches by 12 inches by 1 inch), more than 104,000 tons of steel, 1.6 million tons of concrete for burial structures, and 800,000 gallons of embalming fluid, according to an article in the Berkeley Planning Journal. The wood alone could be used to build 4.5 million homes.
And your problem is with art and museums?
Shall we discuss weddings and their venues and “wedding planners”? Golf courses?
I was asking in a comment earlier about an economic philosopher, and it strikes me that even people with some advanced education can have a very narrow range of intellectual inquiry, preferring to latch on to superficial but emotionally satisfying narratives rather than seek out knowledge outside their area of specialization.
Is the high-end art scene absurd? Sure. But here you are, telling us that the art is worthless… doesn’t that make you one of those “experts who can’t find a more useful line of work”?
Try spending some time in a museum of any kind, when it isn’t crowded, and observe the ordinary citizens, and the young people and children, who, remarkably enough, are stopped… looking. They don’t do that because of the hype.
Not everyone is glued to their phones, and influencers, and celebrities whose only skill is being a celebrity.
Russellsays
‘Not everyone is glued to their phones,”
Precisely- one increasingly finds climate activists of all persuasions glued to artworks and pavements.:
. JCM “Can anyone provide physical observation of this discontinuity? A tower site or something which demonstrates it to exist?”. I can’t. Certainly there are locations where upwelling and downwelling LWR are measured but I seriously doubt that there’s been sufficient existing at global scope to give the globally-averaged 398.2 and 340.3 With a quick search I see “Arctic Surface, Cloud, and Radiation Properties Based on the AVHRR Polar Pathfinder Dataset. Part I: Spatial and Temporal Characteristics” by Xuanji Wang and Jeffrey R. Key at https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/18/14/jcli3438.1.xml https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3438.1 which includes a table indicating that it uses measurement by some instruments at the surface of some Arctic site of LWR & SWR both upwelling and downwelling.
Also, there’s a Chilbolton Observatory at https://www.chilbolton.stfc.ac.uk/Pages/Facilities.aspx that has a section called “Solar and infrared upwelling and downwelling radiation”. If you search around perhaps you can get some information that interests you.
————-
For Earth’s surface homogenous at 288K, Emissivity Coefficient 0.99 the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative equation yields 386.2 w/m**2
Equinox 2020-09-25 Climate Reanalyzer
Emissivity Coefficient
35S – 35N 57% 26 (22-30) 299K 448.6
35 – 70 37% 13 (5-22) 286K 375.6
70S – 90S 3% -23 (-15, -30) 250K 215.9
70N – 90N 3% -7 (-14, 1) 266K 278.1
Average 409.5 w/m**2 for 70.8% of Earth
Land surface homogenous at 283K, Emissivity Coefficient 0.94 the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative equation yields 341.9 w/m**2
409.5 * 70.8% + 341.9 * 29.2% = 389.8 w/m**2
Green Grass 0.975 – 0.986
Ice 0.96 – 0.99
Sand 0.9
Soil 0.90 – 0.95
Snow 0.96 – 0.98
ocean Water 0.988 to 0.991
I’m unwilling to separate land & ocean regions & seasonal averages enough to do that accurately to +/- 2 w/m**2. If you can work that globally-averaged, annually-averaged very roughly 389.8 w/m**2 upwelling radiation down to your 340.3 w/m**2 by the accurate globally averaging and annually averaging go for it.
———————-
To the audience: JCM’s “In summary, it appears to be the only degrees of freedom in the system are the factors of solar absorption, convection into the atmosphere (H + LE), and IR window” is a simple statement that the so-called “greenhouse effect” in Earth’s troposphere doesn’t exist. Fair enough but that doesn’t mean that I am obliged to agree that “greenhouse effect” in Earth’s troposphere doesn’t exist just because JCM asserts that, and I don’t because I’m tiresomely stubborn as MA Rodger & Ray Ladbury (or is that the sci-fi writer ?) keep pointing out with phrases like “bog standard physics”, “pointless”, “forensic”, “crazy” only one of which is correct. As I keep typing like a broken record, the so-called “greenhouse effect” in Earth’s troposphere is what causes the LWR out the top to be less than the LWR out the bottom so I strongly assert an “internal degree of freedom in the system” in which I knock 1 w/m**2 off the LWR out the top to space and I add 1 w/m**2 onto the LWR out the bottom to surface. I’ve not altered the atmospheric balance, it still equals 0.0065 w/m**2 (so immeasurably small) but I’ve turned on more heater to the surface. I just dare MA Rodger to call me “crazy” One More Time.
———————-
JCM “Balance of whole atmosphere: 77.1 + 18.4 + 86.4 + 358.2 – 340.3 – 169.9 – 29.9 = 0 Here we observe the atmosphere is perfectly balanced according to the NASA Langley diagram after Trenberth et al. And so, the apparent imbalance during the period of the diagram is described only at the boundary conditions, surface and/or TOA”. Yes, it could not be otherwise to an accuracy of only 3-4 decimal digits because the thermal capacity of air is negligible compared with the ocean that participitates (93%), the soil that participitates(3%) and ice latent heat(3%). The atmosphere is said to have accounted for 1% of the energy imbalance increased-energy destination. 10,300 kg/m**2 at 1,003 J/K at 0.20 degrees/decade global warming = 0.0065 w/m**2 of budget imbalance applied to warming the air so the equation “… – 29.9 = 0” S.B. “… – 29.9 = 0.0065” to show the atmosphere’s energy imbalance, the 1.1% I calculated of the “0.6” imbalance shown (actually measured as 0.87 the last couple decades or some such). Of course, it’s too negligible to show (orders of magnitude smaller than all the uncertainties of the other quantities which I vaguely recall are as much as +/- 3 w/m**2) because the ocean, land & ice are the overwhelming things to consume the heat and they are at, and BELOW, the surface so as you correctly stated “the apparent imbalance during the period of the diagram is described only at the boundary conditions, surface and/or TOA”. It couldn’t possibly be otherwise until apparent imbalances are being measured to +/- 0.005 w/m**2 or better.
—————-
JCM “I am seeking observational evidence of the discontinuity of air vs surface temperature. This has not yet been provided”. One source of observational evidence is thermometers on balloons called “radiosondes”. Also, anecdotally it gets colder as you climb Mount Everest and it’s cold outside airplanes. The average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere is absolutely definitely lower than the average temperature of Earth’s surface (your “discontinuity of air vs surface temperature”) except in the uncommon circumstance of “thermal inversions” such as winter Arctic. For the lowest 80% mass of Earth’s atmosphere it’s called the “tropospheric temperature lapse rate” ranging from ~5.0 degrees / km for very moist air to 9.8 degrees / km for bone-dry air (because of the H2O latent heat difference) in the troposphere and with much-varying “discontinuity” of air temperature change above the troposphere, but it’s much more of a reducing-temperature continuum, followed by minimal-change continuum, then increasing-temperature continuum up the troposphere, tropopause where it exists and lower stratosphere, than it is a temperature “discontinuity” at some point in the atmosphere like you seem to be expecting.
Barry E Finch,
I’m not sure whether I’ve called you “crazy” and if so where that would have been.
The explanation you present for the GH-effect balancing when GHGs are added “which I knock 1 w/m**2 off the LWR out the top to space and I add 1 w/m**2 onto the LWR out the bottom to surface” is not what I would call “crazy”. Mind. the warming of the atmosphere that initiates the added LWR “out the bottom” would also be seen on the surface and (with a constant lapse rate) at the top, so the energy balance in the atmosphere would not be gained solely downward but almost all upward.
JCMsays
@Barry E Finch says
“For Earth’s surface homogenous at 288K, Emissivity Coefficient 0.99 the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative equation yields 386.2 w/m**2”
Forget about all that.
Just work out the surface emission from the NASA diagram and note the discontinuity:
Greenhouse Effect = Back radiation – Upward Emission
JCM: The value indicated 398.2 surface emission indicated in the diagram is out of place and has no relation.
BPL: It assumes surface emissivity is blackbody (ε = 1), and is weighted toward the equator, where temperatures are hotter, due to the fact that emission follows the fourth power of temperature.
Once again, add up all the inputs and outputs for space, the atmosphere, and the ground, and you’ll see that there are no discrepancies, except for the slight imbalance due to global warming.
JCMsays
@BPL
to make sense of it all it would be most logical to use make apples to apples comparisons.
Considering everything else is using global average values we should use a globally averaged surface flux to understand the relationships.
We should also ensure the values are on the same size plane for theoretical considerations. All the classic textbook radiative theory seems to use cylindrical type two way approximations.
First approximation
Step 1:
Global average 288K blackbody flux = 390.1 Wm-2
Step 2:
Planar correction to reference surface flux to TOA planar OLR:
Assuming 80km depth in a standard atmosphere the planar correction is:
correction to reference surface flux to TOA = 6371^2(6371 + 80)^2 = 0.975
Surface flux referenced to TOA plane = 0.975 x 390.1 Wm-2 = 380.4 Wm-2
Viewed in this way it all falls into place, with some fiddling with clouds and windows.
However, if Ray Ladbury is correct and these are all useless cartoons, not worthy of any analysis or interpretation, painstakingly created by numerous different groups and authors, someone should send them all an email and let them know.
“The equatorial annual mean temperature is only 4% above the global mean temperature of 286K, while the North polar temperature is only 10% below the mean. The most extreme deviation occurs on the high Antarctic plateau, where the annual mean South polar temperature is 21% below the global mean.”
Pierrehumbert also makes reference to a pre-industrial value of 285K
Blackbody 286K yields a first order approximation of surface flux ~ 380 Wm-2 in the modern period.
This value 380 I was able to deduce from the cartoon depiction of energy budget, and I am pleased to have stumbled across Pierrehumbert’s publication. This is more simple than trying to justify the 380 value by the method I depicted above. I suspect I will receive some flak for that.
I think the only relevance to any of this is that there appears to be roughly 20 Wm-2 uncertainty in the various fluxes near the surface. This is a factor of about 30x the known imbalance. There is much to discover in the convective atmosphere.
If 286K is known to climatology this could have been pointed out to me days ago.
Ray Ladburysays
You know, it really is almost cute the way you take a cartoon and analyze it to death as if it were the actual model.
ERA5 SAT reanalysis has posted for Oct with a global SAT anomaly of +0.41ºC, the highest anomaly of the year-so-far. Previous 2022 monthly anomalies sit in the range +0.23ºC to +0.39ºC.
Oct 2022 is the 4th warmest Oct in the ERA5 record behind Octobers 2019 (+0.45ºC), 2015 & 2021 and ahead of Octobers 2020 (+0.38ºC), 2017, 2018, 2016 (+0.31ºC), and a bit of a drop to 9th placed Oct 2012 (+0.22ºC).
Oct 2022 sits 22nd in the all-month ERA5 rankings.
The first 10 months of 2022 average to 5th place, the table below now showing the full year order. 2022 could yet climb to 4th spot above 2017 if Nov&Dec average higher than +0.47ºC, a Nov&Dec anomaly that was achieved in 2019 & 2020.
There’s no “warming of the atmosphere that initiates the added LWR “out the bottom””. There’s no warming or cooling of the atmosphere, surface nor anywhere below surface. I instantly add well-mixed GHGs into the troposphere and stir them throughout and immediately that knocks 1 w/m**2 off the LWR out the top to space and adds 1 w/m**2 onto the LWR out the bottom to surface. No change in the atmosphere’s heat budget, same amount in & out as before. I measured the GHGs perfectly for the switch to be 1 w/m**2 because I’m good at measuring stuff.
Barry E Finch,
You will have to explain why there would be added “1 w/m**2 onto the LWR out the bottom to surface” if there is more GHG but no warming.
There is “1 w/m**2 off the LWR out the top to space” because when GHGs are added these emissions out to space occur at higher altitude and in the troposphere that means the emissions out to space are from a cooler part of the atmosphere and cooler means less IR emissions.
So how does your “no warming” increase in IR work with emissions down to the surface?
So the regenerative farming stuff is just around the corner, right?
If, on the other hand, there is a small population relative to the resource, then regenerative farming is the best economic choice. Land would be cheap, and it would make no sense to spend money on fertilizer and other chemicals when cow-poop and crop rotation are essentially free. And with a stable market due to a stable population, maximizing yield becomes less imperative in terms of competition… quality over quantity.
Russellsays
Z;
It seems dog was off the menu in Sharm el Sheikh :
Can something be done to stop the autocomplete that seems to have appeared for these comments? It is highly annoying and really doesn’t help with anything. For example, it just told me how to spell “help” and “example.” I think most people here are literate.
[Response: I think that’s your browser, not this site? – gavin]
@BPL says: – ” I think most people here are literate. ”
ms: — LOL / The desperate maneuvering of letters and mental content is not for everyone….
and leads straight into Babylonian confusion.
Thanks Levenson – you’re not a good “help” but a good “example” anyway.
GISTEMP LOTI has posted for October with a global SAT anomaly of +0.06ºC, the second-highest anomaly of the year-so-far. Previous 2022 monthly anomalies sit in the range +0.83ºC to +1.05ºC.
Oct 2022 is the 5th warmest Oct in the GISTEMP record behind Octobers 2015 (+1,09ºC), 2018, 2019 & 2021 and ahead of Octobers 2017 (+0.90ºC), 2020, 2016 & 2014 (+0.80ºC).
Oct 2022 sits 28th in the all-month GISTEMP rankings.
After the first 10 months, 2022 ranks 5th. 2022 could yet climb to 4th spot above 2017 if Nov&Dec average higher than +0.94ºC, a and could still drop to 6th spot below 2015 if Nov&Dec average +0.80ºC or less.
@JCM 11 NOV 2022 has “By Ramanathan 1989” which I’ll take as fact that Greenhouse Effect has a quantity definition in w/m**2:
Greenhouse Effect = Surface emission – OLR
So, Greenhouse Effect flux quantity = 398.2 – 239.9 = 158.3 w/m**2
@JCM has “Greenhouse Effect = Back radiation – Upward Emission”
So JCM asserts that also Greenhouse Effect flux quantity = 340.3 – 199.8 = 140.5 w/m**2
So JCM asserts a large budget error of 158.3 – 140.5 = 17.8 w/m**2
However, “Greenhouse Effect = Back radiation – Upward Emission” is not correct.
Not if “Greenhouse Effect” is to be defined as the Surface emission – OLR (which seems reasonable though I don’t know how it’s used).
In that case, also:
Greenhouse Effect = (Back radiation – Upward Emission) * tropospheric temperature lapse factor
It would be a factor from a monolithically-varying time series that relates somehow to Kelvin**4 and I’m not likely going to develop it.
See the following table and note that flux anomaly in column 6 decreases as base temperature decreases because Stefan-Boltzmann radiative equation is proportional to Kelvin**4, not proportional to Kelvin.
The factor (w/m**2 per degree anomaly) varying dependent on Altitude means that your false equality:
Surface emission – OLR = Back radiation – Upward Emission
Would become an inequality simply by altering the surface-air temperature due to change in solar output or Earth’s albedo so it cannot be a reality that you asserted.
So if I (incorrectly) switch 17.8 w/m**2 from Surface emission to thermals (conduction-convection) to get your equality then:
Greenhouse Effect flux quantity = SE 380.4 – OL 239.9 = 140.5 w/m**2
Greenhouse Effect flux quantity = BR 340.3 – UE 199.8 = 140.5 w/m**2
But for example, warm the surface-air by 1 degree for some effect that’s not a change in “greenhouse effect” and now:
Greenhouse Effect flux quantity = SE*380.4 + 5.4 – (OL 239.9 + 3.3) = 142.6 w/m**2
Greenhouse Effect flux quantity = BR 340.3 + 4.9 – (UE 199.8 + 3.3) = 142.1 w/m**2
The quantities are a work in progress needing some thought but the point is clearly shown by the varying quantities that your equality is going to be lost simply by altering surface-air temperature because lapse rate is not zero and Stefan-Boltzmann radiative equation is proportional to Kelvin**4, not proportional to Kelvin.
—————-
In following table which is simply a good approximation using International Standard Atmosphere 6.5 degrees / km lapse rate the back radiation 340.3 corresponds to IR molecules at altitude ~1,500 m (339.9) so I, conceptually a least, consider this to be that 50% of the 340.3 LWR energy from atmospheric molecules that will make it to the surface of the ocean or land are emitted by GHGs and clouds and atmospheric aerosols below ~1,500 m. Similarly, at altitude ~6800 m is emitted 200.3 w/m**2 from it’s IR molecules at 244K approximately matching upward emission from air of 199.8. I regard the altitude split ~1,500 m to ~6800 m as form of measure of the “greenhouse effect”. If I instantly add GHGs of proper quantity into the troposphere and thoroughly mix so that it raises the average emission altitude to space from the present 6800 m to 7000 m then emission from atmosphere to space instantly drops from 199.8 to 195.6 w/m**2, instantly adding 4.2 w/m**2 to the 0.87 w/m**2 that’s heating ocean and so on (DO NOT DO THIS). This is explained in concept (no quantity) by MA Rodger 1 NOV 2022 “transparency of the atmosphere to IR”, “path lengths”. “atmosphere will be radiating back to the surface from different distances above the surface, this dependent on the IR’s path length in the atmosphere for the particular wavelength”, “high-up bits of atmosphere radiating IR with long path lengths down to the surface will be cooler than the surface, they will be radiating less IR”. My assertion: also instantly, it will lower the present 1,500 m average emission altitude to surface by an amount that increases radiation to surface by 4.2 w/m**2, which I think it must do so that the surface does get extra heated by the extra amount of 4.2 w/m**2 no longer being sent to space. So the average emission altitude to surface lowers from the present 1500 m at 340.3 w/m**2 to 1,368 m at 344.5 w/m**2.
———————-
Then the 5.07 w/m**2 heats the surface air over 2,000 years per the surface climate response seen at at 9:55 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP-cRqCQRc8 The initial GHG jolt I gave it (wack with a 2×4) would warm by an extra 243.8-242.5 = 1.3 degrees (200m at the 6.5 / km lapse rate) similar to CO2 increase from 417 to 834 according to half-dozen physicists’ radiation analyses average to 3.7 w/m**2 (raising the outgoing radiation altitude by 3.7 / 0.0065 = 569 m) but the feedbacks that give the actual warming are huge another topic.
Altitude Start End Start End End-Start
Metres Kelvin Kelvin w/m**2 w/m**2 w/m**2
0 288.0 289.0 390.1 395.5 5.4
200 286.7 287.7 383.1 388.5 5.4
………….
If GHGs raise the outgoing avge. altitude from 6,800 to 7,000 then
downwelling avge. altitude lowers from 1,500 to 1,368 so lower IR paths
change by 66% of the amount of lower IR paths
1368 279.1 280.1 344.1 349.0 5.0
1400 278.9 279.9 343.1 348.0 4.9
1500 278.2 279.2 339.9 344.8 4.9 Conceptually, 50% of the 340.3 LWR energy from atmospheric molecules that will make it to the surface of the ocean or land are emitted by GHGs and clouds and atmospheric aerosols below approximately this altitude
1600 277.6 278.6 336.7 341.6 4.9 They are only approximately correct for concept. They are based on a global average 11 km height of the troposphere and 9 km tropopause International Standard Atmosphere
1800 276.3 277.3 330.5 335.3 4.8
2000 275.0 276.0 324.3 329.0 4.7
…………………………
6400 246.4 247.4 209.0 212.4 3.4
6600 245.1 246.1 204.6 208.0 3.4
6800 243.8 244.8 200.3 203.6 3.3 Conceptually, 50% of the 199.8 LWR energy from atmospheric molecules that will make it to space are emitted by GHGs and clouds and atmospheric aerosols below this altitude
7000 242.5 243.5 196.1 199.3 3.3 They are only approximately correct for concept. They are based on a global average 11 km height of the troposphere and 9 km tropopause International Standard Atmosphere
7200 241.2 242.2 191.9 195.1 3.2
7400 239.9 240.9 187.8 191.0 3.2
7600 238.6 239.6 183.8 186.9 3.1
7800 237.3 238.3 179.8 182.8 3.0
8000 236.0 237.0 175.9 178.9 3.0
JCMsays
@ Berry E Finch
You propose a scenario: “warm the surface-air by 1 degree for some effect that’s not a change in “greenhouse effect”” by “altering the surface-air temperature due to change in solar output or Earth’s albedo”
Here you propose to change solar available, as opposed to changing greenhouse effect.
So we must maintain the same greenhouse factor and opacity.
Dimensionless greenhouse factor can be computed by =
(Surface emission – Solar Available) / Surface emission
A small portion 0.5 additional is passing unhindered to space, for which you forgot to account.
Mr. Know It Allsays
For those of you in the Buffalo, NY area, be aware of the big snow that is coming – up to 6 feet! It’s just weather, not climate, but looks like it will have a big impact locally. Be safe:
“Buffalo and its southern suburbs may receive as much as 3 to 6 feet of snow by Sunday,” Benz said, adding that the heaviest snow may fall over two periods — Thursday night into Friday and then Saturday into Saturday night. “These two periods will likely feature the worst conditions of this event.”
jgnfldsays
In words any 6th grader would understand:
1. Yes. It is a weather event since by definition climate is the integration of a set of events. That means it is a different thing as well as level of thing entirely.
2. Lake effect snow comes from a cold air mass moving over a warm water mass. The warmer the water–um, er, like maybe kinda’ like from a warmer summer climate–the greater the snow.
jgnfldsays
Here is a nice shot of how the process works over the Great Lakes…
It may rather be “frost”, Hrimfaxe, Rauhreif. (Hrimfaxe is that fameous horse with white frost in its beards.)
It vapours from the open and warm water, gives thick and low fogs in the air called frost- smoke, frost-røyk,… that is a watery aerosol of tiny water- drops that cannort freeze because of the low drop- size. Then enters along with the wind into the naked bushes and woods on land and give quite phaenomenal white icy frost on all the twigs and straws…. and electrical wires.
The pressure P inside a water droplet is given by
P= 2 theta /r
where theta = surface tension, and r = drop radius.
that becomes transcendental as one can see, when r goes to zero.
