This month’s open thread for climate discussions. Please be constructive and polite.
Reader Interactions
136 Responses to "Unforced variations: Dec 2022"
nigeljsays
Killian on egalitarianism on last months UV thread. I have no doubt you would have posted some links related to egalitarianism some years ago, but I cant recall them and I don’t read every link that everyone posts. I was basically wanting you to post the links again!!!!!! That should have been really obvious. So if you have a record of them please post them again.
.
Killiansays
No. and not years ago. Had you any interest in honestly researching any of this, you already would have. You’ve been told these things since you arrived here. Why waste my time?
nigeljsays
K. I’ve read plenty about hunter gatherer society, and I deliberately read differing view points. Just haven’t read anything to prove that humans are not innately hierarchical.
Killiansays
You deliberately read racist propaganda. *I* read holistically. Reading racist nonsense does not equal “reading different viewpoints.* I *discuss* different viewpoints with real anthropologists and real indigenous people. There are recordings. Did you go listen to them? No. instead, you read outdated, myopic books and papers by outdated myopic White men.
If you believe ANY of the tripe you post on indigenous societies, you’re a racist. Period. Ipso facto… Bob’s your racist uncle.
This isn’t up for debate. You lost six years ago but still repeat the same racist tropes.
K: You deliberately read racist propaganda. . . . If you believe ANY of the tripe you post on indigenous societies, you’re a racist.
BPL: Only Killian is free from racism. Anything that disagrees with Killian is racist by definition. You’re all racists! There are racists under Killian’s bed… In his closet… Hiding in the bathroom… Spying on him…
nigeljsays
Killian
“You deliberately read racist propaganda..*I* read holistically. If you believe ANY of the tripe you post on indigenous societies, you’re a racist.”
Those are very comically inaccurate claims, because a couple of years ago I posted a large comment on this website, with links to five papers finding hunter gatherer culture was violent and five papers showing it was non violent and one large meta study arguing “its complicated”. I’m pretty sure Killian responded to that comment or something similar posted later on.
And personally I’m inclined to agree with the meta study, that whether hunter gatherer culture was violent was complex, and it varied form society to society. Which doesn’t actually surprise me. To suggest believing that study would make me racist is pure ignorance of what racism even means.
The only papers I’ve seen Killian quote are papers telling us how wonderful hunter gatherer culture is, and a grudging admission that there may have been some inter tribal conflicts. This sure looks like confirmation bias to me.
I asked you to provide links to back up your assertion that humans, particularly modern humans, are ‘innately’ egalitarian. The link talks about hunter gatherer culture and how its egalitarian, something that nobody seriously disputes, but at no stage can I recall James Suzman arguing that humans were ‘innately” egalitarian or providing proof they are. Therefore the links I quoted arguing very specifically that humans are innately hierarchical and can learn to be egalitarian in some circumstances are more convincing to me. As is Richard Creagers book.
Steven Emmersonsays
Hi Nigelj,
I wonder which species our DNA is closest to, chimpanzees or bonobos. I hope it’s bonobos, I expect it’s chimpanzees.
Don Williamssays
A report from The Intercept pointing out that fixing climate change will not save the large number of animal species being destroyed by 8 billion humans — that the transition to renewable energy (solar farms, mineral mining,etc) will increase the destruction of wildlife habitat.
I found it interesting that when I searched the IPCC AT6 paper for “overpopulation” I received no hits.
Africa’s birthrate is around 7 to 8 children per woman.
nigeljsays
Don Williams.
Thank’s for the link. I agree renewable energy is not a panacea, but it’s the most useful and workable climate mitigation policy available. It will cause some biodiverity loss due to mining, but we have to consider the viability of alternative strategies to renewables, and it doesn’t look like there are many good options.
Solving the climate problem primarily by manipulating the size of the human population is not viable in my view . To keep warming under 2 degrees would obviously require killing billions of people and obviously this is not acceptable. Africa does have a high birth rate, but they have very low per capita emissions on average,so it is the least of our concerns. This is all why the IPCC have little interest in the population issue.
Reductions in the consumption of energy has some part to play but just doesn’t look viable at large scale Consider the massive covid lockdowns in 2020 caused only a 6.4% drop in emissions as a result of reductions in travel and economic activity, and that very small drop drop bounced right back to business as usual this year once restrictions were lifted. Even in a police state like China which has persisted with forced covid restrictions their population is now in open rebellion.
So please get out there and promote renewables and electic transport, because its the main thing that just might stop the world frying. Its the ONLY thing that has made a significant difference so far. Use of coal has not stopped, but the rate of use has declined quite substantially as a result of wind and solar power, and enough to already make some difference to the worst case warming projections according to various studies.