Which is physically impossible.
My computers say ERROR or “number too big” if I try that.
This is the reason why any water drop or bubble must begin or start as somethging that is not a drop or a bubble. And there comes the necessary aerosols of micro and nano-particles.
When that frost- fog Vass tåke Frost- røyk gets into your beards or into the trees or onto your windows or glasses, , it finds something to freeze on. It must expand 10% when freezing and that is too high work for that tiny water drop under that overwhelming inner pressure. It stays liquid drop fog down to – 20 celsius at least, And exists as under- cooled rains and fogs.
It meets cristallizing freezing cores in your hairs and in the bushes,…. and freezes quite phaenomenally, as we may see on those pictures above.
We have it here at the fjord and at all greater lakes that remain open until later in the winter..
And it causes further the dangerous “icing” on airplanes.
Well then, give it a plausible natural explaination that can be examined..
Water evaporating from those lakes and falling down again in such masses next by,… it aint not!
Remember the permanence of matter and that what comes down must also have gone up somewhere. Aristoteles remains in charge on that.
I learnt in public school that it is warm air and moisture from the mexican golf meeting polar air masses from Canada , and all this not stopped by mountains in those extreemly flat landscapes .
Both the Alps and Ural and the caledonean ridge from Scotland to Kiruna are weather system and wind barriers in Europe. As are the Rocky Mountains in North America, stopping oceanic winds and with frequent huge snowfalls.
Scroll down to “observed change in heavy precipitation”.
This confirms my own anecdotal experience living in the North-East ; downpours do indeed seem to occur more often, although I am thankfully not in that lake-effect area.
But I have spent some time there, and it can indeed be a profound experience… the reports are not at all exaggerated.
Hr Zebra & al
As I have explained it above, I strongly believe that it is a misconsceprion and a confusion of
late autumn fjord or lake rime- frost with snowfall.
Up to 6 feet 2 meters of snowfall on the cars and roofs and lawns and on the roads ….. and large blizzard snowfalls one foot at least over such large areas would take handwidths of evaporated water all in once from those much smaller great lakes.
As a rule, if percipitation is given in millimeters by weather forecast, then it means millimeters of water, but centimeters of snow to be shuffled , You better judge the snowdepth as 10 times more. Better judge shuffling and driving tinto that and having that on your roof and doorsteps.
It will surely also sink down quite a bit if rather mild weather follows next, but it will loose no weight on your roof.
But “soft rime-frost” will fall from the trees and electrical leads rather soon..
New snow at way below the freesing-point has the density of 0.1.
If it is quite windy, you may have a traditional snowstorm in flat enough landscapes, It builds up as quite high snowdrifts up to 3 and 5 meters, with frozen earth blown bare in between. That is what can really clog the highways and railways. But better for the wild tundra animals who have something to eat.
As a very healthy realistic rule, huge amounts of water in the frozen form of snow, did hardly evaporate from those lakes however “great” and many in the “lake district” , it did evaporate in the nextby extreemly large and wide and maybe quite warm and windy ocean such as the Atlantic one.
The fameous blizzards of northeast USA that clog Washington DC and New York suddenly with 1 meter of more or less wet snow, are connected to “the polar vortex”,
Moist air is coming in over the land from the Atlantic in late autumn. Then there is a sudden coldfront of quite cold polar air from north Canada and Hudson Bay falling down from northwest, heavier than the warm and moist oceanic air, creeping under it and lifting it up. That will cool the large masses of moist air due to the lapse-rate, and there will be sudden and huge snowfall
Layers of air with different temperature and density moisture may very well blow in different directions over each other, and you can now and then see it for yourself in the clouds and on the weather maps..
I have hardly had “blizzards” in lowland eastern Norway, but 2 times in north Germany both east and west where the eaarth is flat enough and close enough to the atlantic.
In Friesland Niedersachsen we once had sudden “Schneesturm” on the levels of high mountain plains in western Norway.
You can also judge by oceanic winds and altitudes where large glaciers could posiibly build up, and where they could hardly build up despite of lower temperatures..
John Pollacksays
Mr. KIA “…It’s just weather, not climate…”
JP It’s mostly due to climate, with some weather thrown in. Mostly because there aren’t many places at 43N latitude and modest elevation that have to be concerned with getting over 1 meter of snow in a cold spell the third week of November. If you don’t think so, be sure to pack your snow boots the next time you take that trip to Marseille France in late November. Or maybe enjoy the beach on your cross-country skis.
2 meters of snow, 6 feet, takes more than Lake- effects, Dr Knowitall.
you ignore the worlds oceans and mainstreams and large inland and poles and eventual high peak mountains in the climate.
For instance, where the http://www.Jørungandr the mid- gards worm meets the http://www.sea/serpent on the New England coast at the eastern states….. there may be Drama, Halloween and white christmas more or less.
” Santa” does not come from the North Pole. He comes from Madrid as well, and hopefully not down the chimney.
Simply try and behave let him in tyhev front door and wish him welcome, and you will get what you deserve.
Silly supersticious US citizens may not yet have grasped what they have migrated over and into, in those landscapes. .
Do not blame that on the great lakes, they are much too small.
Perhaps this story–and especially the radar video, clearly showing the snowstorm streaming to the northeast along the entire 388 km length of Lake Erie–will shed some light.
“The extreme nature of this event was due in part to what had been one of the warmest starts to November on record in the Great Lakes, pushing lake water temperatures to among the warmest on record for mid-November in the past 27 years.”
Barry E Finchsays
**** ERRORS IN MY 16 NOV 2022 COMMENT *****
My “monolithically-varying time series” S.B. “monolithically-varying temperature series”. I’m now programmed to consider all formulae time series.
My “1 degree for some effect” S.B. “1 degree due to some effect”
My “SE*380.4” S.B. “SE 380.4”
My “3.7 w/m**2 (raising the outgoing radiation altitude by 3.7 / 0.0065 = 569 m)” S.B. “3.7 w/m**2 (raising the outgoing radiation altitude by 1.2 / 0.0065 = 185 m)”
My “66% of the amount of lower IR paths” S.B. “66% of the amount of upper IR paths”
**** ERRORS IN MY 7 NOV 2022 COMMENT *****
My:—–
“35S – 35N 57% 26 (22-30) 299K 448.6
35 – 70 37% 13 (5-22) 286K 375.6
70S – 90S 3% -23 (-15, -30) 250K 215.9
70N – 90N 3% -7 (-14, 1) 266K 278.1
Average 409.5 w/m**2 for 70.8% of Earth
Land surface homogenous at 283K, Emissivity Coefficient 0.94 the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative equation yields 341.9 w/m**2
409.5 * 70.8% + 341.9 * 29.2% = 389.8 w/m**2”
S.B. :—-
“35S – 35N 59% 26 (22-30) 299K 448.6
35 – 70 38% 13 (5-22) 286K 375.6
70N – 90N 3% -7 (-14, 1) 266K 278.1
Average 415.5 w/m**2 for 71.0% of Earth
Antarctica 70S – 90S 2.8% -23 (-15, -30) 250K 215.9
Land surface homogenous at 283K, Emissivity Coefficient 0.94 the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative equation yields 341.9 w/m**2
415.5 * 71.0% + 215.9 * 2.8% + 341.9 * 26.2% = 390.6 w/m**2”
I accidentally threw all the solid H2O at 70S – 90S into the ocean (like many Alarmists) because it’s a similarish molecule like I did deliberately way back when I was once crazier at 21 DEC 2021 AT 10:39 AM. So it’s 75.5% of upward surface flux from ocean or 77.1% if you throw in some solid H2O surface that’s just a tad more homogenous than land, maybe 77.3% with poor little Greenland. Teetering on the edge of sanity at the 78% “tipping point” struggling to pass it. Almost crazy like a fox, probably not.
My “upwelling radiation down to your 340.3 w/m**2” S.B. “upwelling radiation down to your 380.43 w/m**2”
My “Ray Ladbury” S.B. “Bob Loblaw”. Possibly different bloke because name different.
@B.E.F. says: – ” **** ERRORS IN MY 16 NOV 2022 COMMENT ***** ”
ms: — Perhaps you should mix it all up again with your magical triturator, tomato juice and vodka to at least offer us an enjoyable ” Bloody Mary”.
Adam Leasays
I am giving a presentation to my university department before I leave for another job on the subject of climate change: observed trends and projections. I thought I’d run a planned outline past the contributors on here who are far more knowledgable than me to check I am going in the right direction.
My plan is to talk about climate extermes including heatwaves, droughts, flooding/heavy rainfall, tropical cyclones and extra-tropical cyclones. My talk may be somewhat leaning towards UK/European relevant weather but intend to look globally overall. As I am not an authority in climate change I intend to do a lot of background reading in the published literature.
Outline is as follows:
Introduction/motivation (a couple of short news clips of two recent extremes in the UK: the record high temperature this summer and the record Apr-Jun rainfall a decade ago).
Introduction on detection and attribution along the lines of a blog article on here: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/09/watching-the-detections/.
Heatwaves and drought (observed and projected trends).
Rainfall (seasonal and convective) (observed and projected trends).
Tropical cyclones (observed and projected trends).
Extra-tropical cyclones (focused on European windstorms) (observed and projected trends).
A brief bit on looking at trends: be aware of dismissing attribution based solely on plotting a trend line and stating trend<<noise: https://patricktbrown.org/2018/09/11/signal-noise-and-global-warmings-influence-on-weather/.
Summary.
I won't have time to go into major detail on each extreme, I intend to give a flavour of what the science and the evidence shows.
Do you think this sounds reasonable for a 25-30min talk and does anyone have suggestions on things that should be included and/or good references? The audience is of a scientific background but are not necessarily knowledgable on meteorology and climatology.
Geoff Miellsays
Adam Lea,
Suggestions for consideration/inclusion:
* Projected surface temperature rise
See the table shown in the YouTube video titled SR Australia – Social and Earth System Tipping Points | Prof. Will Steffen + Dr. Nick Abel, from time interval 0:19:12 at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn3WQGS9wOI
* Paleoclimatology: lessons from Earth’s climate history. As the Earth System has clearly crossed the 400 ppm threshold in modern atmospheric CO₂ we have now entered climate territory not encountered for millions of years. https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=2845
* Sea level rise. At the April 2019 General Meeting of the American Philosophical Society, as shown in the YouTube video titled On Sheet Ice Melt in a Warming Climate and What We Should Do About It, glaciologist Professor Eric Rignot confirmed that the whole of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is now committed to melting, and the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) has passed its “tipping point” (in the Q&A) with the current level of warming. From time interval 0:13:07:
“And if you accumulate all these accelerations from the land ice, you see that it’s accelerating at 440 gigatonnes per year per decade, and if you extrapolate that to the end of the century we raise sea level by 80 centimetres. So you could argue that we are already on the trajectory of one metre per century sea level rise if this trend continues. This is clearly faster than any models that are being used so far to make sea level rise projections, and there are a multitude of reasons for that.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnOykSCOf0c
The average UK citizen doesn’t see the effects of AGW outside their front doors (bar that shown on the telly that can easily be explained away as being ‘media sensationalism’.) unless they actually work outside. And the UK does have long phenology records dating back to the 1700s. They do show unprecedented change, not least the shortening of Winter with Spring arriving a month earlier which given we only have 12 months to fit 4 seasons into is quite dramatic. (See Büntgen et al (2022))
Another thought is the non-linearity of AGW & those climate tipping points and UK-wise the AMOC which will shut down under enough AGW (although we don’t know how much it would take) and that would reduce UK temperatures (which would have been earlier elevated by AGW) and have a big impact on rainfall. I think most reports on this (like this one) still refer back to Jackson et al (2015) but Bateman et al (2019) is specific to UK.
Thank you for giving the presentation. Since the time is very short, it might be most impactful to focus on projections and ask the audience to consult the list of references you will provide on the observed climate extremes mentioned above.
– Since you want to talk about droughts and floods, I advise you to briefly describe the water cycles and their connections with the global energy balance (evaporation & clouds / water vapor as the strongest climate gas).
IMO the previously known and applied concepts for a (regional) climate protection against too much and too little water also belong to for a simple introduction to the topic.
I have described this climate protection in a little more detail on one of my websites. https://climateprotectionhardware.wordpress.com/
If you don’t talk about the existential risk, what’s the point?
Barry E Finchsays
Adam Lea 19 NOV 2022 Perhaps you could fit in 5 minutes each on the northern polar jet stream and the AMOC unless it’s to be entirely about attribution theory. The northern hemisphere Coriolis Effect formula form is Accelerationeast> = f (Velocity (south—->north, latitude).
Chucksays
Is anybody monitoring the disappearance of our rivers around the world? It seems like we’re losing a lot of fresh water to drought in many areas. I don’t have any answers or real insights into what’s happening but it does seem a little scary. I figure Lake Mead and Lake Powell are probably gone for good as is the Colorado River. Not sure about the Mississippi and that’s just in this country.
– The easiest way to monitor water over land and oceans is with GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) – effectively weighing changes in water mass over large river basins and groundwater aquifers.
Good point, Chuck. It’s a regional thing, though–remember some areas are expected to become wetter. (From memory, the northwestern ‘quadrant’ of North America is one.)
The Mississippi, startlingly, was down enough this summer from mid-Western drought that barge traffic was affected. I don’t think it’s going away any time soon, though. Actually, the Colorado isn’t likely to disappear completely, either–though that won’t be any consolation to the folks relying on it, if the drought continues. Will it still reach the sea, or will it peter out before reaching the delta, as the Rio Grande has?
Abroad, we saw very low water levels over large chunks of Europe–barge traffic on the Rhine was affected; the Po was way down, as was the Tiber; and IIRC, the downturn in French nuclear-generated power was in part due to issues with low water levels impacting coolant. (Also, I believe, some maintenance issues contributed.)
China wasn’t immune, either–stretches of the Yangtze were dry, reportedly, and Lake Poyang shrank dramatically:
It’s perhaps worth mentioning that the American southwest, southern Europe (as part of the Mediterranean basin), and large chunks of China have all been regarded as at elevated drought risk for years now, based on model projections.
” It’s a regional thing, though–remember some areas are expected to become wetter.
… based on model projections. ”
ms: — I would describe it as a global issue, as there are hardly any regions that are not affected by either of the two extremes.
Pakistan (previously also Australia) is a good example this year that both drought and flooding can be expected in some regions in the future.
Incidentally, as mentioned above, these trends have been measured with satellites since 2002, which makes the uncertain model projections you mentioned pretty much superfluous and actually only proves that you have a fairly long line and comprehension when it comes to the subject of “Climate & Water “.
Suddenly you are posting links dealing with Chinese sponge cities, while for almost 2 years you have been making fun of me because, armed with a global concept and regional water retention infrastructure, I could even reduce sea level rise.
Long lines of comprehension and short windows of time for climate action are the main reasons why humanity will lose the battle against global warming.
Chuck Hughessays
Thank you Kevin. I hope you are doing well.
prlsays
The state of the whole Murray-Darling Basin in Australia is a matter of concern in this country, and has been for some time. Changing things seems to be hard, though. One of the problems is that it crosses the jurisdiction of 4 of Australia’s 6 states.
The passage of the mouth of the Murray to the ocean is only maintained by dredging, mainly to allow sea water into the salt-water lagoons around the river mouth.
…. our troubles would be over; surely everyone would see the light.
nigeljsays
Saudi Arabia spreads misinformation about the climate problem, and is committed to oil exports while doing a bit of greenwashing. This is not entirely surprising given their lifestyles are almost entirely dependent on oil exports. The Saudis climate denialism is deplorable, but we don’t have to listen to the Saudis climate denialism. We cant stop a sovereign country drilling for oil but we don’t have to buy their oil. The climate issue does not centre around Saudi Arabia, and what it does drilling for oil. To suggest it does is a form of scapegoating and buck passing. The climate issue centres around what people in other countries do, and how governments can nudge them in the right direction.
Geoff Miellsays
nigelj: – “Saudi Arabia spreads misinformation about the climate problem, and is committed to oil exports while doing a bit of greenwashing.”
USA (18.5% global share), Russia (12.2%) & Saudi Arabia (12.2%) were the world’s top three oil producers in 2021, per BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy 2022.
Diesel is the premier fuel, for road, rail and marine transport, for mining and agricultural machines, and in many manufacturing processes. Diesel is the workhorse of the global economy.
Fatih Birol then Chief Economist for the IEA, wrote an article published on 2 Mar 2008 that concluded with:
We are on the brink of a new energy order. Over the next few decades, our reserves of oil will start to run out and it is imperative that governments in both producing and consuming nations prepare now for that time. We should not cling to crude down to the last drop – we should leave oil before it leaves us. That means new approaches must be found soon.
The Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy are having the status of their “educational charity”investigated again. Previously they have wriggled off the charge of spreading lies at public expense (their charitable status getting them tax breaks) by insisting they were splitting all the lie-telling off into a ‘Forum’ that was separate from the charitable ‘Foundation’. But that was just another lie.
Barry E Finchsays
JCM 20 NOV 2022 “A small portion 0.5 additional is passing unhindered to space, for which you forgot to account”. Yes I forgot to increase the atmospheric window flux proportionally by 1.43% so that’s 0.57 w/m**2 and means that your equality remains unchanged to 1 decimal place. The variation in your equality with temperature anomaly is in the 2nd decimal place and I’m not considering that to be a falsification because it’s too small, like this:
Warm the surface-air by 1 degree by an effect that’s not a change in the “greenhouse effect” and then:
Greenhouse Effect flux quantity by method 1 = SE 380.4 + 5.45 – (OL 199.8 + 3.30 + 40.1 + 0.57) = 142.08 w/m**2
Greenhouse Effect flux quantity by method 2 = BR 340.3 + 4.91 – (UE 199.8 + 3.30) = 142.11 w/m**2
Warm the surface-air by 4 degrees by an effect that’s not a change in the “greenhouse effect” and then:
Greenhouse Effect flux quantity = SE 380.4 + 22.13 – (OL 199.8 + 13.45 + 40.1 + 2.33) = 146.85 w/m**2
Greenhouse Effect flux quantity = BR 340.3 + 19.97 – (UE 199.8 + 13.45) = 147.10 w/m**2
So it needs 4 degrees of surface-air warming to upset your equality by just 0.25 w/m**2 which I’m not considering to be a falsification. Evidently the Stefan-Boltzmann factor Kelvin**4 didn’t alter the flux anomaly ratios for a temperature anomaly by as much as I’d assumed, by a decimal order of magnitude.
——————
Of course that doesn’t mean that your assertion is correct and it isn’t. It simply means it isn’t so easily disproved.
Your “Surface emission – OLR = Back radiation – Upward Emission” is not correct.
It’s an assertion that back radiation equals the surface emission portion that’s absorbed by the atmosphere (the portion that isn’t atmospheric window frequencies) and that cannot be correct because 2 parcels of matter at differing temperatures do not exchange equal amounts of LWR with each other, so (NASA energy budget diagram is used).
JCM 27 OCT 2022 “I see 358.2 LW absorbed in the turbulent mixed layer, and 340.3 downward LW. This is a discontinuity of 17.9 Wm-2”
JCM 4 NOV 2022 “I would argue the air is radiating dependent on its temperature”
JCM 11 NOV 2022 “Greenhouse Effect = Back radiation – Upward Emission”
“Greenhouse Effect = Surface emission – OLR”
So, JCM asserts that Surface emission – OLR = Back radiation – Upward Emission with NASA LWR-only budget with JCM’s asserted correction being:
SE (340.3 + 40.1) – OL (199.8 + 40.1) = BR 340.3 – UE 199.8
——————
Though I can’t cite the 2nd Law of thermodynamics because it’s an open system and with other energy fluxes I’m quite certain that established physics is that 2 parcels of matter at differing temperatures do not exchange equal amounts of radiative flux with each other but rather the warmer parcel provides more radiative flux to the cooler parcel than the cooler parcel provides to the warmer parcel. Am I wrong about that ?
zebrasays
I can’t believe this mathturbation gibberish is still going on. I’m only commenting in case some innocent passer-by thinks this has anything to do with real physics.
Barry, why didn’t you just ask the last question in the first place?
Why would the atmosphere, which is physically completely different from the surface, and has completely different energy characteristics, radiate downward at the same rate that the surface radiates upwards?
I did ask, multiple times, and the only reply from JCM was “it’s a hunch”.
But if you want to fill up the page with meaningless numbers, carry on. I have a hunch the comments are not going to stop coming from JCM, so there will be ample opportunity.
“These temperatures are plotted in Fig. 3.11. In pure radiative equilibrium the temperatures of the surface and the air in contact with the surface are different. This discontinuity is caused by the absorption of solar radiation at the surface. Such discontinuities are usually greatly suppressed in reality because of efficient heat transport by conduction and convection”
Greatly suppressed. To what degree? 17.9 Wm-2?
I would argue this diffusion is a pretty powerful process, not to be discounted, especially considering phase changes of water at the surface and at great heights. This is operating at all scales, from cm eddies to broad cells.
Strictly speaking, some proportion is reserved from convective transport for the kinetic energy cycle. This dissipation introduces some ambiguity in energy budgets. This is air parcel velocity; the winds, if you will. Mass flux. Tightly interwoven with convection of latent and sensible heat (internal energy of atmosphere). Characterized by imperfect eddy covariance schemes at small scales in surface budgets today. This stuff I find far more fascinating than radiation transfer, and much more uncertain.
I see a great degree of leeway in various versions of energy budgets that are forced to close, with surface and window flux densities free to vary up to 20 Wm-2 to close these gaps. Any notion that these values have been so adequately constrained as to warrant totally discounting them as factors of change do not hold much water IMO.
The disparaging remarks and labels applied by Zebra, in an effort to delineate clearly that I’m on the wrong side of the tracks, is a subject I find quite fascinating. I suppose i’ve been classified neatly into a box with all the other baddies on a wide range of subjects.
I will continue on my chosen career path to advocate for the importance of watershed hydrology, both to protect lives and property, and to reduce temperature and hydrological extremes. The science theory is a matter of curiosity for which I have no authority and pose no threat to the faith of those in this thread.