Incentivizing everyone into sn electric vehicle will not only do little to reduce climate change it will put a tremendous drain on the worlds resources. Further, It incentivize business as usual which is a certificate for death on this planet. Far better to go after fossil fuels. If you stop fossil fuels – alternative transportation will quickly force its way into the picture.
1) Your comment left me puzzled. The World Bank report you cite supports Dave Petersen’s comment , not yours.
2) The report says that the B2DS scenario (future temp increase limited to 1.75 deg C) will require 1.7 billion tons more minerals than the RTS (business as usual. ) –Fig ES-1, p. 11. This is an increase of 100% and and this is just to 2050 AD.
Plus the report notes that demand for some minerals will increase up to nearly 500% “especially those concentrated in energy storage technologies” –p.93. On p. 59, it says batteries for Electric Vehicles (EV) are expected to account for 90% of energy storage deployments.
3) The report also acknowledges that multiple adverse impacts and problems are possible (major environmental damage in mining areas, water pollution and shortages, refusal of countries to export necessary minerals, etc ) For solutions, the Report waves its hands and merely offers hope (p. 97)
4) Plus I didn’t see an estimate in the Report re demand for one resource: Money.
Or for the transfers thereof –who receives and who pays. Search in the Report for “money” or “budget” yielded no hits.
Killiansays
From the WORLD BANK.
OK, shill.
But thanks for your simpletonesque response: Do we only need resources for EVs? Nope. They are needed for many different industries all trying to grow to global behomeths at the same time.
The resources don’t exist. Learn the simple math.
Without a 15-fold, or more, increase in global recycling ability and the discovery of ways to recycle the 30% of waste we have no way to currently recycle, none of the tech crap people drool over is ever gonna happen on any scale that avoids collapse.
It is sinful to burn away hydroelectric power in large resistors. If houses and even pathways are to be heated, then try your best to use waste heat that willm be wasted in any case, and,… heat pumps. I once conscidered a low compression kerosene engine saying Dumdumdumdumdum….on the christmas market place, finely tuned and adjusted,.. and with buffet along the exhause- pipe. Toasts, hotdogs warm cofee and grog for sale, and the remainings for warming frozen hands and thawing snow. And tell that tyhis is responsible and sustainable. The fuel could be distilled from straw and twigs if necessary.
on how to use the heat at all its temperatures.
I am very sceptic at burning away hydroelectric or atomic power in the road traffics. It is much too valuable for that. And Aluminium should be strictly re- cycled.
The worlds pissoirs to be scrupulously seized and updated.
Then we can whish merry christmas and a happy new year.
Don Williams,
The ‘fertility rate’ in Africa has never been “around 7 to 8 children per woman” but always below. It peaked at 6.7 but that was half a century ago. It is now down at 4.2 and falling. And IPCC AR6 (or the thick-fingered AT6) does not use the word “overpopulation” but does use the phrase “population growth” and indeed says “High mitigation challenges, for example, due to assumptions of slow technological change, high levels of global population growth, and high fragmentation as in the Shared Socio-economic Pathway SSP3, may render modelled pathways that limit warming to 2°C (>67%) or lower infeasible.” [My bold] And do remember it is very easy to blame somebody else for mankind’s destruction of the natural world, easy for you and perhaps yet easier for the citizen of Africa whose continent has been increasingly ravaged by outsiders for a very long time.
Omega Centaurisays
Africa is now (at last) rapidly advancing. That should mean the demographic transition -to small family size, ought to proceed pretty quickly. I am associated with some of the transplants (Nigeria to USA), and their family sizes are similar to those of the larger population here. So there is cause for optimism about population stabilization.
zebrasays
MA, Don, and also re Adam Lea below,
I find myself constantly encountering these “answers without questions”; whether it is a lack of imagination or just reflexive Strawmanning.
Questions:
1. How can you have a sustainable human society that enjoys the advantages offered by science and technology?
2. How can you avoid great disruption and suffering over the next 100-200 years due to climate change caused by CO2 and other human activity?
3. How can you ameliorate 2 while getting to 1 as quickly as possible?
But when my answer to 2 (which seems to coincide with IPCC probabilities) is “you can’t, but here’s how you do 1 and 3”, the response seems to always be “but you haven’t solved 2!”.
So my answers to 1 and 3 involve population, which should make Don happy, assuming he is serious and not just doing the standard owning-the-libs-concern-trolling-gotcha-haha-it’s-the-Black-people-haha.