Piotrsays
RE: Zebra: Nov 28, correcting my English as the third language, to deflect from my criticism of his “elegant solution “:
Zebra: when you say something is “a tautology”, it really doesn’t fit my understanding of the term:
Good point. In fact, knowing that my English sometimes can betray me, I have EXPLICITLY explained what I meant: “ everybody knows that a smaller population would reduce anthropogenic impacts
So I accept your linguistic criticism of my English – and will substitute “tautology” with “ stating the obvious as if it were a novel and elegant solution ” or “ reinventing the wheel“. See my rephrased argument at the end of this post.
Zebra: “ to say that reduced fertility is not a solution because “it occurs naturally” is also difficult to understand. Do you mean it is acausal, like in quantum physics?”
I meant it not in the quantum physics meaning, but in the normal Webster’s dictionary meaning: “an action or process of solving a problem”.
Solving. If a problem SOLVES ITSELF you can’t claim that YOU HAVE SOLVED it. I mean, as this disussion shows, you _can_, but you shouldn’t.
And I am bit perplexed that this point wasn’t obvious to such a sharp reader like you – given that in a previous post I even offered a simple George W. Bush analogy:
Piotr Nov. 18: “ Taken as a goal – it is no solution either – it is taking credit for what happens anyway, much the same way as George W. Bush, instead of GHG emissions cuts, proposed lowering GHG-INTENSITY (GHG emission/GDP) – at the exact same rate that the economy was reducing its energy-intensity for the competitive reasons ANYWAY
If having read that, you still find it “ difficult to understand what I meant – I am not sure how to simplify it more.
== My criticism of Zebra’s , ehem, modest proposal (reduction of human population), a.k.a. his “elegant solution” ===
“Taken as a statement of fact – it’s no “elegant solution”, it’s stating the obvious as if it were a novel and elegant solution – everybody knows that a smaller population would reduce anthropogenic impacts.
Taken as a goal – it is no solution either – it just taking credit for what happens (demographic transition) by itself anyway, And which won’t happen fast enough – we need to reach net zero emissions in the next few decades, not in many centuries or millenia from now. ”
===
nigeljsays
Piotr, good comments. Its hard to fault your reasoning. I had similar discussions with zebra on smaller global population years before you arrived on this website, particularly I pointed out the lack of ability to keep warming under 2 degrees. I did acknowledge it might help keep warming going over those numbers to some extent. However I had the same response of deflections and personal put downs. Now he ignores me. All this despite the fact I agreed smaller population is desirable at least in principle. Sheeesh.
This paper discusses the role of the ocean surface microlayer (SML) and the way in which marine biodiversity regulates the climate, and the factors that control marine biodiversity. The authors raise questions about the way in which the SML is taken into account in climate models. To what extent is the SML taken account of climate change models?
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4210551
JCM in Oct’s UV thread,
You asked why in this energy budget diagram the IR from the surface absorbed by the atmosphere (358.2Wm^-2) did not equal the back radiation from atmosphere to surface (340.3Wm^-2). I don’t see a useful answer in the Oct UV thread, although the answers are spread out a bit. (So another one here will be adding to that spread.)
It’s presumably due to the transparency of the atmosphere to IR. If IR has a zero path length before being absorbed by the atmosphere we would expect the surface and the immediate atmosphere to be pretty-much the same temperature and so emitting pretty-much the same levels of IR at each other. Thus back radiation from the atmosphere would equal the total surface emission (398.2Wm^-2). But path lengths are not zero.
Firstly, there is 40.1Wm^-2 from the surface that shoots straight off into space. This is because there are gaps, parts of the spectrum that are entirely transparent in the atmosphere, neither absorbing nor emitting. These gaps will reduce the ability of the atmosphere to radiate back to the surface. Helpfully, this reduces the up-down difference from 57.9Wm^-2 to 17.8Wm^-2, thus effectively the value you were querying in the Oct UV thread.
So secondly, while we know where it is that the surface is radiating from (obviously the surface), the atmosphere will be radiating back to the surface from different distances above the surface, this dependent on the IR’s path length in the atmosphere for the particular wavelength. As these high-up bits of atmosphere radiating IR with long path lengths down to the surface will be cooler than the surface, they will be radiating less IR. On average this reduction in radiation presumably amounts to that 17.8Wm^-2.
@JCM re:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/10/unforced-variations-oct-2022/#comment-806800
JCM, if you are going to dismiss what people are trying to explain by saying you “have a hunch” that they are wrong, what’s the point of them trying to explain? You can keep doing that forever, so it is just a waste of everyone’s time.
You have to provide some input. If you can’t explain why you think the two rates of radiation we are talking about should be the same, then you are obviously not interested in understanding what’s happening.
And if you don’t accept the measurements that tell us what the two rates are, then you are just engaging in conspiracy theories, which is even more of a waste of time.
UAH TLT has been posted for October with an anomaly of +0.32ºC, the second highest monthly anomaly of the year-so-far and up on September’s +0.24ºC. The Jan to Oct anomalies spanning +0.00ºC to +0.36ºC.
October 2022 sits as the 4th warmest October on the UAH TLT record, behind Oct 2017 (+0.47ºC), 2020 (+0.38ºC) & 2021 (+0.37ºC) and ahead of 2019 (+0.29ºC), 2015 & 2016 (both +0.28ºC), 1998 (+0.24ºC) and a bit of a drop to 2003 (+0.12ºC) and 10th spot 2005 (+0.11ºC).
August 2022 sits =33rd in the all-month UAH TLT rankings.
2022 to-date still sits in 7th place in the year-so-far average anomaly rankings with 6th spot now looking the likely outcome for the full calendar year. To drop to 8th would now require the Nov-Dec anomaly to average below a seriously chilly -0.12ºC. To rise to 6th would require the Nov-Dec average to top just +0.22ºC. A further rise into 5th spot would require a worryingly scorchy average above +0.65ºC for the next two months.
…….. Jan-Oct Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.42ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 1st
1998 .. +0.41ºC … … … +0.35ºC … … … 3rd
2020 .. +0.37ºC … … … +0.36ºC … … … 2nd
2019 .. +0.28ºC … … … +0.30ºC … … … 4th
2017 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 5th
2010 .. +0.23ºC … … … +0.19ºC … … … 6th
2022 .. +0.19ºC
2021 .. +0.13ºC … … … +0.13ºC … … … 8th
2015 .. +0.11ºC … … … +0.14ºC … … … 7th
2002 .. +0.09ºC … … … +0.08ºC … … … 10th
2018 .. +0.08ºC … … … +0.09ºC … … … 9th
When I see UAH (or RSS) mentioned reminded how well that the oceanic AMO index overlays that measure since 1979 — at a correlation coefficient of about 0.75 considering how erratic each of them are. Now there is a new paper out titled Millennial-scale climate variability over land overprinted by ocean temperature fluctuations in Nature Geoscience where they claim an ” emergence of a marine-driven low-frequency regime governing terrestrial climate variability and sets the basis to project the amplitude of temperature fluctuations on multi-decadal timescales and longer.”
Every time I see the title of this thread I think to myself that there is no such thing as an “unforced variation” in climate behavior. In reality, every single movement in climate is forced by some other external “forcing”. One can assert that it is a chaotic attractor or an eigenfunction defined by the internal dynamics, but it is actually difficult to verify this is the case — remember that no controlled experiments are possible with the climate, so one can’t generate an impulse and monitor the natural response, So I’m of the opinion that nothing at the scale of the climate will move spontaneously of it’s own accord,
For a mathematical take, recommend this YT series on solving DiffEq’s => https://youtu.be/8EyDFVs2qsw
A homogeneous solution is the natural or general response, and a non-homogeneous solution is the characteristic or forced response.
From JCM last month:
>The same balance is visible from the surface following the arrows as advised by BPL
>Net Solar + Back Radiation – Atmosphere Absorbed – Window – Turbulent flux of H & LE = 0
>163.3 + (340.3 – 358.2) – 40.1 – (36.8 + 86.4) = surface balance
No. Incoming flux – Outgoing flux = surface balance = 0.6 absorbed.
Incoming flux = Net solar + back radiation = 163.3 + 340.3 = 503.6
Outgoing flux = LW emitted by surface + conduction/convection + latent heat = 398.2 + 18.4 + 86.4 = 503.0
Full equation (163.3 + 340.3) – (398.2 + 18.4 + 86.4) = 0.6 net absorbed at surface
Due to increasing greenhouse gases, more heat is being absorbed at the surface than radiated back out, and the planet is heating up. This number is strongly constrained because most of the heat is going into the ocean, and has been observed for about 20 years. Most of the rest goes into melting glaciers, and a small amount absorbed by the land surface and conducted into deeper layers where it is shielded from seasonal cycles.
Another look at your numbers:
>Net Solar + Back Radiation – Atmosphere Absorbed – Window – Turbulent flux of H & LE = 0
(Net Solar + Back Radiation) is the influx at the surface. But it is not equal to (Atmosphere Absorbed + Window + Turbulent flux of H and LE) because the first two of those concern what happens to the flux AFTER it has already left the surface. To get the balance, you need to look at how much is leaving the surface, not what happens to it once it has already departed. The turbulent flux term is correct. Because the system is out of balance, it won’t all add up to zero, either.
>163.3 + (340.3 – 358.2) – 40.1 – (36.8 + 86.4) = surface balance
Your equation is not using the correct terms. The (340.3 – 358.2) = (-17.9) that you’re calling the “discontinuity” is not meaningful. It is the difference between some of the heat that’s being transferred to the atmosphere and all of the heat from the atmosphere that is re-radiated to the surface, in the net amounts. A portion of that radiation might be making several trips back and forth
>163.3 + (-17.9) – 40.1 – (104.8) = +0.5
Was this supposed to be a reduction from your last equation? (36.8+86.4) = 123.2. I don’t follow where
your (104.8) came from.
>The brackets are introduced to highlight my areas of interest.
>Assuming the values are well constrained:
> What is the meaning of the (-17.9)? How is it differentiated from the window (-40.1) by an observer at the surface?
See above. You can’t differentiate the -17.9 from the -40.1 window by observing at the surface because they concern what happens to the LW flux once it has already left the surface.
>Is there a rationale why the +0.5 can’t originate from a perturbation to turbulent flux. It seems rather small compared to the uncertainties in quantifying LE.
Yes, it seems to originate from your math error, rather than anything that’s been measured.
Will COP 27 delegates be able to outrun their carbon footprints in the race to Sharm El Sheikh?
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/10/cop-27-carbon-negative-race-is-on.html
This is the same mutton headed reasoning that complains “police cars speed, what hypocrites!”
The problem is you can’t catch the speeders unless you’re going faster than they are.
1. They can do this via video.
2. They are a bunch of privileged fools who are solving nothing, so no need to meet.
3. The mutton-headed thinking is to not critique the massive failure that is the climate/ecosystem destruction response.
F2F is a superior way of meeting than video.
Says who? It’s not worth 1. the enviro cost, 2. the economic cost, 3. the exclusion of the many, many people who can’t afford the trip.
It’s elitist to continue to do things that way.
I was just part of a two-week summit on bioregionalism, so….
Ladies and Gentlemen
October month has been the warmest in European history.
One is discussing climate.
October has also been the warmest that I can remember here in the Oslofjord by many signals, for instance, no frost at all till now and morning frost comes normally about one month earlier. Potatoes for instance must be picked BASTA! at oct 10th.
Our very exotic wine- tree at 150 moh 60 deg north had sweet grapes 1. sept and kept until oct 20ieth. That is Goldener october, you see. But vino is no good climate indicator because there are so many cultivars and brought out of their natural habitats. A better indicator for us noted along with Köppens climate system is wild oak and apples.
There has been plenty of autumn rain and more is coming. Hydroelectricity comes in order again, electricity prices are falling as we are connected by cables to the EU- network.
Also The sun seems to be in order again, a lot of Aurora Borealis is reported.
But the russians are not in order. We must pray for them. And Uncle Sam is hardly in order either. King Donald Grozny seems to be coming back.
Greta Thunberg seems to be in order, she will not go to Kairo.
“I see 358.2 LW absorbed in the turbulent mixed layer, and 340.3 downward LW.
This is a discontinuity of 17.9 Wm-2.
Can anyone provide physical observation of this discontinuity? A tower site or something which demonstrates it to exist?
Where there is a net 17.9 Wm-2 flux of radiation into the atmosphere from the surface? Seem strange to me. The boundary layer is dominated by turbulent diffusion of mass, heat, and momentum. It’s pretty well mixed.
That is quite a large discontinuity….”
Absorbed solar radiation at the surface = 163.3
latent heat = (86..4)
Thermals = (18.4)
————————————————-
Absorbed SW emitted as LW= 58,5
———————————————–
LW absorbed at surface = 340.3
Surface energy imbalance = (0.6)
———————————–
Total emitted LW = (398.2)
———————————–
grand total = 0.00 (balanced)
==================================
For MAR, John P, and JCH
MAR and John: The problem here is that you are trying to give a long explanation for a question that makes no sense in the first place.
Forget the numbers for a minute. JCH does not (or is unwilling to) understand and accept the physical process. He doesn’t quite get conservation of energy, and he doesn’t get that energy takes different forms, perhaps because of his agenda.
Asked why he thinks the energy emitted up from the surface should be the same as that emitted down from the atmosphere, his answer is that “it’s a hunch”.
Until you get him to explain, beyond “it’s a hunch”, the physical reasoning, what’s the point of answering? It’s not a math mistake on his part; he’s just engaging in the Denialist tactic of creating the illusion of actual controversy.
JCH: There is no reason for the two values to be the same; asking the same question over and over is wasting everyone’s time.
Note that we have a “new” participant in this discussion on energy balance diagrams – JCH.
This is added to JCM from last month, who it appears is now going to have a back-and-forth with JCH. No signs yet of Schurle, in any of his Schurle-esque personas. I would not be surprised in Schurle is dropping his Schurle monikers, and created the new JCH scnreen name to supplement the JCM screen name.
Highly likely they are all the same troll.
The 17.9 JCM is asking about is solar radiation absorbed by the surface that is emitted as LW and reabsorbed by gases, I forget their name, in the atmosphere. There is no discontinuity, and I have been commenting at RC for a very long time.
What is the problem? You’ve shown that the surface energy budget balances.
The “discontinuity” arises from your expectation that two dissimilar terms should nevertheless be equal.
Energy enters the atmosphere and is absorbed from a variety of sources: long wave solar, short wave from the surface, plus convection of sensible and latent heat “Absorption” consists of converting other forms of energy into heat, warming the free atmosphere.
Once the atmosphere has been warmed, the heat is converted back into LW radiation. Some of that goes back to the surface (340.3). However, there is no particular reason to expect that the amount that goes back to the surface will exactly match the amount emanating from the surface that is absorbed by the atmosphere (358.2). Atmospheric energy also gets absorbed from other sources. It also exits the atmosphere in other ways. The total energy entering and leaving the atmosphere has to balance, not the amount of LW exchange between the surface and the atmosphere.
Just asking, perhaps this should read “variety of sources: short wave solar, long wave from the surface” ?
Yes. Thanks for the correction. I did mean to write “short wave solar, long wave from the surface” as you suggested.
The total energy entering and leaving the atmosphere does not HAVE to balance, and at present it does not, and the atmosphere etc. is warming. The planet will continue to warm until the energy returns to a balanced condition. In other words when CO2 levels return to their previous level which produced a balance with the incoming solar energy which has not changed.
JHC
Just what are you going to find out?
I cannot see your problem
You are giving DATA with 4 chiffres in your system argument and then teacdhintg us of “… the boundary layer that is dominated by turbulent diffusion of mass, heat, ande momentumm that is pretty well mixed…”
… then what is your problem, more than that you are hardly learnt and and aquaintede on how to measure up and quantify a system as you describe it. How to observe, measure and to describe and to quantifty and how to discuss a mess, a complex mixture, a stew and a brew and a turbulent chaos.
Somebody has a problem; it’s not me. It called an energy budget.
So, you have no problem?
It is probably because you are not responsible for your budgets and your accountsw being true and realistic .
I have withnessed that also indeed in the case of money and economy budgets, where the same is often called cheating and bluff or even stupidity in the budgets and accounts.
It is caused through lack of matematical formation, you see.
“Durch nichts verrät sich der Mangelm an matematische Bildung häuffiger und deutlicher und stellt sich zur Schau, wie durch masslose Genauigkeit in den Zahlenrechnungen”.
I have allready made aware of that effect here.
This very fameous sentence opinion is according to the great matematician Friedrich Gauss.
Whatever. Nothing of substance; plenty of diarrhea.
Your religious political racial etnical diarrhoea here is substancially due to your lack of mathematical formation / matematische Bildung, as defined by http://www.Friedrich/Gauss..
Returning to discussion on the Inflation Reduction Act, what are peoples predictions regarding it’s likely reversal after the US mid term elect elections?
There is a real disconnect between the political elite in Washington and the lived experience of the rest of the population. Economic inequality and political disenfranchisement has been on the rise for decades. Some blame this on the wealthy elite, who have subverted democratic processes to serve their own ends and resist climate action as maintaining the status quo is in their self interest, although this is starting to change. .Others blame a much broader and nebulous elite which includes the political class, intellectuals and some of the wealthy elite while excluding ‘rebels’ in the political and wealth elites.. This group generally sees climate change as anything from overstated to a false narrative created to undermine the rights and freedoms of US citizens.
My hope is that there is enough momentum to resist too much push back from a republican congress but it doesn’t look hopeful.
Old and inconsistent denialist talking points show how the debate has stagnated in the US: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/04/republican-democrat-candidates-climate-crisis?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Well, they will certainly try. I am still hoping the Dems hold onto a majority in the Senate. And Biden still has the veto. The Insurrectionist party may be too busy investigating Hunter Biden’s laptop to get much done. What I expect is that they will send a few damp squibs toward 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, get them sent back to sender and then they will hold the debt and/or budget hostage if they don’t get their will.
So, I may have a whole bunch of unexpected holiday next year.
Lots of wildcards–like who gets indicted in GA, NY and federal court.
Not going to happen; it would take a Presidential signature or a veto over-ride, neither of which will be forthcoming in any likely scenario.
nigel nigeled: ” it’s really obvious humans are inherently hierarchical leaning”
Not if one reads. Try talking to an actual anthropologist and reading a book less than 100 years old. Completely incorrect. Egalitarianism dominates human history by a very large margin. The closest one can get to what you regurgitate from outdated sources is that even ancient societies fluctuated between small-group egalitarianism and large-scale egalitarianism seasonally.
I’ve posted sources before that make your statement absurd. Read them, What’s obvious is you have not, yet still post as if you know things.
Killian.
This book is published in 2012: “Human beings are hierarchical animals…..”
https://www.routledge.com/Human-Hierarchies-A-General-Theory/Fein/p/book/9781138510708#:~:text=Human%20beings%20are%20hierarchical%20animals,sustain%20them%20are%20the%20same
And a very recent source I posted on Octobers UV thread: “As the Stanford study reveals, hierarchy is innate, it’s in our DNA, while egalitarianism is a learned way of being.”
https://www.rw-3.com/blog/hierarchical-vs.-egalitarian-whats-the-best-leadership-style
Yes I acknowledge hunter gatherers leaned strongly towards egalitarianism and for a long time but obviously this doesn’t prove its innate. It may have been a learned response that worked for those conditions. I’m also not suggesting extreme forms of hierarchies are a good thing either.
Please provide links to back up your claims humans are inherently egalitarian. I’m not searching back over this website. I’ve kept my response brief because its all getting off topic and I don’t want to annoy people.
———————–
Kevin, on last months UV thread. I agree things needed to just survive clearly include healthcare. Not sure why I didn’t include that. Email me on it all if you want.
Ten years, dude. Don’t try to make that seem OK. It isn’t. Do you have ANY idea how much we’ve learned in anthropology and archeology in that time? Apparently not.
And then there’s the issue of the dominant paradigm, which is wrong, but still dominates, and which you clearly don’t have the background to critique appropriately.
Some things never change, eh?
Killian.
“Ten years, dude. Don’t try to make that seem OK. It isn’t. Do you have ANY idea how much we’ve learned in anthropology and archeology in that time? ”
As others have pointed out to you, just because some material is very recent does not necessarily make it correct. Boyles gas laws and Einsteins equations are hundreds of years old but still valid despite the occasional crank trying to prove them wrong.
I posted two links showing humans are innately hierarchical. You have to prove these are wrong by going through them line by line and showing in precise detail why you disagree and providing links to appropriate peer reviewed sources to back up your criticisms as appropriate. Quoting an alternative view does not necessarily prove the previous view to be wrong.
“Some things never change, eh?”
And yes some things never change. For example you are still making claims about source material but don’t back them up with links to specific sources, and you are still making ad hominem attacks on people ( ” and which you clearly don’t have the background to critique appropriately.” And you dont even know what my full qualifications are.
You are also letting the issue of whether hierarchies are innate or not distract you. Humans could perhaps still adopt a more egalitarian leaning culture given some peoples have adopted such a culture ( hunter gatherers). But how far we go doing this should to fit in with the nature of our society which is still going to be quite complex and high population for a long time. In my view trying to run such a thing completely without hierarchies would be inefficient, and its not clear that an egalitarian structure would ensure good outcomes.
Do you realise over 90% of intentional (alternative) communities that attempt egalitarian structures fail within a few years? I googled the issue and the following comments offer some insights:
“Why do 90% of intentional communities/eco-villages fail? Because it is much harder to get along with people than you think.”
“Broadly intentional communities fail for a few big reasons:”
“Open admission policy – “everybody is welcome”. It just doesn’t work. You wind up with more people than you can support, people with mental health issues, people with criminal behavior, people who make no contribution to the group (“dead weight”)”
“Financial problems – bad money management, and / or unrealistic expectations about business. For example farming is often not very lucrative. It is very common for there not to be enough income to support the group”
“Disagreements / fighting inside the group. Who is in control, how are decisions made? This goes all the way down to “who is going to clean the bathrooms” and “who didn’t wash their dishes?”.”
“Getting enough group residents to do enough work to make the commune go. There is never a shortage of people who want to sit around and do nothing. Lots of people are willing to be “planners” or “managers”, fewer are eager to be ‘workers’. Some businesses, like farming, can turn out to be much harder work than people expect.”
“In some “open relationship” and “free love” groups, jealousy caused disagreements and splintering.”
“Angry neighbors. If you make people angry enough, they will find a way to get rid of you. They will report you for violating health codes, laws , how you treat your children (Child protective services,), how you treat your elderly (Social services), how you use your land (Zoning board.) The core problem at Rajneeshpuram was they bought a piece of land that wasn’t zoned for the use they wanted. And they really pissed off their neighbors.”
“Death of the “charismatic founder” is a very frequent cause for groups to break up.”
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-90-of-intentional-communities-eco-villages-fail
I know what you are proposing is not precisely like the preceding description, but the description does demonstrate some very real problems that are relevant to things you have posted.
Some other sources:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jan/17/is-the-boom-in-communal-living-really-the-good-life
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13762591
The Guardian article is a bit more heartening because it does have at least a few success stories. I suspect our civilisation will slowly develop some sort of hybrid model that is semi egalitarian.
“As others have pointed out to you, just because some material is very recent does not necessarily make it correct.”
You literally know nothing of the topic and related topics, yet will not stop bloviating, i.e. just because a thought exists does not mean you should write it for all to see how little you understand. But, of course, the Straw Man is all you have, eh? Some things will never change it seems. After all, who said only recent evidence matters? What I did say is your thinking is WAY out of date and that is reinforced by you citing old literature.
Again, some things will never change.
Since you know nothing of sustainability/regenerative systems, why are you posting on the topic? Upon what basis do you place your mewlings against scientists who have worked directly with indigenous people? That is beyond arrogant. Had you *ever* taken the time to learn even the slightest thing about these issues, you might have something to say, but you have not and that is obvious from your, as ever, out-of-date and very White, biased comments.
Personally? I have spoken directly with a fair number of indigenous people myself and the egalitarian nature of their decision-making processes has been a universal feature thus far, and that is backed up by the scholarship of the *researchers.* This is not something you have done. Why risk your lily-white beliefs and assumptions? Those conversations are freely available for you to listen to – but you won’t.
Oh, my, two links that “show” people are “innately” hierarchical? Well, God, thanks! ‘Cause last time I checked show in that sentence would be equal to prove, which such scholarship could not possibly do no matter how good – but we all know neither logic nor science are of any interest to you – and to prove such behavior is innate would mean it would not be possible for there to be egalitarian societies. That, dear Lily-White, is nonsense. As your comments always are.
“For example you are still making claims about source material but don’t back them up with links to specific sources”
Yet another flat-out lie. I have pointed you to anthropologists, listed links to their work, and quite clearly previously stated the existence of my own ethnographic interviews with indigenous people are available online.
You. Are. Lying.
Again.
BTW, it is impossible to use Ad Homs towards you: You are quite repetitive in your use of logical fallacies and outright falsehoods. You will forever frame calling you on such crap as Ad Hom when it is mere truth.
“You are also letting the issue of whether hierarchies are innate or not distract you. Humans could perhaps still adopt a more egalitarian leaning culture given some peoples have adopted such a culture ( hunter gatherers).”
Good lord. You contradict yourself. Or prove you have no idea what innate means. I know, I know…. you merely misspoke…. again. And again, And again.
“Do you realise over 90% of intentional (alternative) communities that attempt egalitarian structures fail within a few years? ”
Now you’re lecturing me on my area of expertise? Again. Arrogant. That ecovillages/intentional communities have had a high failure rate – some say as high as 95% – is due to egalitarianism? Evidence? There is ZERO legit scholarship on that. You are making an assumption based on the correlation of egalitarianism with people seeking just societies. Egalitarinism is not something I have ever heard cited as the reasons for failures. You might consider a few things like too static a population since indigenous populations are very non-static, or attempting to live within an economy that is diametrically opposed to the society they are embedded in. Or perhaps the attempts at idealized idea about relationship models that people attempt without the hundreds or thousands of years of experience and history that underlies the development of unique societies, or…. so many other things. But, no, it must be egalitarianism that caused the failure, eh, Lily-White? Can’t have any brown folk influencing our future, eh?
You don’t think, you merely troll. You see bone you don’t like the look of and you must grind your teeth on it. You are the ONLY person on the boards who responds to literally every posting, every comment thread. Just. Stop. You offer the weakest commentary on these boards bc it is so utterly pointless.
Your little list of complaints? Could be said about any other community on the planet. Your “scholarship” is non-existent.
You know nothing and understand less. E.g., please list the characteristics of egalitarian/regenerative societies, please.
No googling. (Though that wouldn’t help you.)
Killian.
You still haven’t substantiated your claim that humans are not innately hierarchical with an actual link and copy and paste. Or a quotation from a book ( be aware I will check on the internet, or with the writer to make sure its an accurate quote). How long do we have to wait, and how much of your wild claims, and personal drivel do we have to wade through to find something of substance that backs up your claim?
Richard Creager and myself have provided links and specific books and copy and paste all clearly showing humans are innately hierarchical. I (along with others) beat you in your own so called area of expertise every time because you frequently cant substantiate your claims with proper scientific citations, or even just informed but objective articles, maths, or relevant cogently argued detail.
By the way there’s no contradiction in what I said. The link I posted and the copy and paste clearly stated humans are inherently hierarchical but can LEARN to be egalitarian. There’s nothing wrong or illogical about that. Try actually reading the link.
You still haven’t substantiated your claim that humans are not innately hierarchical with an actual link and copy and paste.
And you’re a liar. I have repeatedly sourced what I have stated above. Truth is irrelevant to a bigot, however. To deny the histories and the present-day societies of living cultures is disgusting.
And here’s yet another proving your bigotry needs to be shoved back down your inappropriate, bigoted throat:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4SDBVaUboc&t=323s
That is the THIRD anthropologist I have given direct links to with all saying exactly the same thing. You cling to comfortable bigoted and racist tropes, long debunked. No surprise from the guy who started out nearly seven years ago calling simplicity primitive and implying that was somehow a BAD thing. Bigotry. From beginning to end.
Seven years of wasting everyone’s time and spreading your bigotry. Shame on you.
Hr Killian
Equality is hardly about the age of books in terms of 10E2 years more or less.
If you look to reality now, All russians are equal now exept for Puttler, who is more equal than the others all from Krjeml and throughout Russia.
And look to Kiev. All Ukrainians are very equal now exept for Zelensky who is more equal than any of the others in Ukraina and Kiev. . But one of theese equals are above the other in the grades, according to both of them of what they are saying and what people are saying about them. .
A worst class example of equality above anyone else in the grades now is Jens von Stoltenberg, Chairman of NATO, former prime minister of Norway on behalf of the labour party where all are equal exept for the Party Secretary, who is much more equal than the others, and they all try and equal him. And they feel above anything and anyone else in the grades according to that.
Thus make up your mind. Who is more equal now, Joe Biden & his Kamala, or King Donald Grosny?.
And what about Greta Thunberg, How equal is she?????.
PS
Drunken sailors are unequal DS.
K: All social creatures are hierarchical. Egalitarian= less overt/rigid hierarchies. Read De Waal, maybe start with “Our Inner Ape”.
You read de Waal. He’s wrong. Why bother? Go talk to some indigenous people. de Waal should consider doing so. Go talk to Peter Gray, Helga Vierich. People who have worked with indigenous people. Listen to the interviews I have done on Clubhouse, Regenerative Governance club. Read people who make sense – obviously NOT de Waal. He studies *primates*, for chrissakes. He wrote a book about humans, based on his suppositions drawn from *primates*, not studies of humans.
This is nigel-level thinking!
Egalitarian means a wide range of versions, but to say all egalitarianism is a version of hierarchy is nonsense. As Vierich would likely point out, what *you* might think is hierarchy is not what you are assuming it is.
Killian- “He studies *primates*, for chrissakes.” Let’s see….debating innate social predilection in humans. De Waal studies social structure in chimps and bonobos, the two ape species genetically closest to humans. Let me think……hmmm……could that POSSIBLY be relevant? Think harder, Killian.
No, it really isn’t when you hundreds of sustainable human societies to study and people who study them. Why the everlasting $%@# would you default to bonobos over studies of humans to understand humans?
Given de Waal is getting it wrong – at least according to nigel – don’t you think you should not be so shitty in your response?
So, yes, do think harder. You’re failing.
World annual energy consumption is currently about 600 exajoules, amounting to
an instantaneous energy dissipation into the climate system of 1.9 E13 Watts, or
about 0.04 Wm-2 over Earth’s surface, most of which must eventually cascade into
heat. This seems significant, but I’ve never seen it mentioned in climate energy
balance calculations. Can anyone please comment? -Don
It isn’t significant compared to the imbalance caused by greenhouse gas absorption. Mr. Sun is very bright–so much so that even the bites taken out of the re-radiated thermal emissions of the planet still dwarf human energy consumption.
Don,
The geothermal flux density averaged over the globe is 0.087 watts per square meter, the surface solar illumination is 188 watts per square meter (165 absorbed), and the back-radiation striking the surface is 327 watts per square meter. Compared to the solar and terrestrial radiation, both the geothermal and the human civilization flux densities are too trivial to make a difference.
DN: 0.04 Wm-2 over Earth’s surface, most of which must eventually cascade into
heat. This seems significant,
Not really. First, assuming that your numbers are correct they are small – in comparison anthropogenic greenhouse gasses forcing is over 1.4 W/m-2.
Second, greenhouse emission are something we could do something about, We can’t do much about reducing significantly the amount of energy consumed – and that what we could – increasing efficiency, reducing demand and switching to wind/solar – would have MUCH larger impact on the radiative budget via reduction greenhouse gases than via reduction of energy dissipation.
Oops, “over 1.4 W/m2” is for the CO2 alone, not for “greenhouse gasses“. I.e. the direct heat dispersion is even more insignificant. in comparison.
Donald Neidig,
As others have pointed out, global Primary Energy use stands at 160,000Twh (with the bit that isn’t renewable 139,000Twh or 0.031Wm^-2, although this ignores the energy generated from LUC) is small beer in thre run of things, as this SkS graphic, smaller than the warming from the molten core of the Earth and only 4x the energy input in the tides, and is entirely dwarfed by solar warming.
But unlike these mentioned comparisons, FF+nuclear Primary Energy is increasing, from 98,000TWh (+0.022Wm^-2) in 2001, so averaging a rate of +.0.00046Wm^-2/y since 2001.
The increase in CO2 forcing 2001-21 is given by the NOAA’s AGI at +0.6Wm^-2 or +0.03Wm^-2/y, so 66x greater. (I must admit, that is a bigger ratio than I was expecting.)
Thanks to all for your responses. Yes, insignificant now. Still, it seems odd that the effect bears no mention. However, as I recall, global energy demand/consumption increased by nearly a factor of 10 in the twentieth century. As the fraction of heating by GHG declines, I wonder what the fractional contribution by energy consumption might become in another few hundred years. Renewable energy sources (solar and wind) are largely exempted as contributors, but the space available for them will become inadequate if energy demand increases by more than another order of magnitude in the future. And non-renewable energy sources (e.g. nuclear) may then become significant contributors to sensible heat production… Just thinking far ahead.
Don
In the longer term, Don, you are quite correct.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
Of course, as Gavin has pointed out in the past, exponential trends don’t stay exponential forever. Often, not even all that long.
Donald,
The Club of Rome (authors of Limits to Growth and follow-on studies) did take this into account in some of their simulations. If you posit 100% pollution-free energy, thermal imbalances eventually become important and cause collapse. Not gonna hold my breath, though.
A new, peer-reviewed study concludes that global sea-level rise could be up to 0.9 m by 2100 and 2.5 m by 2300 if global warming is +2 C by 2100 (RCP2.6/SSP1-2.6).
Only 2C by 2100. How cute.
Can I have a unicorn, too?
And only 0.9 if 2C? Also cute.
The amount of reduction in consumption that would require simply isn’t even on the table… or even in the room at the moment. Go regenerative? Sure. We can be back to < 300ppm well before 2100 should we pull out heads out. But we're not pulling our heads out and consumption roars along.
Until there is a real shift in the rise in temps, I'm assuming each most recent increase in the slope of the temp curve is the new short-term normal until the next upward shift hits. We'll be damned lucky to stay under 3C. And that would require multiple unicorns given the rates of increase in rates of increase we are seeing.
@killian Read the study. It makes more than one projection.
Looks like the link is busted. Can you re-post it?
And? I responded to what you posted. Is that a problem for you for some bizarre reason?
Donald Neidig Depends on what “significant” means. AR5 GHGs totalled 3.45 w/m**2 since 1750. I haven’t looked for AR6 yet but the 0.04 Wm-2 is a forcing that’s 1.2% of the GHGs forcing 1750 to 2012.
Addendum, I forgot. I been commenting about this for 8 years (bods keep saying Earth is just been heating by humans burning stuff) but I just forgot that it’s actually a lot more than your 0.04 Wm-2. I just used 45 terawatts for the heat for 40% efficiency of generators & ICE plus some wiring heat loss, just a stab in the dark, so correct yours & mine above to 0.09 Wm-2 which is 2.6% of AR5 GHGs totalled 3.45 w/m**2 and is what I’ve replied to a couple hundred GooglesTubes bods for 8 years. So it’s a non-negligible forcing and I occasionally mildly wondered your question.
Barry E Finch: “2.6% of AR5 GHGs 3.45 w/m**2 [is] a non-negligible forcing,”
To answer you in the words of … Barry E Finch: “ Depends on what “significant” means“.
For me, 2.6% it is not “significant” given the error bars on some of the major radiative fluxes, and
more importantly, given that anything we could do to reduce the energy dissipation – increasing efficiency, reducing demand, and switching to wind/solar – would have MUCH larger absolute impact (in W/m2) on the anthropogenic greenhouse gases forcing, than on energy dissipation.
+
Thank you for the variety of responses.
The balance of the actual atmosphere is described by:
Solar absorbed into atmosphere + H + LE + Thermal IR radiation absorbed by atmosphere – Thermal IR back radiation to surface – Thermal IR emitted by air (gas) to space – Thermal IR emitted by clouds (liquid & solid) to space = 0
Balance of whole atmosphere:
77.1 + 18.4 + 86.4 + 358.2 – 340.3 – 169.9 – 29.9 = 0
Here we observe the atmosphere is perfectly balanced according to the NASA Langley diagram after Trenberth et al.
And so, the apparent imbalance during the period of the diagram is described only at the boundary conditions, surface and/or TOA.
Diagram: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/what-is-earth-s-energy-budget-five-questions-with-a-guy-who-knows
Such that the observed imbalance at TOA, or Surface, can only be described by Net Solar, Convection i.e. LE + H, and IR window. The medium of atmosphere itself is balanced, described in the diagram.
The Surface boundary balance described in my previous comment https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/10/unforced-variations-oct-2022/#comment-806800:
Net Solar surface + Back Radiation – Atmosphere Absorbed – Window – H – LE = 0.5
163.3 + 340.3 – 358.2 – 40.1 – 36.8 – 86.4 = 0.5
TOA boundary balance described by:
Total solar absorbed – OLR = 0.5
In summary, it appears to be the only degrees of freedom in the system are the factors of solar absorption, convection into the atmosphere (H + LE), and IR window.
These factors increase (or decrease) the total thermal energy. It should be noted LE is not independent from solar absorbed. LE is inextricable from cloud formation. Furthermore, cloud formation process is inextricable from the IR window…
@MA Rodger provides a convincing argument, relating to IR path length. However, I would argue the air is radiating dependent on its temperature. I am seeking observational evidence of the discontinuity of air vs surface temperature. This has not yet been provided. At what height is back radiation derived? At the surface? Near the surface? At some other height?
Moist surfaces might exhibit cooler temperatures than the air, and dry surfaces might exhibit warmer temperatures than the air. Presumably the net is -17.9 W m-2 away from the surface. Is this the argument? More dry surfaces? If that’s the case, let me know. How does this relate to radiative exchange equilibrium? How does this relate to turbulent flux?
@zebra make accusations of conspiracy ideations. I have no interest in this line of reasoning. I assure you I am interested to understand what is happening. @zebra makes reference to accepting the measurements. This is precisely what I’m after, the measurements. Perhaps even a single observational site which may support the case. Not provided. Avoidance, distraction, and accusation represents someone at a loss for reasonable argument. A lost cause.
@John Pollock makes reference to the surface factors, but makes no reference to the window. This does not address my original questioning of the nature of -17.9 W m-2 discontinuity. Only @MA Rodger attempts to address this, in addition to @BPL.
@John Pollock then jumps to his preferred conclusion that “Due to increasing greenhouse gases, more heat is being absorbed at the surface than radiated back out, and the planet is heating up.” @John Pollock has discarded the various other factors of his formulations, including net solar absorbed and turbulent flux. @John Pollock has ignored the discussions of Dr. Schmidt in regards to EEI and the relation to solar absorbed https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/09/a-ceres-of-fortunate-events/ . @JohnPollock relies on the derived transparency of window 40.1 and does not address this convenient derived term. @John Pollock has ignored several relevant factors in favor of his preconceived solution.
@JCH I’m afraid I have not understood the argument.
I remain at a loss based on this variety of solutions. I see responses ranging from conspiracy ideation to outright ignorance (blindness) of various inconvenient factors. I see a reliance on assumptions, and derived values. I see unclear and under-annotated solutions. I observe nobody addressing the factors outside their preconceived ideology. I see nobody providing the observational evidence for which I have requested. I see nobody providing a coherent response. I see very little consistency in the solutions provided.
I will not even address https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/10/unforced-variations-oct-2022/#comment-806806, for this relies on the adoration of a green tech salesman who cannot be in the least trusted anymore for objective scientific opinion. I find the tactics disgraceful and damaging to the cause of climate change communication and persuasion. I pity anyone who pays money to learn objective science from @Barry E Finch’s idol. It is precisely the presentations I have seen from his idol that enhances my sense of skepticism. The congressional testimony, twitter feed, and tiktoks are an embarrassment to the discipline. There remain very few who have not sacrificed their scientific credibility on the subject of climate. One of the few which remains includes Dr. Schmidt which is why I continue to visit this website.
My personal observation is that the reductionism and assumptions employed here in the comments ‘may’ be causing net damage to environmental policy recommendation. Atmospheric physicists claiming authority on all matters of environment. In my jurisdiction the protections of ecology, including wetland, soils, forest, habitat, and identification of hazard land are being eroded in favor of highly uncertain reductionist values, a politicized confusion. For example, guidance is provided to protect endangered bears by purchasing an electric vehicle and consuming a vegetarian diet. At the surface it sounds absurd, but it is reality. Prophets of atmosphere with the audacity to undermine true environmental values. And they are succeeding, to the net detriment of us all, IMO. Including the fabric of ecological systems.
It seems to me the masses have been convinced, so part of me hopes you folks are right. But it might be worth providing a coherent and consistent description of cause and effect, free from convenience and active ignorance. I observe a truly remarkable set of collectively incoherent responses for a subject which is claimed to be well characterized.
And you still haven’t answered the question, which I and John P have pointed out, as to why one would expect the radiation down from the atmosphere should be the same as the radiation up from the surface.
John explains this very clearly above.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/11/unforced-variations-nov-2022/#comment-806897
The atmosphere and the planet’s surface are completely different systems, with different compositions, physical characteristics, and inputs. But you insist that they would radiate at the same rate, because of your “hunch”.
Apart from this irrational misconception, anyone reading what you just wrote would see that it is full of conspiratorial ideation. Perhaps you should refine your arguments and not just keep repeating them essentially verbatim, over and over and over.
JCM 27 OCT 2022 “Is it possible the latent and sensible flux values have been under estimated … I am not usually convinced by theoretical derivation, so if you know of any observation studies let me know”. Precipitation is measured at numerous places, so not a theoretical derivation. I don’t know about the other possible contributor to error, sensible flux, thermals conduction-convection.
Questions from last month:
First,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/11/06/egypt-cop27-climate-change-population/
So, last time I asked why China is desperately trying to increase fertility rates given their previous 1-child policy.
Compare and contrast… different countries, different goals. What’s up? (Not just China v Egypt, applies to others.)
A different question I asked was whether people were familiar with Henry George. As I said, I don’t agree with his Cornucopian thinking, but of course he wrote at a different time.
I do find his understanding about resources to be quite on point though. And while my application of the principle as a solution is typically elegant, I wonder why you people looking for a more elaborate policy structure aren’t thinking along the lines he suggests. It’s complicated, but I believe some of it has been applied in isolated cases.
(Comment from last month:)
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/10/unforced-variations-oct-2022/#comment-806775
Regarding Henry Georges and Zebras novel ideas. The “elegant solution” of putting all land ( including currently privately owned land) into public ownership looks like a good theoretical idea that would reduce the power base of the elite. However if Biden suggested something like this the legislation would never get passed, not in a million years. It would almost certainly be viewed by most people as communism on a grand scale. You have to consider human nature and how much you can stretch the Overton window with the public. Zebra owes it to us to explain exactly how he would get his plan implemented and make it stick.
Other elegant solutions include Killians simplification plan, and various academics proposals on massive and rapidly applied reductions in energy / mineral use. They come up against the same problem of human nature, and practical constraints, also how to unwind a massively complex industrial society in a way that doesnt trigger a collapse of that society. Perhaps it can be done, but it doesn’t look like something that would be quickly done.
Elegant solutions. Meh. Give me practical solutions that might actually happen.
Nigel: “,Elegant solutions. Meh. Give me practical solutions that might actually happen.”
Hear, hear. Any plan that demands a radical change in the way the human civilization functions better show a realistic mechanisms in which this change can be accomplished and then sustained.
Otherwise, it is a futile daydreaming at best, and a recipe for going to hell in a handbasket, at worst, with the promises unfulfilled, while the existing social mechanisms (food production, laws, economy, trade, technology) that have, however imperfectly, supported the human population in the past, weakened or destroyed.