And in terms of Adam’s comment about despair… well, what is it despair about ?? My solution to problems I can’t solve is to move on to problems I can. And I’ve been making the case, with examples, that the rate of population reduction has the potential to do 3 as well as being essential to achieving 1.
The reason for this is that the relationship between population and environmental degradation is non-linear and in fact discontinuous in many areas. Getting from 8 billiion to 7.9 does nothing, but what about getting to 6 while showing an accelerating downward trend?
I’ll probably follow up on this with some references at some point but right now there are immediate getting-ready-for-winter projects I need to address… there are these strange white particles falling from the sky which I think are trying to tell me something.
Don Williamssays
1) My “concern” is that central Africa is densely populated, in moving to become even more densely populated and yet is projected to be severely damaged by global warming. It lies within plus to minus 15 degrees of the equator.
2) Yet the people there seem unaware of the threat looming over them. When it comes to the USA Jem Bendell’s forecast of doom seem greatly exaggerated — worse case we simply conquer and occupy Canada. But his forecast does not seem so exaggerated when you look at Africa.
3) There seems to be the idea that the USA and EU will cough up several hundred $Billion in aid to rescue Africa. Given that our federal debt is $31 trillion and we are gearing up for World War III with China and Russia I am sceptical that much aid will be forthcoming. Plus there is the heavy cost of even a token transition to renewable energy. Look at the maneuvering at COP27.
4) The larger point is that there are a lot of threats looming on the horizon and looking at climate change in isolation gives an optimistic picture of the situation.
PS to MA Rodger: As an American, I am deeply embarrassed to admit I picked up information from President Macron of France without double-checking it. But note he doesn’t seem willing to toss much rescue money onto the table either.
Don, Omega C just above has identified one solution to your concern… one I’ve suggested in the past as well.
If you allow immigration to USA, high fertility rates are eliminated in one or at most two generations. As long as the US population is fixed, with reductions in FF use, those individuals contribute little to rising emissions.
There are two additional benefits:
-Remittances to the source country work to improve conditions that drive high fertility… the immigrant to the US sends money to her sister that pays for education, reduced infant mortality, birth control, reducing long-term economic insecurity.
-The values and concerns of a Western liberal society (that’s about 60% of the US population) are also transmitted/demonstrated to the sister… concern for the environment certainly being a major one, along with female empowerment to oppose religious patriarchal forced birth.
So, your problem about governments spending money to “rescue” Africa would be greatly reduced. The people who come here to work will be doing the job at the non-bureaucratic actual grass roots level; they will be earning the money to send along with contributing to Social Security and paying other taxes. (And providing labor here that is often in short supply.)
Sounds like a win-win-win to me… whaddaya think?
Ray Ladburysays
I always find it amazing that people seem to want to look to far off lands for problems–especially without asking the inhabitants of said far off lands their opinions. While it is true that some parts of Africa are quite densely populated–especially urban areas–some areas are fairly wide open. And if you ask young African men and women how many children they want, invariably you get numbers in the 3-5 range–sometimes even less–rather than 7-8. The main problems in Africa are the lack of opportunity. There is a lack of opportunity for young people (especially girls) to get an education, and once they get an education, the economy can’t use them (hence all the computer-literate scammers in Nigeria). This was also the case for India and, to a lesser extent, China until the 90s or so. And the more opportunity you provide, the lower the birthrate will fall.
Renewables are quite prevalent in rural villages–just about every village in Madagascar has solar panels, especially if they aren’t on the national or regional grid.
You neglect to mention that an average American consumes hundreds of times as much energy as an average African–so, who, really, is overpopulated.
Your #2 betrays a common misconception–that land area is interchangeable, and as the South warms, we can just move north. May I introduce your optimism to the Canadian Shield–an area of bedrock scraped nearly clean of topsoil by the last ice age.
And as to your #3, your 31 trillion $$ ain’t gonna mean much when we are living as scattered tribes of hunter gatherers in a couple hundred years. You can decry the expense of creating a sustainable economy all you want, but it really isn’t optional. And yes, there are many, many problems we face–but that doesn’t mean we can pick and choose which we address. We may find that many of the problems all have the same solution–deliberate sustainability.
Don Williamssays
@zebra
1) A complex question. Given the widespread custom of polygamy in Africa, moving men from Africa would probably not lower the rate of population increase very much.
2) There is an argument that increased immigration into the USA will be necessary to have a young work force large enough to sustain Social Security and Medicare.
There is also an argument that genius exists throughout the world and admitting high functioning scientists, engineers, doctors helps this country.