Marx theory was quite elegant, counted on the best in the people’s nature (assumed that and based on this – promised social justice, effectiveness and realization of the full potential of humanity.
Yet, the attempts to implement it in practice – resulted in the very opposite of these promises.
A democracy and market, on the other hand, presume the worst about us and, with different degrees of success, design checks and balances and systems that channel the selfish choices of individuals to also benefit the society as a whole.
As they say: “The elegant is the enemy of the practical“. Or : “The road to hell is paved with elegant solutions“. Or something like that.
Piotr, since you wrote a reasoned and coherent comment, let me explain what you may have missed in my argument.
My elegant solution (nothing to do with Henry George except his basic principle about resources, which is fundamental, like conservation of energy in physics) relies on a well-documented observation of human behavior.
Which is that when women are empowered and economically secure, the rational majority acts in a self-interested way by having 2-1-0 children. We have multiple examples of this, (and I keep pointing out China, and still no answer about the government reversal on fertility.)
So my solution for having a sustainable human presence (not for Nirvana tomorrow), which is to have a population that is small relative to resources, is certainly consistent with many aspects of “human nature”. Once you get there, the social structure would very likely maintain it. You wouldn’t have to be hunter-gatherers with no technology, but logical self-interest would result in better choices about consumption, and a more egalitarian socio-economic structure.
This is in contrast to the complicated proposals of George and Marx… hence the use of the term elegant.
As for Marx, especially given recent history, one might argue that there is an inclination towards Feudalism in Russia that has continued through various periods, where the names have changed but the structure has been pretty much the same. It’s that Authoritarian psychology I keep talking about, that continues to be reinforced.
And getting back to George, I think I saw recently that Putin had actually admitted that one reason for his desperate craziness was the rate of the Western push towards using less of the resources that he controlled. (Which of course has now accelerated haha.)
Zebra says “My elegant solution (nothing to do with Henry George except his basic principle about resources, which is fundamental, like conservation of energy in physics) relies on a well-documented observation of human behavior.. .is smaller global population.”
Zebra is dodging and side stepping. Last month he championed Henry Georges approach to resources, which was essentially to put land an mineral resources into public ownership (read his wikipedia entry).. Its clearly an elegant idea, and might be quite helpful, but it will never get done politically, and runs into some practical problems. There is clearly nothing “fundamental” about it like a law of physics.
It would also greatly help if Zebra had actually stated what his main “elegant solution” was. Then there would be no confusion. Zebra is the guy around here lecturing everyone on “clarity”.
Smaller global population. Zebra has explicitly stated 300 million people so very small. Elegant, and I certainly don’t oppose the idea, but it faces huge hurdles. Although population growth is slowing generally as a natural demographic transition, where population growth has stopped or population is shrinking, its now meeting resistance from government’s worried that there will be too many elderly people and not enough young people to support them! So although it looks like there is an established inevitable population decline, governments will probably manage to slow the rate of decline down! This is the problem with all elegant solutions – they run into huge hurdles.
And even if human fertility drops fairly fast to 1.5 – 2 children ( a reasonably realistic number) it wont get to 300 million people for hundreds of years, and global population wont even stop growing for decades. So we have to be careful we dont see it as a panacea.
And what can we do to hasten a natural population trend anyway? Is anyone seriously suggesting a global body on the issue like the IPCC? Family size issues are too sensitive for that. So the whole smaller population concept is likely develop its own course country by country, and it seems like a bit of a distraction.
One thing Ive read in studies is easy availability of contraception has been the key feature in slowing population growth and smaller families, above all the other factors like economic security, general education, womens overall rights (important that those are). Promoting contraception will always be helpful.
And don’t get me wrong. I’ve thought over population is one of our biggest problems ever since I was a young teenager. Smaller global population makes some sense. But its not going to be easy getting there and its not a panacea.
zebra: Piotr, since you wrote a reasoned and coherent comment, let me explain what you may have missed in my argument
Soooo, what you are really saying is that my usual comments are poorly reasoned and incoherent, right? And that you overlooked it, and kindly explained to me where I missed your argument. How …noble of you.
Since you keep lecturing others on the effective communication – how would grade yours? I mean – do you recommend patronizng tone toward others and obnoxious patting oneself on the shoulder?
As for your clarification – it made things worse, not better. Originally, you brought in Henry George. As Wikipedia puts it: he “ is best known for his argument that the economic rent of land (location) should be shared by society: “We must make land common property”.
If this is Gorge’s “understanding about resources I am not sure I agree with you that it is as fundamental as “ conservation of energy in physics” ,
But that’s apparently beyond the point, anyway, since your pointing to Henry George was simply … name dropping, with your solution having “nothing to do with Henry George” – since yours is, ta-daaam! “having a population that is small relative to resources”
Whau. How do you define “solution”? I ask because:
– Taken as a statement of fact – it’s no “elegant solution”, it’s a tautology.
– Taken as a goal – it is no solution either – is taking credit for what happens anyway, much the same way George W. Bush instead of GHG emissions cuts proposed lowering GHG-INTENSITY (GHG emission/GDP) – at the exact same rate that the economy was reducing its energy-intensity for the competitive reasons anyway.
Furthermore – the demographic transition which is the only mechanism you are talking about – SLOWS population GROWTH (adding the current billion took 11 years, adding the next one should take 14), but to reduce the current population more than 25-fold (to the sustainbale level of 300 mln (?) ) would take many centuries/milennia, if at all.
I..e NOT the time scale required the stabilize Earth’s climate.
So my and Nigel’s scepticism toward your “elegant solution” is not because we don’t understand it, but becuse we thought it through. Which I am afraid can’t be said of you.
Piotr, yes, the comment to which I responded was different from the comment that you just made, because the latter is kind of a ranty list which you often produce, rather than paragraphs that flow together.
But the point of what I have been saying is that people keep proposing unrealistic solutions without first examining the underlying principles.
What George pointed out was that poverty and inequality were related to resources, not necessarily to “capitalism” or “market economy”. We have the term “rent-seeking” from the concept of rent… meaning, someone owns the ‘land’ (resources) and receives wealth without making an actual contribution to society.
What the small-population scenario does is reduce the value of the land. And even though we are far from that end-point, even bending the population curve down could have an effect on economic choices. For example the reference I give here:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/11/unforced-variations-nov-2022/#comment-806988
So you see the competing forces at work; think about it in terms of the entire planet.
And yes, it is like conservation of energy, where people respond to the details when the water-vapor trolls making up complicated nonsense, instead of pointing out that they have the basics wrong.
Zebra.
“And even though we are far from that end-point, even bending the population curve down could have an effect on economic choices.”
Yes, but the operative word is HOW do we bend the curve down? Because unless Zebra can come up with a realistic, detailed workable plan, he is no better than the other stubborn cranks with their crazy schemes that he criticises. Which is somewhat ironic.
And we know what things are driving smaller family size, so his plan needs to be more than that. And imploring people to do more is not much of a plan either. So what’s the novel plan?
I admit I can’t come up with a novel plan on population. Governments are probably doing all they can on population related issues, and I doubt we can influence them to do more. Governments don’t generally like intruding into family size matters, except for conservative governments and then they tend to want people to have more children. This is another sticking point in Zebras smaller population ideas. He criticises other peoples climate mitigation ideas because they get push back from conservative interests, but cant see the same problem applies to his own ideas.
This is why I tend to focus most effort on promoting renewables, because they are plausible and more could be done and we have some chance of shifting the position of government, individuals and organisations and even conservatives. This is probably also why the IPCC focuses mostly on renewables, and not so much on population issues.
Flavoured condoms anyone?
https://www.durex.co.nz/condoms/durex-fruity-fun-condoms/
I agree with Nigel and Piotr–the problem with population as ‘control lever’ is that we don’t in fact have good control over it. The globe has mostly gone through the ‘demographic transition,’ or is visibly in the process of doing so now. But we’re still seeing population increase because enormous demographic inertia is built into population structure itself.
However, it’s not operating uniformly across the world. Much of the ‘first world’ has now been in sub-replacement mode for long enough that population structure is now driving population decline–and the proportion of the global population for which that is true is going to keep increasing for a long time yet. (It’s the ‘shadow’ or ‘echo’ of the transition.) That means that even if mortality does not increase–perhaps a dubious assumption–population decline is going to be ‘baked in’ during the 21st century and beyond.
But by definition, “control” means the ability to ‘speed up’ as well as to ‘slow down.’ Population decrease is a problematic issue as well–Japan is a frequently-cited example in this regard. An old population is not a highly productive one.
It’s possible to use ‘brute force’ approaches on both sides of the fertility equation, so to speak. The example of the Chinese ‘one child’ policy is too well-known to require elaboration, but on the other side of the ledger, the Romanian Communist government took pretty draconian measures to increase the fertility rate. Apart from creating an ‘orphan crisis,’ these policies largely succeeded in propping up ‘natural increase’ until the fall of Ceaușescu. But then came the revolution of 1989, and the Romanian population has been shrinking since 1990.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Romania#After_WWII
Evidently, ‘brute force’ approaches may not be sustainable over time. Which leaves cultural ‘soft power’–policy plus vision. It’s ironic that Zebra criticized my ideas for requiring cultural change–also something we don’t really know how to control, to be fair–when it’s also necessary for his ‘elegant solution.’
Which brings me back to the question I’m interested in: what might a truly sustainable society look like? Killian has put some good principles forward (though I’d love to see some more practical ‘meat’ put on those ‘bones,’ personally.) It would seem that there’s broad agreement that a smaller global population should be part of the picture; and based on the considerations above, I’d make explicit the underlying assumption that the goal isn’t just a smaller population, it’s one that is reasonably stable. Well and good so far!
For my part, I’ve proposed a shift away from the culture of disposability and the ideology of consumerism. An area of interest here–OK, let’s admit it’s at least potentially problematic–is the role of technology as it relates to both culture and demographics. Few wish to cede ground in medicine, and contraception specifically is clearly a crucial question WRT demographic stability. What medical technology can be supported with a smaller population and economy? And how about information? We’ve seen a revolution in our lifetimes; but the pre-requisites as they exist now involve some of our most sophisticated manufacturing capabilities. Can that be sustained, and if so, how?
What else? Barton, you’re the only practicing science fiction author regularly posting, AFAICT. What say you?
About Woodpecker Scalp Capitalism
(A present for Kevin; seriously, you will find it worth reading.)
https://parabola.org/2018/05/28/the-one-who-flies-all-around-the-world-by-thomas-buckley/
Kevin, why do you need a sci-fi writer when you can just apply a little imagination? Here’s one example:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/11/unforced-variations-nov-2022/#comment-806988
But I expect Killian would not like it since it occurs naturally through self-interest, not by virtue of his moralistic pronouncements from on high.
Why don’t you play the game a little yourself:
What would be the self-interested choice for generating electricity if there were a stable population of say 30-40 million for the Eastern half of the USA?
Would it be to have a portion of the population that could be employed in other activities (e.g. medical research and health care) digging up and transporting coal? Or setting up and taking down fracking infrastructure? What makes sense to my imagination is that the population would be concentrated along the coast, and there would be plenty of room for wind and solar, and hydro. Wind turbines on those regenerative farms sounds about right.
The point is that you change the paradigm; as I’ve pointed out in the past, labor becomes more valuable, and it makes no sense to “own” certain categories of resources. Do you think it would make sense to drill for oil in the Arctic if the world population were 300-500 million, and it could be distributed in various optimal locations as I just described? Consider, as I’ve also pointed out, how panicked the oil-igarchs have become over just the prospect of a reduction in demand.
As to bending the population curve, come on; as you just said that’s happened in developed countries without intervention by the government. But it is the result of the neo-liberal, self-interested, “consumerist” society that you want to eliminate.
Kevin.
In my view the key factors in the sustainability issue are per capita consumption, waste, and population size. Changing these variables downwards can be beneficial, but can clearly cause massive unintended problems if done rapidly or incorrectly. Becoming sustainable will therefore take time, and will involve a lot of practical compromises, and is more of an exercise in harm minimisation. Welcome to the future. The real future. Not the dogma.
So “Zebras solution” to “bending the population curve down” turns out to be “the demographic transition and the liberal market economy”. Things that are happening anyway? That most of us here appear to support? What utter plagiarism and what a total bore.
<a href ="https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/11/unforced-variations-nov-2022/#comment-807548" Zebra Nov.20: “ Piotr, yes, the comment to which I responded was different from the comment that you just made, because the latter is kind of a ranty list which you often produce
That’s the difference between us – when I write something about you – I support it by <a href ="https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/11/unforced-variations-nov-2022/#comment-807520" falsfiable analysis of your words
You, unable to falsify these arguments – respond with your … unsupported opinions about me (e.g. “ ranty list which you often produce“). All while sidestepping my main criticism of your original post – of your “elegant solution” that everything would be hanky-dory if only the world population were … 25 times smaller than it is today. To which my (and Nigel’s) previous critcism still stands:
“ – Taken as a statement of fact – it’s no “elegant solution”, it’s a tautology [ everybody knows
that a smaller population would reduce anthropogenic impacts]
– Taken as a goal – it is no solution either – it just taking credit for what happens (demographic transition) by itself anyway, And which won’t happen fast enough – we need to reach net zero emissions in the next few decades, not in many centuries or millenia from now.
So, your “elegant solution” in, garbage out.
Piotr, I had a friend who had impeccable literary credentials, but his native language was Russian. His English was, to be kind, less than perfect, but, because he was so respected in his own language circles, he was unwilling to accept that, and produced a strange mix of reasonable sounding but often wrong communication.
It’s hard to tell if you are making similar language errors or just engaging in typical rhetorical fallacies.
For example, when you say something is “a tautology”, it really doesn’t fit my understanding of the term:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(language)
This has nothing to do with “what everybody knows”,
And to say that reduced fertility is not a solution because “it occurs naturally” is also difficult to understand. Do you mean it is acausal, like in quantum physics?
This is what I mean by ranty lists, where you don’t explain things clearly.
And just for the record, perhaps you should look at all my previous comments to Kevin where I stipulate that I am talking about sustainability, not some magic instantaneous solution to current conditions. Pretending otherwise is indeed a clear rhetorical fallacy on your part.
What I’m pointing out is that the relationship between population and negative environmental effects is non-linear, so that bending the curve down as quickly as possible would result in synergistic benefit. Consider the examples I gave.
I would note that in the countries where fertility has fallen fastest, it has been because people–especially young women–had new opportunities become available, causing them to postpone having children while at the same time improving their welfare.
The most effective knob we can turn is putting more money and effort into educating girls and young women, followed by also providing more education possibilities for young men, and increasing employment prospects for both.
It is not as if there is a shortage of work that must be done to transition to sustainability. We just have to find an economic system that can support the people doing that work.
One of the problems with Zebras (and Killians) comments is they assume people have read a whole lot of other comments they have made, some ages ago. Comments have to be self contained!
I have no trouble understanding Piotr’s comments, because he understands things need to be self contained, and he quotes what other people say and responds directly to it., and he’s clear and its obvious what he means by tautology given the context.
Ray, there is no economic system that can, at least, none that exist today as a “modern” economy. A simple observation of what happens to any modern economy in contraction: Massive crises. And that’s just a 20% or so contraction. The Great Depression (GD) was nearly half of GDP and it caused massive problems which were only solved fully by a global war.
Seems like a bad choice in the context of a collapsing ecosystem.
Also, critical issues this time are 1. we’re looking at at least an 80% decline, and thinking people who do systems and resources are looking toward 90%+. There is no surviving that, imo, without massive changes economically, socially, politically. 2. 40% of Americans, e.g., were still farmers at the beginning of the GD. Many more would have been serious gardeners. This time? If the economy goes, the food system goes with it.
The issue isn’t what kind of economy, it’s how quickly people realize we need a non-economy, aka nested Commons. If you can explain how anything short of that gets us through what is coming – and this is the *best case* scenario – I’m all ears.
Since this thread has grown quite lengthy, let me clarify that I’m responding herein to comments by Nigel and Zebra. (As hyperlinked–assuming I didn’t screw up the somewhat fiddly and involved process somewhere. My kingdom for a preview and edit function!)
Nigel, thanks for a succinct statement of what you find central. I think I have some concept of what immediate steps you’d find useful. But any specific thoughts on the longer term (as that’s what we’ve been discussing here?)
To take one instance, you speak of the importance of ‘harm reduction.’ Any ideas about how that should be measured, how it should be weighted, and possible processes for its mitigation? I’m interested in anything that comes to mind.
Zebra, thank you for your gift. It’s interesting, to be sure, though I’m not quite certain how you view it in relation to our discussion to this point, the obvious relevance to the ‘potlatch practices’ bit notwithstanding. Do you see the Yurok use of money as manifesting basically the same impulse as “neo-liberal, self-interested, “consumerist” society?”
If so, I wonder how you read the concluding paragraph of the piece:
Buckley draws a clear distinction between a “spiritual economy” and a “radically material one.” It may provide the best answer here to defining “consumerism” in the sense I’ve used it: an ethos in which material gain becomes not just the measure of all else, but an absolute, primary ethical good.
By contrast:
Elsewhere in your comment, you ask why I request a science fiction writer when imagination would suffice. Well, my imagination is pretty good; I’d immodestly submit in evidence my latest album, Damage, which came out September 30. (Perhaps most easily appreciated in relation to the current topic is my cover of Bob Dylan’s “Rainy Day Women #12 & 35.”)
https://open.spotify.com/track/6szTgp7pgwTkuIlxphrlqx?si=91f3930f1cac4011
However, I don’t think *any* single person’s imagination suffices. And it’s fascinating to hear what other minds come up with! I’d love it if Barton were to weigh in–but also anyone else interested enough to think about the question[s] for a few minutes.
I must also respond to your concluding statement:
First, is it really? We seem to be agreed that the demographic transition underway is a near-global phenomenon. But I’m much less sure that “neo-liberal, self-interested, “consumerist” society” is really a valid description of the breadth of societies that are undergoing that transition. At least, there are quite diverse levels of development and broad differences in culture among these national and regional societies. Perhaps you would care to elaborate on what you see as important in this regard, and clarify just what aspects of ‘N-L S-I C S’ are so widely operative?
Second, you really must distinguish the pars from the toto. I have no wish to “eliminate” any society whatever; eliminating or deprecating the ideology of consumerism–i.e., “radically material economy”–would be (IMV) transformative, not eliminationist.
Oh, I meant to point out also that the album contains a fair bit of climate-related stuff, most notably track 2, “Petitionary,” which is out-and-out cli-fi in lyrical form.
Album link:
https://open.spotify.com/album/5m6GuAobRphn9OnscDX1hT
Kevin, you ask about making society sustainable in the long term. I guess the obvious thing is living within planetary boundaries, and achieving the key UN sustainable development goals. They have already done a lot of work on those and this should be respected.
The UN plan wont satisfy the purists because it allows for more economic growth in poor countries and a good deal of industry in developed countries, but I don’t think we have practical alternatives that would catch on and which would be workable. I gave up on utopias ages ago.
Thanks, Nigel. The Goals are here, for those who might want to refresh their memories about them:
https://sdgs.un.org/goals
Interesting, and worthy of some study and thought. But on the face of it, the SDGs seem to me more a compromise collection of ideals rather than a coherent picture of how a sustainable world might work–especially over longer time frames. (Not altogether a criticism, as they are aimed toward change in the near term–action items, you might say.)
Perhaps the leading example is SDG #8:
So much for visions involving ‘downsizing’! Yet in the near term, growth is necessary; since the rich nations have extremely limited tolerance for giving up what we have, and poor nations even less for remaining poor, the only solution is to make the ‘pie’ bigger.
SDG #10:
And besides, as Ray has said more than once, there’s lots of work to do to transform our energy economy in ways needed to make progress on climate.
Which, BTW, is SDG #13:
Apparently I got Nigel’s comment link right above, but not Zebra’s. So, just in case anyone cares, the latter comment in question is here:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/11/unforced-variations-nov-2022/#comment-807597
Regarding Henry Georges and Zebras novel ideas. The “elegant solution” of putting all land ( including currently privately owned land) into public ownership
They invented the Commons? How do you manage to never know what the hell you are talking about? That has been the most common form of economic division for the vast majority of human history.
Just. Stop.
The Overton Window? Do you think that came first, say, 300k years ago and we have fit humanity’s behavior into that ever since? Why do you insist on suggesting completely abstract constructs are somehow immutable? The “Overton Window” is irrelevent in the context of the necessary paradigm shift. It doesn’t matter what the majority are willing to do, only what they must do if they wish to survive.
And stop talking about human nature. You don’t have any idea what that is. After all, that such a concept even exists and is in any way useful, if so, is in no way a fact. It is a theory in the most colloquial sense: No agreement that it even exists.
Alongside such varying and frequently conflicting normative uses of the expression “human nature”, there are serious disagreements concerning the concept’s content and explanatory significance—the starkest being whether the expression “human nature” refers to anything at all. Some reasons given for saying there is no human nature are anthropological, grounded in views concerning the relationship between natural and cultural features of human life. Other reasons given are biological, deriving from the character of the human species as, like other species, an essentially historical product of evolution. Whether these reasons justify the claim that there is no human nature depends, at least in part, on what it is exactly that the expression is supposed to be picking out. Many contemporary proposals differ significantly in their answers to this question.
Why, then, do you base so much of your argument on this nonsensical concept and, worse, base on the era YOU live in – the most irrational and broken time in all of human history?
Just. Stop.
Killian@ Nov 30, public ownership and the hunter gatherer commons are two different things! Public ownership is defined as state or government ownership (refer Cambridge dictionary, or McMillin dictionary, or wikipedia) and ancient hunter gatherer peoples had no concept of government or the state, or ownership as such, and certainly not in the modern sense.
You mentioned that there is no consensus that human nature even exists. Fine I accept that, but its fairly obvious that people aren’t making significant lifestyle changes around reducing consumption for several deep seated psychological reasons, and I’ve already listed these (one below). How on earth do you not appreciate these things, given you have a psychology degree?
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5530483
You mentioned on last months page (?) that perhaps people would be more proactive in making voluntary lifestyle changes like big reductions in consumption if they were told climate change is an existential threat. Clearly we should tell people the risks to lives, but I draw your attention to the covid issue. Despite it killing millions of people, many people still deny covid is even a problem, and the rest have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to wear masks and home isolate by the force of law.
So I’m not wasting my time promoting silly ideas about 90% reductions in consumption to be achieved on short time frames. I will concentrate on things I believe have at least some small chance of catching on like renewables and achievable lifestyle changes related to consumption and other issues. Indeed the only tangible difference we have made to emissions trajectories is the replacement of coal and some oil and gas, with wind and solar power.
I find your attempts to tell me to just stop or shut up be the absolute height of arrogance, and clearly they are having the opposite effect to what you intend. But even that seems to go over your head.
JCM
The atmosphere receives energy from these sources:
1. absorbed solar radiation = 77.1
2. thermals – 18.4
3. latent heat – 86.4
4. LW radiation – 358;2
——————————
total energy absorbed in the atmosphere – 540.1
—————————————————–
energy lost to space by the atmosphere – (199,8)
—————————————————–
energy from atmosphere that is absorbed by the surface – 340.3
======================================================================
There is a discrepancy:
Solar absorbed by earth system = 240.4
LW emitted to space = 239.9
——————————————–
imbalance = .5
===========================================
Should be 0.6
===========================================
SW absorbed by surface = 163.3
————————————
Thermals = (18.4)
Latent = (86.4)
—————————————
unaccounted for absorbed solar at surface – 58.5
——————————————————
portion not absorbed by atmosphere – (40.1)
portion added to surface heat content – (0.6)
————————————————-
portion absorbed in the atmosphere – 17.8
————————————————-
discrepancy – 0.1
————————————————-
your number = 17.9
================================================
Just in case anybody is mildly interested the specific simple talk by the accomplished green tech salesman and part-time physicist whom I adore but am not yet stalking is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PAbm1u1IVg and does not include any analysis of measurement, only the most basic synopsis of the understood physics. Note that it’s a totally different understanding of the physics from the explanations I keep seeing in the “social media” which indicate that certain gas molecules absorb some of the radiation from the surface (apparently only from the surface) and then “re-emit” radiation back to the surface in response, hence the tropospheric temperature lapse rate has no effect on this effect. This “”re-emit” radiation back to the surface” version contains a scam in my opinion in that it states that these gas molecules do nothing but hang around waiting for radiation from the surface that they are permitted to absorb, and never MANUFACTURE any of their own radiation by collision because, of course, if they did then perhaps they’d send more radiation of their own upwards than the surface radiation that they absorbed, and thus cause cooling of Earth instead of warming. Of course, it’s the tropospheric temperature lapse rate combined with the obvious fact that cooler things radiate less than warmer things (collide less often) but cooler things aren’t obliged to absorb less radiation than warmer things which would cause these gas molecules in the air NOT TO send more radiation of their own upwards than the surface radiation (actually any radiation from below) that they absorbed.
Here’s the latest excursion into intellectual darkness.
https://www.tiktok.com/@prof.andrewdessler/video/7162960506276531502?is_from_webapp=v1&item_id=7162960506276531502&web_id=7157225011423413806
Using a shallow man-made riverine constructed reservoir in Texas, “Lake” Granbury
https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/2060a1/the_sad_state_of_lake_granbury/
vs
A legitimate shield lake in Finland! –
https://www.canstockphoto.com/sunrise-on-lake-10610964.html
to push the reductionist ideology. Look climate change!!
Someone clearly spending far too much time looking at GCM outputs, in search of nuggets to support his chosen cause. having totally lost sight of responsible communication. Perhaps these people actually believe in the superiority of their discipline to describe environmental change.
“I’ll just google some photos of lakes. Look, a dry one. That fits my worldview”.
A lazy and inexcusable misrepresentation. Someone trained in mathematical simulation way out of his depth. One who blocks and shouts down environmental stewards in favor of his computer simulations and simplistic worldview. Surely a great guy, but one who has fooled himself – up to his neck in it now.
Participating with the hordes of new “climate” scientists drowning out debate and causing ongoing misallocation of resources; creating ignorance of causal factors of environmental disruption. Completely flooding earth science. A political wedge, and environment forgotten in the shuffle. An entire discipline and funding framework overrun by private interests.
A keen commenter notes on lake Granbury quoting from the local the Water Authority FAQ
“the fact that property lines come to the water’s edge is not relevant to the lake’s intended purpose.”
the reservoir “has never been nor will it ever be a constant level lake”.
A fake and misleading TikTok from a trusted academic; a microcosm of an entire state of mind. Not evil, simply ignorant.
nevermind the river completely silted up behind the dam, the morphology totally choked out by development. No room to breathe. A population having tripled in the catchment since construction of the shallow reservoir. Infiltration non existent, baseflows all over the map. Catchment storage reduced to nil. Periods of hydrological and temperature extremes. A barren landscape. Desertified, desiccated, like concrete.
https://brazos.org/Portals/0/Documents/WPP/gbWPP/2.0%20Watershed%20Overview.pdf
“The ecology of the watershed reflects a history of negative disturbances including improper grazing procedures, soil erosion, lowered water tables in some areas, declining native grasslands and altered river ecosystems.”
That’s putting it mildly!
Not one watershed plan or study finds any clear global temperature anomaly association with Lake Granbury.
“Many watershed characteristics are important in determining the quantity and quality of water entering the lake, including climate, slope, vegetation and, particularly, soils composition. Wildlife and human activities become particularly important when they exceed the natural capacity of the watershed to assimilate changes.”
Oh really?
No relevant precipitation trends
“https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10402381.2015.1074324?”
What are the obvious trends? Erosion, land clearing, desiccation, water-takings, irresponsible watershed governance, fragmented biology, ecosystem services wiped out.
There will not be one useful bit of information derived from GCM outputs to make responsible local watershed management decisions if they continue to be misused and abused. Will the dynamic downscaling help? pulease!
Promises of nebulous climate amelioration has flipped the script totally upside down. Watersheds are now the afterthought. An asterisks appended in fine print, with the headlines pointing to CLIMATE. A litany of mis-directions, ill-informed, trampling upon key aspects of watershed management. No respect of system dynamics. A reductionist worldview. Cut the emissions at your COPs, do not pollute our local environmental politics.
Allegedly unsophisticated land managers know exactly what the problems are for Lake Granbury. Solutions will not be found in wind turbines or energy transformation, no-matter how far one stretches his imagination. This story repeated across many 10s of thousands of catchment districts globally. Environmental politics reduced to a wedge issue relating to emission of trace gases. *cough
There is certainly a place for climate pundits, but they must never displace and undermine responsible governance, awareness, education, and investment. The discussion is way out of balance. One must have some sense of self-awareness about this before going in front of special committees to deliver narrow minded judgements.
It’s all really going off the rails. Climate change this, greenhouse effect that. Look at my useless oversimplified greenhouse effect schematics on youtube. Time to get a grip! How many people do we need parroting this same old stuff? A science stagnant for decades. what’s the point?
What he means to say in the TikTok is that residents have adapted to a certain watershed hydrological regime. When you completely disrupt catchment characteristics your property value and enjoyment might be impacted as a waterfront landowner. Global average temperature anomalies may also have some sort of secondary impact that is not really discernible, and surely pales in comparison to the direct impacts we have as local communities on our water resources and heat dynamics. Emission cuts are nice to have, but in the real-physical world there is much more to the story.
Are the “climate studies” departments really this sheltered, siloed, and deluded? Surely these photo examples will be used in an undergraduate lecture this week to show the horrors of trace gas emission…a shameful miseducation of eager and impressionable students.
I simply ask for some clear description of some peculiarities in the foundational diagrams. I get mostly defensive responses, beaten down with a cudgel. Some useful responses too. It could be the result of environmental perspectives in steep decline since at least prior to 1988. Trying to keep the floodgates closed to prevent a scientific outwash comparable in volume to the drainage of glacial Lake Agassiz & Ojibway in my homeland.
In my jurisdiction watershed management budgets have been slashed once more this month, with about $2 million allocated from the legislature. Meanwhile, $5billion going to EV subsidies and manufacturing alone. Private special interests. A factor of what, 2500x. This is what gets you the votes. It’s absolutely reckless – and we will continue to pay the price for this gross error of judgement and negligence from academia and other institutions. When pointing this out you run up against a brick wall from the virtuous, malinformed, deeply-confused, mob. A science which exists at the interface with policy and social consciousness. Impassioned and emotional. A naked assault on varied perspective with hostile accusations and defensiveness. A group who has actually fooled themselves and believe their reductionist theoretical frameworks over the blatant reality before their very eyes, right in their own hoods. Go outside and take a look. I implore you.
JCM: A science stagnant for decades.
BPL: You don’t actually read the climate science literature, do you?
FYI: The definition of “stagnant” is NOT “the science continues to collect thousands of pieces of information, showing previous other hypotheses wrong, and finding further corroboration without finding competing hypotheses”.
I do have an opinion about the soup: I fully support their action. It reminded me of one of the famous ethical dilemmas: a museum is on fire, inside there is a dog and a unique painting, you can save only one, which one would you choose? I hope the protesters had that in mind too, as they tried one more time to point out our trivial preoccupations with and fetishization of our artifacts as opposed to life and the biosphere.
Given how many people were offended that they dared attack a unique painting (like any painting it can have zero value or absurd money-laundering level value, but as de gustibus et coloribus non disputandum, I will not select a value), I am afraid those people are choosing the wrong answer with deadly consequences.
I hope the debate started by the two courageous, biophilic and rational young women and their group will go further and question the huge investment in and ecological footprint of all art and other museums, while there are millions of unhoused people, the energy required to operate them could be used by people in need, the land occupied by the museums could have a myriad of truly valuable uses, the list of opportunity costs is long. Plus our brain capacity could have much better uses, how to solve the climate emergency is a critical one, than obsessing about any piece of art that nobody would care about if it weren’t marketed by the one percenters, the bourgeoisie and the art “experts” who cannot not find a more useful line of work.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/22/just-stop-oil-van-gogh-national-gallery-aileen-getty
I’m sorry, but this is as wacky as what we get from the Denialists much of the time.
I can think of any number of human practices that use land and resources which many might consider frivolous and more useful for housing. For example, cemeteries, which use up large swaths of urban areas, where housing is in short supply. Also, (my bold)
And your problem is with art and museums?
Shall we discuss weddings and their venues and “wedding planners”? Golf courses?
I was asking in a comment earlier about an economic philosopher, and it strikes me that even people with some advanced education can have a very narrow range of intellectual inquiry, preferring to latch on to superficial but emotionally satisfying narratives rather than seek out knowledge outside their area of specialization.
Is the high-end art scene absurd? Sure. But here you are, telling us that the art is worthless… doesn’t that make you one of those “experts who can’t find a more useful line of work”?
Try spending some time in a museum of any kind, when it isn’t crowded, and observe the ordinary citizens, and the young people and children, who, remarkably enough, are stopped… looking. They don’t do that because of the hype.
Not everyone is glued to their phones, and influencers, and celebrities whose only skill is being a celebrity.
‘Not everyone is glued to their phones,”
Precisely- one increasingly finds climate activists of all persuasions glued to artworks and pavements.:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/11/unforced-variations-nov-2022/
As with most interesting questions and cliate models the answer depends on the parametrization:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/11/what-if-dog-is-pit-bull-painting-is.html
Or, how peckish you might or might not be feeling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat
. JCM “Can anyone provide physical observation of this discontinuity? A tower site or something which demonstrates it to exist?”. I can’t. Certainly there are locations where upwelling and downwelling LWR are measured but I seriously doubt that there’s been sufficient existing at global scope to give the globally-averaged 398.2 and 340.3 With a quick search I see “Arctic Surface, Cloud, and Radiation Properties Based on the AVHRR Polar Pathfinder Dataset. Part I: Spatial and Temporal Characteristics” by Xuanji Wang and Jeffrey R. Key at https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/18/14/jcli3438.1.xml
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3438.1 which includes a table indicating that it uses measurement by some instruments at the surface of some Arctic site of LWR & SWR both upwelling and downwelling.
Also, there’s a Chilbolton Observatory at https://www.chilbolton.stfc.ac.uk/Pages/Facilities.aspx that has a section called “Solar and infrared upwelling and downwelling radiation”. If you search around perhaps you can get some information that interests you.
————-
For Earth’s surface homogenous at 288K, Emissivity Coefficient 0.99 the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative equation yields 386.2 w/m**2
Equinox 2020-09-25 Climate Reanalyzer
Emissivity Coefficient
35S – 35N 57% 26 (22-30) 299K 448.6
35 – 70 37% 13 (5-22) 286K 375.6
70S – 90S 3% -23 (-15, -30) 250K 215.9
70N – 90N 3% -7 (-14, 1) 266K 278.1
Average 409.5 w/m**2 for 70.8% of Earth
Land surface homogenous at 283K, Emissivity Coefficient 0.94 the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative equation yields 341.9 w/m**2
409.5 * 70.8% + 341.9 * 29.2% = 389.8 w/m**2
Green Grass 0.975 – 0.986
Ice 0.96 – 0.99
Sand 0.9
Soil 0.90 – 0.95
Snow 0.96 – 0.98
ocean Water 0.988 to 0.991
I’m unwilling to separate land & ocean regions & seasonal averages enough to do that accurately to +/- 2 w/m**2. If you can work that globally-averaged, annually-averaged very roughly 389.8 w/m**2 upwelling radiation down to your 340.3 w/m**2 by the accurate globally averaging and annually averaging go for it.
———————-
To the audience: JCM’s “In summary, it appears to be the only degrees of freedom in the system are the factors of solar absorption, convection into the atmosphere (H + LE), and IR window” is a simple statement that the so-called “greenhouse effect” in Earth’s troposphere doesn’t exist. Fair enough but that doesn’t mean that I am obliged to agree that “greenhouse effect” in Earth’s troposphere doesn’t exist just because JCM asserts that, and I don’t because I’m tiresomely stubborn as MA Rodger & Ray Ladbury (or is that the sci-fi writer ?) keep pointing out with phrases like “bog standard physics”, “pointless”, “forensic”, “crazy” only one of which is correct. As I keep typing like a broken record, the so-called “greenhouse effect” in Earth’s troposphere is what causes the LWR out the top to be less than the LWR out the bottom so I strongly assert an “internal degree of freedom in the system” in which I knock 1 w/m**2 off the LWR out the top to space and I add 1 w/m**2 onto the LWR out the bottom to surface. I’ve not altered the atmospheric balance, it still equals 0.0065 w/m**2 (so immeasurably small) but I’ve turned on more heater to the surface. I just dare MA Rodger to call me “crazy” One More Time.
———————-
JCM “Balance of whole atmosphere: 77.1 + 18.4 + 86.4 + 358.2 – 340.3 – 169.9 – 29.9 = 0 Here we observe the atmosphere is perfectly balanced according to the NASA Langley diagram after Trenberth et al. And so, the apparent imbalance during the period of the diagram is described only at the boundary conditions, surface and/or TOA”. Yes, it could not be otherwise to an accuracy of only 3-4 decimal digits because the thermal capacity of air is negligible compared with the ocean that participitates (93%), the soil that participitates(3%) and ice latent heat(3%). The atmosphere is said to have accounted for 1% of the energy imbalance increased-energy destination. 10,300 kg/m**2 at 1,003 J/K at 0.20 degrees/decade global warming = 0.0065 w/m**2 of budget imbalance applied to warming the air so the equation “… – 29.9 = 0” S.B. “… – 29.9 = 0.0065” to show the atmosphere’s energy imbalance, the 1.1% I calculated of the “0.6” imbalance shown (actually measured as 0.87 the last couple decades or some such). Of course, it’s too negligible to show (orders of magnitude smaller than all the uncertainties of the other quantities which I vaguely recall are as much as +/- 3 w/m**2) because the ocean, land & ice are the overwhelming things to consume the heat and they are at, and BELOW, the surface so as you correctly stated “the apparent imbalance during the period of the diagram is described only at the boundary conditions, surface and/or TOA”. It couldn’t possibly be otherwise until apparent imbalances are being measured to +/- 0.005 w/m**2 or better.
—————-
JCM “I am seeking observational evidence of the discontinuity of air vs surface temperature. This has not yet been provided”. One source of observational evidence is thermometers on balloons called “radiosondes”. Also, anecdotally it gets colder as you climb Mount Everest and it’s cold outside airplanes. The average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere is absolutely definitely lower than the average temperature of Earth’s surface (your “discontinuity of air vs surface temperature”) except in the uncommon circumstance of “thermal inversions” such as winter Arctic. For the lowest 80% mass of Earth’s atmosphere it’s called the “tropospheric temperature lapse rate” ranging from ~5.0 degrees / km for very moist air to 9.8 degrees / km for bone-dry air (because of the H2O latent heat difference) in the troposphere and with much-varying “discontinuity” of air temperature change above the troposphere, but it’s much more of a reducing-temperature continuum, followed by minimal-change continuum, then increasing-temperature continuum up the troposphere, tropopause where it exists and lower stratosphere, than it is a temperature “discontinuity” at some point in the atmosphere like you seem to be expecting.
Barry E Finch,
I’m not sure whether I’ve called you “crazy” and if so where that would have been.
The explanation you present for the GH-effect balancing when GHGs are added “which I knock 1 w/m**2 off the LWR out the top to space and I add 1 w/m**2 onto the LWR out the bottom to surface” is not what I would call “crazy”. Mind. the warming of the atmosphere that initiates the added LWR “out the bottom” would also be seen on the surface and (with a constant lapse rate) at the top, so the energy balance in the atmosphere would not be gained solely downward but almost all upward.
@Barry E Finch says
“For Earth’s surface homogenous at 288K, Emissivity Coefficient 0.99 the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative equation yields 386.2 w/m**2”
Forget about all that.
Just work out the surface emission from the NASA diagram and note the discontinuity:
Greenhouse Effect = Back radiation – Upward Emission
Back radiation = 340.3
Upward emission = atmospheric gas emission + cloud emission
Upward emission = 169.9 + 29.9 = 199.8
Greenhouse Effect = 340.3 – 199.8
Greenhouse Effect = 140.5
By Ramanathan 1989
Greenhouse Effect = Surface emission – OLR
140.5 = Surface emission – 239.9
140.5 + 239.9 = Surface emission
380.4 = Surface Emission
The value indicated 398.2 surface emission indicated in the diagram is out of place and has no relation.
JCM: The value indicated 398.2 surface emission indicated in the diagram is out of place and has no relation.
BPL: It assumes surface emissivity is blackbody (ε = 1), and is weighted toward the equator, where temperatures are hotter, due to the fact that emission follows the fourth power of temperature.
Once again, add up all the inputs and outputs for space, the atmosphere, and the ground, and you’ll see that there are no discrepancies, except for the slight imbalance due to global warming.
@BPL
to make sense of it all it would be most logical to use make apples to apples comparisons.
Considering everything else is using global average values we should use a globally averaged surface flux to understand the relationships.
We should also ensure the values are on the same size plane for theoretical considerations. All the classic textbook radiative theory seems to use cylindrical type two way approximations.
First approximation
Step 1:
Global average 288K blackbody flux = 390.1 Wm-2
Step 2:
Planar correction to reference surface flux to TOA planar OLR:
Assuming 80km depth in a standard atmosphere the planar correction is:
spherical planar correction = earth_radius^2 / (earth radius + atmospheric depth )^2
Google wiki gives an earth radius 6,371 km
correction to reference surface flux to TOA = 6371^2(6371 + 80)^2 = 0.975
Surface flux referenced to TOA plane = 0.975 x 390.1 Wm-2 = 380.4 Wm-2
Viewed in this way it all falls into place, with some fiddling with clouds and windows.
However, if Ray Ladbury is correct and these are all useless cartoons, not worthy of any analysis or interpretation, painstakingly created by numerous different groups and authors, someone should send them all an email and let them know.
Alternatively, simply use Pierrehumbert
http://jvarekamp.web.wesleyan.edu/CO2/ClimateVol1.pdf
“The equatorial annual mean temperature is only 4% above the global mean temperature of 286K, while the North polar temperature is only 10% below the mean. The most extreme deviation occurs on the high Antarctic plateau, where the annual mean South polar temperature is 21% below the global mean.”
Pierrehumbert also makes reference to a pre-industrial value of 285K
Blackbody 286K yields a first order approximation of surface flux ~ 380 Wm-2 in the modern period.
This value 380 I was able to deduce from the cartoon depiction of energy budget, and I am pleased to have stumbled across Pierrehumbert’s publication. This is more simple than trying to justify the 380 value by the method I depicted above. I suspect I will receive some flak for that.
I think the only relevance to any of this is that there appears to be roughly 20 Wm-2 uncertainty in the various fluxes near the surface. This is a factor of about 30x the known imbalance. There is much to discover in the convective atmosphere.
If 286K is known to climatology this could have been pointed out to me days ago.
You know, it really is almost cute the way you take a cartoon and analyze it to death as if it were the actual model.
Now do Calvin and Hobbes.
ERA5 SAT reanalysis has posted for Oct with a global SAT anomaly of +0.41ºC, the highest anomaly of the year-so-far. Previous 2022 monthly anomalies sit in the range +0.23ºC to +0.39ºC.
Oct 2022 is the 4th warmest Oct in the ERA5 record behind Octobers 2019 (+0.45ºC), 2015 & 2021 and ahead of Octobers 2020 (+0.38ºC), 2017, 2018, 2016 (+0.31ºC), and a bit of a drop to 9th placed Oct 2012 (+0.22ºC).
Oct 2022 sits 22nd in the all-month ERA5 rankings.
The first 10 months of 2022 average to 5th place, the table below now showing the full year order. 2022 could yet climb to 4th spot above 2017 if Nov&Dec average higher than +0.47ºC, a Nov&Dec anomaly that was achieved in 2019 & 2020.