3) But bringing adult women here who have little education would be expensive –either for life time welfare or for 12 ? years of basic education before they could enter the workforce for even low-skilled labor – at which time they would be 30? years old. Families in Africa would probably not give up their young (7 year old) girls to be educated here.
4) Also, the USA population is around 335? Million and the female population of Africa is 714 million.
One problem is that a large percentage of African females are young — with many years of fertility before them. I am not expert but I believe this is called “demographic momentum”.
4) I am sceptical re the claims of unfilled US jobs – many of them are unfilled because they have crappy wages too low to sustain a family. We have large numbers of unemployed –and underemployed Americans. Our first duty is to them.
5) We also consume natural resources – and emit CO2 — at very high rates per person compared to most countries. So I am not sure doubling our number will aid the global environment.
6) Finally, I think Congress will be lacking in charity, given the major problems facing us: hugely expensive competition/war with Russia and China, climate change, a large retiring baby boomer cohort with a near bankrupt Social Security/Medicare system and a rebellion by young workers in the near future, $31 Trillion in federal debt that is a high percentage of our GDP –and not counting household and corporate debt , etc. Our NIIP (net debt to foreigners ) has exploded since 2002 and I’m not sure what happens if that faucet gets turned off.
Don Williamssays
@Ray Ladbury
1) Re Canada , note that the northern tier of US states will be able to handle climate change — we merely need a place for residents of Texas and other Southern states. Alberta and Saskatchewan will do nicely — Goode’s Atlas indicates they already grow wheat and oats and raise cattle. in significant amounts. With global warming, maize cultivation will probably become feasible.
2) Plus Alberta is already wanting to lift the heavy hand of Ottawa’s oppression by seceding and joining the USA. We would merely need to er … “spread democracy”.
Don Williams:
Precisely–the areas where cereal crops can be grown already grow them. The places where climatic conditions improve temperature-wise likely won’t be suitable in terms of fertility.
I would also caution you against drawing conclusions about a continent based on a Wikipedia-level understanding of the region and people. Yes, polygamy is practiced in Africa, but mainly in rural areas where women have few options. Again, the quickest way to reduce polygamy and fertility is to present young women with more opportunities for education and satisfying careers. This also improves the welfare of the men in their lives. If you ask young Africans about their attitudes toward polygamy and # of children, most of them view polygamy less favorably and favor smaller families–3-4 children rather than 7-8. Many Africans who come to the US and Europe are highly trained–nurses, doctors, engineers… And in advanced countries, it is almost inevitably the migrants who do the “shit” jobs that natives eschew. Indeed the economies of these countries depend on it. If you want to prevent mass migration of unskilled workers, the best strategy is to present the people with more opportunities to improve their skills–both in their home countries and in countries to which they may migrate.
And in terms of climate change–Africa ain’t the problem. Indeed, population ain’t the problem (it is more of a problem for biodiversity, however). What matters is consumption of resources, especially energy. And that is a problem mainly in North America and to a lesser extent in Europe, and the industrial economies of Asia. Africans are already embracing solar with enthusiasm, and it is easier to engineer a renewable energy grid there than it is to retrofit our own outdated grid to renewables.
As an aside, I think that while the recent advance in fusion is important, any future economy based on fusion as a “clean” energy source faces a daunting, if not insurmountable, problem–the supply of tritium. It doesn’t occur (for all practical purposes) in nature. It decays with a half-life of 12.3 years, so you cannot mass produce it. The small supply of tritium we do have comes from only a few CANDU reactors, which use heavy water (D2O–Deuterium-rich), and only a few facilities exist for harvesting the isotope. A single commercial fusion reactor would exhaust the world’s supply of tritium in less than a year. So, reliance on fusion also implicitly requires a reliance on fission–and fission with a particular type of reactor that isn’t being build anymore.. So from my point of view, the old adage still applies: “Fusion is the energy source of the future–and it always will be.”
zebrasays
Don W re list of 6,
I’m not following your reasoning or your factual basis. Perhaps I have a different perspective, since my parents were immigrants who did OK. My mother had a third-grade education, and my father had been an indentured servant in a different country from where he was born during his HS years. They worked really hard, and raised some pretty smart kids.
But I guess those African girls who grew up in a subsistence farming environment carrying water and firewood for miles while dodging rapists will get on welfare first thing, right? No doubt they have some different genetic characteristics from my folks… you can tell just by looking at them, eh.
1) As late as 2000, Central Africa’s birth rate was near 7 births per woman while East Africa and West Africa’s was around 6. It was the steep drop in North Africa’s birth rate that brought Africa’s average down. Since 2000 there has been a decline also in East, Central and West Africa.