…….. Jan-Oct Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2020 .. +0.47ºC … … … +0.47ºC … … … 1st
2016 .. +0.45ºC … … … +0.44ºC … … … 2nd
2019 .. +0.38ºC … … … +0.40ºC … … … 3rd
2017 .. +0.35ºC … … … +0.34ºC … … … 4th
2022 .. +0.32ºC
2021 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.27ºC … … … 5th
2018 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 6th
2015 .. +0.21ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 7th
2010 .. +0.15ºC … … … +0.13ºC … … … 8th
2014 .. +0.10ºC … … … +0.11ºC … … …. 9th
2005 .. +0.09ºC … … … +0.09ºC … … … 10th
There’s no “warming of the atmosphere that initiates the added LWR “out the bottom””. There’s no warming or cooling of the atmosphere, surface nor anywhere below surface. I instantly add well-mixed GHGs into the troposphere and stir them throughout and immediately that knocks 1 w/m**2 off the LWR out the top to space and adds 1 w/m**2 onto the LWR out the bottom to surface. No change in the atmosphere’s heat budget, same amount in & out as before. I measured the GHGs perfectly for the switch to be 1 w/m**2 because I’m good at measuring stuff.
Barry E Finch,
You will have to explain why there would be added “1 w/m**2 onto the LWR out the bottom to surface” if there is more GHG but no warming.
There is “1 w/m**2 off the LWR out the top to space” because when GHGs are added these emissions out to space occur at higher altitude and in the troposphere that means the emissions out to space are from a cooler part of the atmosphere and cooler means less IR emissions.
So how does your “no warming” increase in IR work with emissions down to the surface?
Worth a read through the whole thing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/13/us/politics/farmland-values-prices.html
So the regenerative farming stuff is just around the corner, right?
If, on the other hand, there is a small population relative to the resource, then regenerative farming is the best economic choice. Land would be cheap, and it would make no sense to spend money on fertilizer and other chemicals when cow-poop and crop rotation are essentially free. And with a stable market due to a stable population, maximizing yield becomes less imperative in terms of competition… quality over quantity.
Z;
It seems dog was off the menu in Sharm el Sheikh :
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/11/cop-27-sinai-to-close-monday-on.html
Dr. Schmidt et al.,
Can something be done to stop the autocomplete that seems to have appeared for these comments? It is highly annoying and really doesn’t help with anything. For example, it just told me how to spell “help” and “example.” I think most people here are literate.
[Response: I think that’s your browser, not this site? – gavin]
@BPL says: – ” I think most people here are literate. ”
ms: — LOL / The desperate maneuvering of letters and mental content is not for everyone….
and leads straight into Babylonian confusion.
Thanks Levenson – you’re not a good “help” but a good “example” anyway.
GISTEMP LOTI has posted for October with a global SAT anomaly of +0.06ºC, the second-highest anomaly of the year-so-far. Previous 2022 monthly anomalies sit in the range +0.83ºC to +1.05ºC.
Oct 2022 is the 5th warmest Oct in the GISTEMP record behind Octobers 2015 (+1,09ºC), 2018, 2019 & 2021 and ahead of Octobers 2017 (+0.90ºC), 2020, 2016 & 2014 (+0.80ºC).
Oct 2022 sits 28th in the all-month GISTEMP rankings.
After the first 10 months, 2022 ranks 5th. 2022 could yet climb to 4th spot above 2017 if Nov&Dec average higher than +0.94ºC, a and could still drop to 6th spot below 2015 if Nov&Dec average +0.80ºC or less.
…….. Jan-Oct Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.04ºC … … … +1.01ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +1.03ºC … … … +1.02ºC … … … 1st
2019 .. +0.96ºC … … … +0.98ºC … … … 3rd
2017 .. +0.92ºC … … … +0.92ºC … … … 4th
2022 .. +0.92ºC
2015 .. +0.85ºC … … … +0.90ºC … … … 5th
2018 .. +0.84ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 6th
2021 .. +0.84ºC … … … +0.84ºC … … … 7th
2014 .. +0.75ºC … … … +0.74ºC … … … 8th
2010 .. +0.74ºC … … … +0.72ºC … … … 9th
2007 .. +0.69ºC … … … +0.66ºC … … … 12th
2005 .. +0.67ºC … … … +0.67ºC … … … 11th
2013 .. +0.66ºC … … … +0.68ºC … … … 10th
@JCM 11 NOV 2022 has “By Ramanathan 1989” which I’ll take as fact that Greenhouse Effect has a quantity definition in w/m**2:
Greenhouse Effect = Surface emission – OLR
So, Greenhouse Effect flux quantity = 398.2 – 239.9 = 158.3 w/m**2
@JCM has “Greenhouse Effect = Back radiation – Upward Emission”
So JCM asserts that also Greenhouse Effect flux quantity = 340.3 – 199.8 = 140.5 w/m**2
So JCM asserts a large budget error of 158.3 – 140.5 = 17.8 w/m**2
However, “Greenhouse Effect = Back radiation – Upward Emission” is not correct.
Not if “Greenhouse Effect” is to be defined as the Surface emission – OLR (which seems reasonable though I don’t know how it’s used).
In that case, also:
Greenhouse Effect = (Back radiation – Upward Emission) * tropospheric temperature lapse factor
It would be a factor from a monolithically-varying time series that relates somehow to Kelvin**4 and I’m not likely going to develop it.
See the following table and note that flux anomaly in column 6 decreases as base temperature decreases because Stefan-Boltzmann radiative equation is proportional to Kelvin**4, not proportional to Kelvin.
The factor (w/m**2 per degree anomaly) varying dependent on Altitude means that your false equality:
Surface emission – OLR = Back radiation – Upward Emission
Would become an inequality simply by altering the surface-air temperature due to change in solar output or Earth’s albedo so it cannot be a reality that you asserted.
So if I (incorrectly) switch 17.8 w/m**2 from Surface emission to thermals (conduction-convection) to get your equality then:
Greenhouse Effect flux quantity = SE 380.4 – OL 239.9 = 140.5 w/m**2
Greenhouse Effect flux quantity = BR 340.3 – UE 199.8 = 140.5 w/m**2
But for example, warm the surface-air by 1 degree for some effect that’s not a change in “greenhouse effect” and now:
Greenhouse Effect flux quantity = SE*380.4 + 5.4 – (OL 239.9 + 3.3) = 142.6 w/m**2
Greenhouse Effect flux quantity = BR 340.3 + 4.9 – (UE 199.8 + 3.3) = 142.1 w/m**2
The quantities are a work in progress needing some thought but the point is clearly shown by the varying quantities that your equality is going to be lost simply by altering surface-air temperature because lapse rate is not zero and Stefan-Boltzmann radiative equation is proportional to Kelvin**4, not proportional to Kelvin.
—————-
In following table which is simply a good approximation using International Standard Atmosphere 6.5 degrees / km lapse rate the back radiation 340.3 corresponds to IR molecules at altitude ~1,500 m (339.9) so I, conceptually a least, consider this to be that 50% of the 340.3 LWR energy from atmospheric molecules that will make it to the surface of the ocean or land are emitted by GHGs and clouds and atmospheric aerosols below ~1,500 m. Similarly, at altitude ~6800 m is emitted 200.3 w/m**2 from it’s IR molecules at 244K approximately matching upward emission from air of 199.8. I regard the altitude split ~1,500 m to ~6800 m as form of measure of the “greenhouse effect”. If I instantly add GHGs of proper quantity into the troposphere and thoroughly mix so that it raises the average emission altitude to space from the present 6800 m to 7000 m then emission from atmosphere to space instantly drops from 199.8 to 195.6 w/m**2, instantly adding 4.2 w/m**2 to the 0.87 w/m**2 that’s heating ocean and so on (DO NOT DO THIS). This is explained in concept (no quantity) by MA Rodger 1 NOV 2022 “transparency of the atmosphere to IR”, “path lengths”. “atmosphere will be radiating back to the surface from different distances above the surface, this dependent on the IR’s path length in the atmosphere for the particular wavelength”, “high-up bits of atmosphere radiating IR with long path lengths down to the surface will be cooler than the surface, they will be radiating less IR”. My assertion: also instantly, it will lower the present 1,500 m average emission altitude to surface by an amount that increases radiation to surface by 4.2 w/m**2, which I think it must do so that the surface does get extra heated by the extra amount of 4.2 w/m**2 no longer being sent to space. So the average emission altitude to surface lowers from the present 1500 m at 340.3 w/m**2 to 1,368 m at 344.5 w/m**2.
———————-
Then the 5.07 w/m**2 heats the surface air over 2,000 years per the surface climate response seen at at 9:55 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP-cRqCQRc8 The initial GHG jolt I gave it (wack with a 2×4) would warm by an extra 243.8-242.5 = 1.3 degrees (200m at the 6.5 / km lapse rate) similar to CO2 increase from 417 to 834 according to half-dozen physicists’ radiation analyses average to 3.7 w/m**2 (raising the outgoing radiation altitude by 3.7 / 0.0065 = 569 m) but the feedbacks that give the actual warming are huge another topic.
Altitude Start End Start End End-Start
Metres Kelvin Kelvin w/m**2 w/m**2 w/m**2
0 288.0 289.0 390.1 395.5 5.4
200 286.7 287.7 383.1 388.5 5.4
………….
If GHGs raise the outgoing avge. altitude from 6,800 to 7,000 then
downwelling avge. altitude lowers from 1,500 to 1,368 so lower IR paths
change by 66% of the amount of lower IR paths
1368 279.1 280.1 344.1 349.0 5.0
1400 278.9 279.9 343.1 348.0 4.9
1500 278.2 279.2 339.9 344.8 4.9 Conceptually, 50% of the 340.3 LWR energy from atmospheric molecules that will make it to the surface of the ocean or land are emitted by GHGs and clouds and atmospheric aerosols below approximately this altitude
1600 277.6 278.6 336.7 341.6 4.9 They are only approximately correct for concept. They are based on a global average 11 km height of the troposphere and 9 km tropopause International Standard Atmosphere
1800 276.3 277.3 330.5 335.3 4.8
2000 275.0 276.0 324.3 329.0 4.7
…………………………
6400 246.4 247.4 209.0 212.4 3.4
6600 245.1 246.1 204.6 208.0 3.4
6800 243.8 244.8 200.3 203.6 3.3 Conceptually, 50% of the 199.8 LWR energy from atmospheric molecules that will make it to space are emitted by GHGs and clouds and atmospheric aerosols below this altitude
7000 242.5 243.5 196.1 199.3 3.3 They are only approximately correct for concept. They are based on a global average 11 km height of the troposphere and 9 km tropopause International Standard Atmosphere
7200 241.2 242.2 191.9 195.1 3.2
7400 239.9 240.9 187.8 191.0 3.2
7600 238.6 239.6 183.8 186.9 3.1
7800 237.3 238.3 179.8 182.8 3.0
8000 236.0 237.0 175.9 178.9 3.0
@ Berry E Finch
You propose a scenario: “warm the surface-air by 1 degree for some effect that’s not a change in “greenhouse effect”” by “altering the surface-air temperature due to change in solar output or Earth’s albedo”
Here you propose to change solar available, as opposed to changing greenhouse effect.
So we must maintain the same greenhouse factor and opacity.
Dimensionless greenhouse factor can be computed by =
(Surface emission – Solar Available) / Surface emission
In the unperturbed case:
(380.4 – 240.4) / 380.4 = greenhouse factor = 0.368
Now, in the perturbed case (increase of surface temperature by 1K due to more solar available as you suggested):
Solve for solar available,
(385.8 – solar available) / 385.8 = 0.368
Solar available becomes 243.7 +/-
(240.4 + 3.3)
this matches the OLR response to 1 K = 3.3 Wm-2 in your schema, ok cool. With the greenhouse unchanged the delta solar should match delta OLR.
Curiously, we have derived the Planck response − 3.3 W m−2 K−1, by using an appropriate surface flux value.
OLR = 239.9 + 3.3 = 243.2
— Now to the effect of atmospheric gases, solids, and liquids —
In the unperturbed case:
Dimensionless atmospheric opacity can be computed by =
(OLR – Upward Emission) / OLR
= (239.9 – 199.8) / 239.9 = 0.167 = opacity
To solve for upward emission in the warmer case,
(243.2 – upward emission) / 243.2 = 0.167
Upward Emission = 202.6 +/-
(199.8 + 2.8)
Revising your flux densities in the perturbed case:
SE 380.4 + 5.4 – (OL 239.9 + 3.3) = 142.6 +/-
BR 340.3 + 4.9 – (UE 199.8 + 2.8) = 142.6 +/-
A small portion 0.5 additional is passing unhindered to space, for which you forgot to account.
For those of you in the Buffalo, NY area, be aware of the big snow that is coming – up to 6 feet! It’s just weather, not climate, but looks like it will have a big impact locally. Be safe:
https://www.accuweather.com/en/winter-weather/feet-of-snow-to-bury-buffalo-as-potentially-historic-lake-effect-event-looms/1278208
“Buffalo and its southern suburbs may receive as much as 3 to 6 feet of snow by Sunday,” Benz said, adding that the heaviest snow may fall over two periods — Thursday night into Friday and then Saturday into Saturday night. “These two periods will likely feature the worst conditions of this event.”
In words any 6th grader would understand:
1. Yes. It is a weather event since by definition climate is the integration of a set of events. That means it is a different thing as well as level of thing entirely.
2. Lake effect snow comes from a cold air mass moving over a warm water mass. The warmer the water–um, er, like maybe kinda’ like from a warmer summer climate–the greater the snow.
Here is a nice shot of how the process works over the Great Lakes…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake-effect_snow#/media/File:Lake_Effect_snow_on_January_10_2022.jpg
Really marvellous!….
But I doubt that it is snowfall.
It may rather be “frost”, Hrimfaxe, Rauhreif. (Hrimfaxe is that fameous horse with white frost in its beards.)
It vapours from the open and warm water, gives thick and low fogs in the air called frost- smoke, frost-røyk,… that is a watery aerosol of tiny water- drops that cannort freeze because of the low drop- size. Then enters along with the wind into the naked bushes and woods on land and give quite phaenomenal white icy frost on all the twigs and straws…. and electrical wires.
The pressure P inside a water droplet is given by
P= 2 theta /r
where theta = surface tension, and r = drop radius.
that becomes transcendental as one can see, when r goes to zero.
Which is physically impossible.
My computers say ERROR or “number too big” if I try that.
This is the reason why any water drop or bubble must begin or start as somethging that is not a drop or a bubble. And there comes the necessary aerosols of micro and nano-particles.
When that frost- fog Vass tåke Frost- røyk gets into your beards or into the trees or onto your windows or glasses, , it finds something to freeze on. It must expand 10% when freezing and that is too high work for that tiny water drop under that overwhelming inner pressure. It stays liquid drop fog down to – 20 celsius at least, And exists as under- cooled rains and fogs.
It meets cristallizing freezing cores in your hairs and in the bushes,…. and freezes quite phaenomenally, as we may see on those pictures above.
We have it here at the fjord and at all greater lakes that remain open until later in the winter..
And it causes further the dangerous “icing” on airplanes.
PS
The word is tricky,m but I found it at Wikipedia at last
http://www.rime/ice
English hard rime and soft rime. Hard r = directly from vapour to ice, soft r. is via water in the form of frost- fog water droplets
The trees may become allmost absolutely white with blue sky just 100 meters above.
That fog phaenomenon is called vasståke or frordtåke. and exactly what we see from Lake Superior and Michigan.
We say Rim, and verbum Rime. The Engish word is surely old norse, and it may be Sanskrit.
Remark Rimfrost different from snowfall. DS
All very well, but this is lake effect *snow.*
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/parts-of-buffalo-area-buried-under-feet-of-snow-storm-blamed-for-3-deaths-driving-treacherous/ar-AA14iXX4
Well then, give it a plausible natural explaination that can be examined..
Water evaporating from those lakes and falling down again in such masses next by,… it aint not!
Remember the permanence of matter and that what comes down must also have gone up somewhere. Aristoteles remains in charge on that.
I learnt in public school that it is warm air and moisture from the mexican golf meeting polar air masses from Canada , and all this not stopped by mountains in those extreemly flat landscapes .
Both the Alps and Ural and the caledonean ridge from Scotland to Kiruna are weather system and wind barriers in Europe. As are the Rocky Mountains in North America, stopping oceanic winds and with frequent huge snowfalls.
Here’s a good bit of data:
https://toolkit.climate.gov/regions/great-lakes#Lake-effect_snow
Scroll down to “observed change in heavy precipitation”.
This confirms my own anecdotal experience living in the North-East ; downpours do indeed seem to occur more often, although I am thankfully not in that lake-effect area.
But I have spent some time there, and it can indeed be a profound experience… the reports are not at all exaggerated.
Hr Zebra & al
As I have explained it above, I strongly believe that it is a misconsceprion and a confusion of
late autumn fjord or lake rime- frost with snowfall.
Up to 6 feet 2 meters of snowfall on the cars and roofs and lawns and on the roads ….. and large blizzard snowfalls one foot at least over such large areas would take handwidths of evaporated water all in once from those much smaller great lakes.
As a rule, if percipitation is given in millimeters by weather forecast, then it means millimeters of water, but centimeters of snow to be shuffled , You better judge the snowdepth as 10 times more. Better judge shuffling and driving tinto that and having that on your roof and doorsteps.
It will surely also sink down quite a bit if rather mild weather follows next, but it will loose no weight on your roof.
But “soft rime-frost” will fall from the trees and electrical leads rather soon..
New snow at way below the freesing-point has the density of 0.1.
If it is quite windy, you may have a traditional snowstorm in flat enough landscapes, It builds up as quite high snowdrifts up to 3 and 5 meters, with frozen earth blown bare in between. That is what can really clog the highways and railways. But better for the wild tundra animals who have something to eat.
As a very healthy realistic rule, huge amounts of water in the frozen form of snow, did hardly evaporate from those lakes however “great” and many in the “lake district” , it did evaporate in the nextby extreemly large and wide and maybe quite warm and windy ocean such as the Atlantic one.
The fameous blizzards of northeast USA that clog Washington DC and New York suddenly with 1 meter of more or less wet snow, are connected to “the polar vortex”,
Moist air is coming in over the land from the Atlantic in late autumn. Then there is a sudden coldfront of quite cold polar air from north Canada and Hudson Bay falling down from northwest, heavier than the warm and moist oceanic air, creeping under it and lifting it up. That will cool the large masses of moist air due to the lapse-rate, and there will be sudden and huge snowfall
Layers of air with different temperature and density moisture may very well blow in different directions over each other, and you can now and then see it for yourself in the clouds and on the weather maps..
I have hardly had “blizzards” in lowland eastern Norway, but 2 times in north Germany both east and west where the eaarth is flat enough and close enough to the atlantic.
In Friesland Niedersachsen we once had sudden “Schneesturm” on the levels of high mountain plains in western Norway.
You can also judge by oceanic winds and altitudes where large glaciers could posiibly build up, and where they could hardly build up despite of lower temperatures..
Mr. KIA “…It’s just weather, not climate…”
JP It’s mostly due to climate, with some weather thrown in. Mostly because there aren’t many places at 43N latitude and modest elevation that have to be concerned with getting over 1 meter of snow in a cold spell the third week of November. If you don’t think so, be sure to pack your snow boots the next time you take that trip to Marseille France in late November. Or maybe enjoy the beach on your cross-country skis.
2 meters of snow, 6 feet, takes more than Lake- effects, Dr Knowitall.
you ignore the worlds oceans and mainstreams and large inland and poles and eventual high peak mountains in the climate.
For instance, where the http://www.Jørungandr the mid- gards worm meets the http://www.sea/serpent on the New England coast at the eastern states….. there may be Drama, Halloween and white christmas more or less.
” Santa” does not come from the North Pole. He comes from Madrid as well, and hopefully not down the chimney.
Simply try and behave let him in tyhev front door and wish him welcome, and you will get what you deserve.
Silly supersticious US citizens may not yet have grasped what they have migrated over and into, in those landscapes. .
Do not blame that on the great lakes, they are much too small.
Wrong.
But I told that kid a hundred times “Don’t take the Lakes for granted.
They go from calm to a hundred knots so fast they seem enchanted.”
Just sayin’.
Yup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRtO3vfUbPY
(RIP, Stan Rogers.)
Perhaps this story–and especially the radar video, clearly showing the snowstorm streaming to the northeast along the entire 388 km length of Lake Erie–will shed some light.
https://weather.com/storms/winter/news/2022-11-17-lake-effect-snowstorm-buffalo-new-york-great-lakes
Also, note the temperature connection:
“The extreme nature of this event was due in part to what had been one of the warmest starts to November on record in the Great Lakes, pushing lake water temperatures to among the warmest on record for mid-November in the past 27 years.”
**** ERRORS IN MY 16 NOV 2022 COMMENT *****
My “monolithically-varying time series” S.B. “monolithically-varying temperature series”. I’m now programmed to consider all formulae time series.
My “1 degree for some effect” S.B. “1 degree due to some effect”
My “SE*380.4” S.B. “SE 380.4”
My “3.7 w/m**2 (raising the outgoing radiation altitude by 3.7 / 0.0065 = 569 m)” S.B. “3.7 w/m**2 (raising the outgoing radiation altitude by 1.2 / 0.0065 = 185 m)”
My “66% of the amount of lower IR paths” S.B. “66% of the amount of upper IR paths”
**** ERRORS IN MY 7 NOV 2022 COMMENT *****
My:—–
“35S – 35N 57% 26 (22-30) 299K 448.6
35 – 70 37% 13 (5-22) 286K 375.6
70S – 90S 3% -23 (-15, -30) 250K 215.9
70N – 90N 3% -7 (-14, 1) 266K 278.1
Average 409.5 w/m**2 for 70.8% of Earth
Land surface homogenous at 283K, Emissivity Coefficient 0.94 the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative equation yields 341.9 w/m**2
409.5 * 70.8% + 341.9 * 29.2% = 389.8 w/m**2”
S.B. :—-
“35S – 35N 59% 26 (22-30) 299K 448.6
35 – 70 38% 13 (5-22) 286K 375.6
70N – 90N 3% -7 (-14, 1) 266K 278.1
Average 415.5 w/m**2 for 71.0% of Earth
Antarctica 70S – 90S 2.8% -23 (-15, -30) 250K 215.9
Land surface homogenous at 283K, Emissivity Coefficient 0.94 the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative equation yields 341.9 w/m**2
415.5 * 71.0% + 215.9 * 2.8% + 341.9 * 26.2% = 390.6 w/m**2”
I accidentally threw all the solid H2O at 70S – 90S into the ocean (like many Alarmists) because it’s a similarish molecule like I did deliberately way back when I was once crazier at 21 DEC 2021 AT 10:39 AM. So it’s 75.5% of upward surface flux from ocean or 77.1% if you throw in some solid H2O surface that’s just a tad more homogenous than land, maybe 77.3% with poor little Greenland. Teetering on the edge of sanity at the 78% “tipping point” struggling to pass it. Almost crazy like a fox, probably not.
My “upwelling radiation down to your 340.3 w/m**2” S.B. “upwelling radiation down to your 380.43 w/m**2”
My “Ray Ladbury” S.B. “Bob Loblaw”. Possibly different bloke because name different.
@B.E.F. says: – ” **** ERRORS IN MY 16 NOV 2022 COMMENT ***** ”
ms: — Perhaps you should mix it all up again with your magical triturator, tomato juice and vodka to at least offer us an enjoyable ” Bloody Mary”.
I am giving a presentation to my university department before I leave for another job on the subject of climate change: observed trends and projections. I thought I’d run a planned outline past the contributors on here who are far more knowledgable than me to check I am going in the right direction.
My plan is to talk about climate extermes including heatwaves, droughts, flooding/heavy rainfall, tropical cyclones and extra-tropical cyclones. My talk may be somewhat leaning towards UK/European relevant weather but intend to look globally overall. As I am not an authority in climate change I intend to do a lot of background reading in the published literature.
Outline is as follows:
Introduction/motivation (a couple of short news clips of two recent extremes in the UK: the record high temperature this summer and the record Apr-Jun rainfall a decade ago).
Introduction on detection and attribution along the lines of a blog article on here: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/09/watching-the-detections/.
Heatwaves and drought (observed and projected trends).
Rainfall (seasonal and convective) (observed and projected trends).
Tropical cyclones (observed and projected trends).
Extra-tropical cyclones (focused on European windstorms) (observed and projected trends).
A brief bit on looking at trends: be aware of dismissing attribution based solely on plotting a trend line and stating trend<<noise: https://patricktbrown.org/2018/09/11/signal-noise-and-global-warmings-influence-on-weather/.
Summary.
I won't have time to go into major detail on each extreme, I intend to give a flavour of what the science and the evidence shows.
Do you think this sounds reasonable for a 25-30min talk and does anyone have suggestions on things that should be included and/or good references? The audience is of a scientific background but are not necessarily knowledgable on meteorology and climatology.
Adam Lea,
Suggestions for consideration/inclusion:
* A short (circa 2½ minute) animation of the history of atmospheric CO₂, from 800,000 years ago until January 2022.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbxEsG8g6BA
* Global mean CO₂ + non CO₂ greenhouse gases, and Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI)
https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/
* Global mean surface temperatures relative to 1880–1920
See Fig 1 in: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2022/Temperature2021.13January2022.pdf
See Fig 3 in: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2022/AugustTemperatureUpdate.22September2022.pdf
* Projected surface temperature rise
See the table shown in the YouTube video titled SR Australia – Social and Earth System Tipping Points | Prof. Will Steffen + Dr. Nick Abel, from time interval 0:19:12 at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn3WQGS9wOI
* Paleoclimatology: lessons from Earth’s climate history. As the Earth System has clearly crossed the 400 ppm threshold in modern atmospheric CO₂ we have now entered climate territory not encountered for millions of years.
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=2845
* Climate tipping points
See Fig 1 at: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0705414105
* Self-reinforcing feedbacks may lead to “Hothouse Earth”
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1810141115
* Sea level rise. At the April 2019 General Meeting of the American Philosophical Society, as shown in the YouTube video titled On Sheet Ice Melt in a Warming Climate and What We Should Do About It, glaciologist Professor Eric Rignot confirmed that the whole of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is now committed to melting, and the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) has passed its “tipping point” (in the Q&A) with the current level of warming. From time interval 0:13:07:
“And if you accumulate all these accelerations from the land ice, you see that it’s accelerating at 440 gigatonnes per year per decade, and if you extrapolate that to the end of the century we raise sea level by 80 centimetres. So you could argue that we are already on the trajectory of one metre per century sea level rise if this trend continues. This is clearly faster than any models that are being used so far to make sea level rise projections, and there are a multitude of reasons for that.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnOykSCOf0c
* An interactive map showing areas threatened by sea level rise and coastal flooding
https://coastal.climatecentral.org/
* Climate Endgame: Exploring catastrophic climate change scenarios
See Fig 1 & 2 in: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2108146119
* Heat index: a measure of temperature & humidity
https://www.weather.gov/ama/heatindex
Adam Lea,
The average UK citizen doesn’t see the effects of AGW outside their front doors (bar that shown on the telly that can easily be explained away as being ‘media sensationalism’.) unless they actually work outside. And the UK does have long phenology records dating back to the 1700s. They do show unprecedented change, not least the shortening of Winter with Spring arriving a month earlier which given we only have 12 months to fit 4 seasons into is quite dramatic. (See Büntgen et al (2022))
Another thought is the non-linearity of AGW & those climate tipping points and UK-wise the AMOC which will shut down under enough AGW (although we don’t know how much it would take) and that would reduce UK temperatures (which would have been earlier elevated by AGW) and have a big impact on rainfall. I think most reports on this (like this one) still refer back to Jackson et al (2015) but Bateman et al (2019) is specific to UK.
Dr. Lea,
This might help:
http://BartonLevenson.com/GlobalWarmingBriefLecture.ppt
I assume you have Microsoft PowerPoint or can get hold of a copy.
Adam, which department? What are the research specialties?
University College London
Department of Space and Climate Physics
Research interests here: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mssl/research
Thank you for giving the presentation. Since the time is very short, it might be most impactful to focus on projections and ask the audience to consult the list of references you will provide on the observed climate extremes mentioned above.
If anybody doubts the projections, please show them the following:
https://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-memo-to-exxon-management-about-co2-greenhouse-effect/
Other useful sources for projections and for getting everybody in the audience the sense of urgency required to take action:
Bill McGuire “Hothouse Earth”
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1810141115
https://www.scientistswarning.org/
Good luck with the presentation, let us know how it went and what feedback you received.
@Adam Lea
– Since you want to talk about droughts and floods, I advise you to briefly describe the water cycles and their connections with the global energy balance (evaporation & clouds / water vapor as the strongest climate gas).
IMO the previously known and applied concepts for a (regional) climate protection against too much and too little water also belong to for a simple introduction to the topic.
I have described this climate protection in a little more detail on one of my websites.
https://climateprotectionhardware.wordpress.com/
A new era of satellites (GRACE / Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) shows the regions trending from dry to drier and wet to wetter conditions.
https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/post-launch-images/trend-magazine/winter-2019/map-future-of-water_1778px_with_scale.jpg?mw=1290&hash=C055E3803F020C8CF223A5FF6D8F7089
If you don’t talk about the existential risk, what’s the point?
Adam Lea 19 NOV 2022 Perhaps you could fit in 5 minutes each on the northern polar jet stream and the AMOC unless it’s to be entirely about attribution theory. The northern hemisphere Coriolis Effect formula form is Accelerationeast> = f (Velocity (south—->north, latitude).
Is anybody monitoring the disappearance of our rivers around the world? It seems like we’re losing a lot of fresh water to drought in many areas. I don’t have any answers or real insights into what’s happening but it does seem a little scary. I figure Lake Mead and Lake Powell are probably gone for good as is the Colorado River. Not sure about the Mississippi and that’s just in this country.
@Chuck
– The easiest way to monitor water over land and oceans is with GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) – effectively weighing changes in water mass over large river basins and groundwater aquifers.
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/trend/archive/spring-2019/a-map-of-the-future-of-water
Measures to counteract the observed trends:
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/trend/archive/spring-2019/the-water-cycle-is-broken-but-we-can-fix-it
https://climateprotectionhardware.wordpress.com/
Good point, Chuck. It’s a regional thing, though–remember some areas are expected to become wetter. (From memory, the northwestern ‘quadrant’ of North America is one.)
The Mississippi, startlingly, was down enough this summer from mid-Western drought that barge traffic was affected. I don’t think it’s going away any time soon, though. Actually, the Colorado isn’t likely to disappear completely, either–though that won’t be any consolation to the folks relying on it, if the drought continues. Will it still reach the sea, or will it peter out before reaching the delta, as the Rio Grande has?
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/150244/rio-grande-runs-dry-then-wet
Abroad, we saw very low water levels over large chunks of Europe–barge traffic on the Rhine was affected; the Po was way down, as was the Tiber; and IIRC, the downturn in French nuclear-generated power was in part due to issues with low water levels impacting coolant. (Also, I believe, some maintenance issues contributed.)
China wasn’t immune, either–stretches of the Yangtze were dry, reportedly, and Lake Poyang shrank dramatically:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/as-climate-warms-china-planner-advocates-sponge-cities-for-floods-and-drought/ar-AA148Vaw
It’s perhaps worth mentioning that the American southwest, southern Europe (as part of the Mediterranean basin), and large chunks of China have all been regarded as at elevated drought risk for years now, based on model projections.
@KMcK says: –
” It’s a regional thing, though–remember some areas are expected to become wetter.
… based on model projections. ”
ms: — I would describe it as a global issue, as there are hardly any regions that are not affected by either of the two extremes.
Pakistan (previously also Australia) is a good example this year that both drought and flooding can be expected in some regions in the future.
Incidentally, as mentioned above, these trends have been measured with satellites since 2002, which makes the uncertain model projections you mentioned pretty much superfluous and actually only proves that you have a fairly long line and comprehension when it comes to the subject of “Climate & Water “.
Suddenly you are posting links dealing with Chinese sponge cities, while for almost 2 years you have been making fun of me because, armed with a global concept and regional water retention infrastructure, I could even reduce sea level rise.
Long lines of comprehension and short windows of time for climate action are the main reasons why humanity will lose the battle against global warming.
Thank you Kevin. I hope you are doing well.
The state of the whole Murray-Darling Basin in Australia is a matter of concern in this country, and has been for some time. Changing things seems to be hard, though. One of the problems is that it crosses the jurisdiction of 4 of Australia’s 6 states.
The passage of the mouth of the Murray to the ocean is only maintained by dredging, mainly to allow sea water into the salt-water lagoons around the river mouth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray%E2%80%93Darling_basin#Murray%E2%80%93Darling_Basin_Initiative
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_River#Murray_mouth
If Only The Scientists Were More Assertive About Tipping Points…
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/21/climate/saudi-arabia-aramco-oil-solar-climate.html
…. our troubles would be over; surely everyone would see the light.
Saudi Arabia spreads misinformation about the climate problem, and is committed to oil exports while doing a bit of greenwashing. This is not entirely surprising given their lifestyles are almost entirely dependent on oil exports. The Saudis climate denialism is deplorable, but we don’t have to listen to the Saudis climate denialism. We cant stop a sovereign country drilling for oil but we don’t have to buy their oil. The climate issue does not centre around Saudi Arabia, and what it does drilling for oil. To suggest it does is a form of scapegoating and buck passing. The climate issue centres around what people in other countries do, and how governments can nudge them in the right direction.
nigelj: – “Saudi Arabia spreads misinformation about the climate problem, and is committed to oil exports while doing a bit of greenwashing.”
Saudi Arabian oil exports for how much longer?
Data indicates Saudi Arabia’s crude oil production has already plateaued and it may be beginning to decline. Set for 10-year graph and see at: https://tradingeconomics.com/saudi-arabia/crude-oil-production
It seems Saudi Arabia’s oil production can’t be sustained near or above 11 Mb/d for very long.
Saudi Arabia’s (and the world’s) largest oil field, Ghawar, peaked production above 5 Mb/d, and has been steadily declining since about 2009.
http://energy-cg.com/OPEC/SaudiArabia/OPEC_SaudiArabia_Ghawar.html
OPEC’s crude oil production has been in decline since the peak (at 32,464 kb/d) in 2016.
https://twitter.com/crudeoilpeak/status/1594896718654758913
OPEC and non-OPEC allies, a group often referred to as OPEC+, decided at their first face-to-face gathering (on Oct 5) in Vienna since 2020 to reduce production by 2 Mb/d from November. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/05/oil-opec-imposes-deep-production-cuts-in-a-bid-to-shore-up-prices.html
What if the OPEC+ alliance’s decision to cut oil production by 2 Mb/d from November 2022 is because OPEC+ cannot meet or sustain its Oct 2022 quotas? https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/oil/090522-opec-cuts-oil-production-quotas-by-100000-bd-despite-tight-market
Data indicates the Russian Federation’s crude oil production may have also plateaued. Set for 10-year graph and see at: https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/crude-oil-production
It seems Russia’s oil production can’t be sustained above 11 Mb/d for very long as well.
Russia was a major diesel fuel producer before its invasion of Ukraine. Less diesel from Russia has exacerbated global gasoil/diesel supply shortages.
https://crashoil.blogspot.com/2021/11/el-pico-del-diesel-edicion-de-2021.html
USA (18.5% global share), Russia (12.2%) & Saudi Arabia (12.2%) were the world’s top three oil producers in 2021, per BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy 2022.
Diesel is the premier fuel, for road, rail and marine transport, for mining and agricultural machines, and in many manufacturing processes. Diesel is the workhorse of the global economy.
Fatih Birol then Chief Economist for the IEA, wrote an article published on 2 Mar 2008 that concluded with:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/outside-view-we-can-t-cling-to-crude-we-should-leave-oil-before-it-leaves-us-790178.html
Yes, we should expect better of a prince whose entourage carries around bone saws while on official travel, shouldn’t we?
The Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy are having the status of their “educational charity” investigated again. Previously they have wriggled off the charge of spreading lies at public expense (their charitable status getting them tax breaks) by insisting they were splitting all the lie-telling off into a ‘Forum’ that was separate from the charitable ‘Foundation’. But that was just another lie.
JCM 20 NOV 2022 “A small portion 0.5 additional is passing unhindered to space, for which you forgot to account”. Yes I forgot to increase the atmospheric window flux proportionally by 1.43% so that’s 0.57 w/m**2 and means that your equality remains unchanged to 1 decimal place. The variation in your equality with temperature anomaly is in the 2nd decimal place and I’m not considering that to be a falsification because it’s too small, like this:
Warm the surface-air by 1 degree by an effect that’s not a change in the “greenhouse effect” and then:
Greenhouse Effect flux quantity by method 1 = SE 380.4 + 5.45 – (OL 199.8 + 3.30 + 40.1 + 0.57) = 142.08 w/m**2
Greenhouse Effect flux quantity by method 2 = BR 340.3 + 4.91 – (UE 199.8 + 3.30) = 142.11 w/m**2
Warm the surface-air by 4 degrees by an effect that’s not a change in the “greenhouse effect” and then:
Greenhouse Effect flux quantity = SE 380.4 + 22.13 – (OL 199.8 + 13.45 + 40.1 + 2.33) = 146.85 w/m**2
Greenhouse Effect flux quantity = BR 340.3 + 19.97 – (UE 199.8 + 13.45) = 147.10 w/m**2
So it needs 4 degrees of surface-air warming to upset your equality by just 0.25 w/m**2 which I’m not considering to be a falsification. Evidently the Stefan-Boltzmann factor Kelvin**4 didn’t alter the flux anomaly ratios for a temperature anomaly by as much as I’d assumed, by a decimal order of magnitude.
——————
Of course that doesn’t mean that your assertion is correct and it isn’t. It simply means it isn’t so easily disproved.
Your “Surface emission – OLR = Back radiation – Upward Emission” is not correct.
It’s an assertion that back radiation equals the surface emission portion that’s absorbed by the atmosphere (the portion that isn’t atmospheric window frequencies) and that cannot be correct because 2 parcels of matter at differing temperatures do not exchange equal amounts of LWR with each other, so (NASA energy budget diagram is used).
JCM 27 OCT 2022 “I see 358.2 LW absorbed in the turbulent mixed layer, and 340.3 downward LW. This is a discontinuity of 17.9 Wm-2”
JCM 4 NOV 2022 “I would argue the air is radiating dependent on its temperature”
JCM 11 NOV 2022 “Greenhouse Effect = Back radiation – Upward Emission”
“Greenhouse Effect = Surface emission – OLR”
So, JCM asserts that Surface emission – OLR = Back radiation – Upward Emission with NASA LWR-only budget with JCM’s asserted correction being:
SE (340.3 + 40.1) – OL (199.8 + 40.1) = BR 340.3 – UE 199.8
——————
Though I can’t cite the 2nd Law of thermodynamics because it’s an open system and with other energy fluxes I’m quite certain that established physics is that 2 parcels of matter at differing temperatures do not exchange equal amounts of radiative flux with each other but rather the warmer parcel provides more radiative flux to the cooler parcel than the cooler parcel provides to the warmer parcel. Am I wrong about that ?
I can’t believe this mathturbation gibberish is still going on. I’m only commenting in case some innocent passer-by thinks this has anything to do with real physics.
Barry, why didn’t you just ask the last question in the first place?
Why would the atmosphere, which is physically completely different from the surface, and has completely different energy characteristics, radiate downward at the same rate that the surface radiates upwards?
I did ask, multiple times, and the only reply from JCM was “it’s a hunch”.
But if you want to fill up the page with meaningless numbers, carry on. I have a hunch the comments are not going to stop coming from JCM, so there will be ample opportunity.
@Barry E Finch
Hartmann makes a comment in passing in 1994 in Chapter 3
http://meteo.edu.vn/remoclic/Bai_giang/KHH_and_KHVN/Physical_Climatology.pdf
“These temperatures are plotted in Fig. 3.11. In pure radiative equilibrium the temperatures of the surface and the air in contact with the surface are different. This discontinuity is caused by the absorption of solar radiation at the surface. Such discontinuities are usually greatly suppressed in reality because of efficient heat transport by conduction and convection”
Greatly suppressed. To what degree? 17.9 Wm-2?
I would argue this diffusion is a pretty powerful process, not to be discounted, especially considering phase changes of water at the surface and at great heights. This is operating at all scales, from cm eddies to broad cells.
Strictly speaking, some proportion is reserved from convective transport for the kinetic energy cycle. This dissipation introduces some ambiguity in energy budgets. This is air parcel velocity; the winds, if you will. Mass flux. Tightly interwoven with convection of latent and sensible heat (internal energy of atmosphere). Characterized by imperfect eddy covariance schemes at small scales in surface budgets today. This stuff I find far more fascinating than radiation transfer, and much more uncertain.
I see a great degree of leeway in various versions of energy budgets that are forced to close, with surface and window flux densities free to vary up to 20 Wm-2 to close these gaps. Any notion that these values have been so adequately constrained as to warrant totally discounting them as factors of change do not hold much water IMO.
The disparaging remarks and labels applied by Zebra, in an effort to delineate clearly that I’m on the wrong side of the tracks, is a subject I find quite fascinating. I suppose i’ve been classified neatly into a box with all the other baddies on a wide range of subjects.
I will continue on my chosen career path to advocate for the importance of watershed hydrology, both to protect lives and property, and to reduce temperature and hydrological extremes. The science theory is a matter of curiosity for which I have no authority and pose no threat to the faith of those in this thread.
RE: Zebra: Nov 28, correcting my English as the third language, to deflect from my criticism of his “elegant solution “:
Zebra: when you say something is “a tautology”, it really doesn’t fit my understanding of the term:
Good point. In fact, knowing that my English sometimes can betray me, I have EXPLICITLY explained what I meant: “ everybody knows that a smaller population would reduce anthropogenic impacts
So I accept your linguistic criticism of my English – and will substitute “tautology” with “ stating the obvious as if it were a novel and elegant solution ” or “ reinventing the wheel“. See my rephrased argument at the end of this post.
Zebra: “ to say that reduced fertility is not a solution because “it occurs naturally” is also difficult to understand. Do you mean it is acausal, like in quantum physics?”
I meant it not in the quantum physics meaning, but in the normal Webster’s dictionary meaning:
“an action or process of solving a problem”.
Solving. If a problem SOLVES ITSELF you can’t claim that YOU HAVE SOLVED it. I mean, as this disussion shows, you _can_, but you shouldn’t.
And I am bit perplexed that this point wasn’t obvious to such a sharp reader like you – given that in a previous post I even offered a simple George W. Bush analogy:
Piotr Nov. 18: “ Taken as a goal – it is no solution either – it is taking credit for what happens anyway, much the same way as George W. Bush, instead of GHG emissions cuts, proposed lowering GHG-INTENSITY (GHG emission/GDP) – at the exact same rate that the economy was reducing its energy-intensity for the competitive reasons ANYWAY
If having read that, you still find it “ difficult to understand what I meant – I am not sure how to simplify it more.
== My criticism of Zebra’s , ehem, modest proposal (reduction of human population), a.k.a. his “elegant solution” ===
“Taken as a statement of fact – it’s no “elegant solution”, it’s stating the obvious as if it were a novel and elegant solution – everybody knows that a smaller population would reduce anthropogenic impacts.
Taken as a goal – it is no solution either – it just taking credit for what happens (demographic transition) by itself anyway, And which won’t happen fast enough – we need to reach net zero emissions in the next few decades, not in many centuries or millenia from now. ”
===
Piotr, good comments. Its hard to fault your reasoning. I had similar discussions with zebra on smaller global population years before you arrived on this website, particularly I pointed out the lack of ability to keep warming under 2 degrees. I did acknowledge it might help keep warming going over those numbers to some extent. However I had the same response of deflections and personal put downs. Now he ignores me. All this despite the fact I agreed smaller population is desirable at least in principle. Sheeesh.