2) However, the Wilson Center has noted that the number of children desired by African women is as follows: West Africa: 5.9 Central: 6.0 East: 4.6
Niger’s , for example, was 7.6 in 2005 but dropped to 6.9 in 2018. Congo’s was 6.8 in 2000 but dropped to 5.9 in 2018. In 2018, Mali was 5.9, Chad was 5.7, Somalia’s was 6.1, Burkina Faso was 5.2.
One reason for the drop in birth rates in the past 20 years is possibly the steep decline in African child mortality, from around 150 children per 1000 to 75.
4) The UN’s forlorn hope is that if you give 8 billion people the living standards of the USA then their birth rate will drop to our low level. However, others have noted that you would need to plunder 3 or 4 more planet Earths to accomplish that. The explosive growth of Asia’s population caused a massive increase in CO2 levels.
In the meantime, how do we feed these people if global warming greatly reduces US and Canada’s grain harvests? How do we feed our own? Even with the despicable and cruel practice of factory farming animals.
nigeljsays
Don Williams @11, Africa is unlikely to need high levels of prosperity to have a much lower birth rate. Studies show the main factors in a low birth rate are contraception, women’s education / rights and low infant mortality (which only requires fairly modest prosperity and health care systems):
However its clearly still going to take a while before Africa’s population stops growing. I agree climate change is likely to reduce grain harvests, and thus will be painful particularly for countries like Africa.
Don Williamssays
You guys argue that economic opportunity lowers fertility rates — but for the past 100 years that “opportunity” has been tied to vast emissions of CO2. First in America and Europe then in Asia.
The question is, will the transition to renewables provide INCOME to enough people to keep fertility rates low? People pursue careers to buy things — and producing those things has environmental costs such as pollution, ,depletion of natural resources, and destruction of wildlife habitat.
Plus POVERTY plays a role in fertility rates — and rising income inequality is increasing poverty. Also, will the taxes needed to fund the renewable transition deplete people’s incomes so much that they can no longer buy things and have no motivation to pursue careers? In the USA, our richest 1% seem to see renewable transition as an excellent excuse to raid the US Treasury. Real wages for working people are falling.
I did not cite Africa’s population growth as a factor in Africa’s CO2 emissions — I cited it because it takes a lot of work, resources and money to feed people.
nigeljsays
Don Williams
“You guys argue that economic opportunity lowers fertility rates — but for the past 100 years that “opportunity” has been tied to vast emissions of CO2. First in America and Europe then in Asia.”
No Don. I said the complete opposite namely : “Africa is unlikely to need high levels of prosperity to have a much lower birth rate. Studies show the main factors in a low birth rate are contraception, women’s education / rights and low infant mortality (which only requires fairly modest prosperity and health care systems):”
“Also, will the taxes needed to fund the renewable transition deplete people’s incomes so much that they can no longer buy things and have no motivation to pursue careers?”
Studies like The Stern report show the world can make a transition to renewables that would cost about 2% of global gdp (global economic output). This very roughly equates to 2% of our yearly incomes, so therefore also equals a 2% tax on our yearly incomes if funded that way. So most people could afford that and those et the bottom of the economic heap could be subsidised. Now the 2% number could be contested, but I would suggest most people could still easily afford a 5% tax.
I repeat what I said before: Renewables are not problem free. Neither is our avaricious and materialistic capitalist economy. They require a lot of resources and cause pollution, but unless you have a BETTER solution to the climate problem that is workable and practical you have very little credibility with me. So what is it?
Nigel already essentially made this point, but no, you don’t need US levels of economic excess to see the demographic transition occur. In the list below of 227 listed nations and territories, 108 are at or below 2 children per woman:
This includes nations such as Iran, both Koreas, the Bahamas, Suriname, Nepal, Mauritius, Paraguay, and Mongolia. These are vastly disparate countries, but none of them–barring South Korea–could be considered “fully developed” (to use the rather problematic conventional terminology.)
The explosive growth of Asia’s population caused a massive increase in CO2 levels.
While I wouldn’t claim that the increase in Asian population is irrelevant to emissions growth, I think you’ll find that Chinese CO2 emissions roughly tripled between 2000 and 2010:
So my attribution of emissions would focus much more on the growth of manufacturing than on population growth. China isn’t typical, of course, but it’s also demographically and emissions-wise the elephant in the Asian (and global) room.
And it isn’t just China that’s acting as ‘manufacturer to the world,’ albeit on smaller scales. For just one notable example, see Vietnam:
So, since the millennium, Vietnamese CO2 emissions roughly quintupled, while population grew about 22%. (BTW, current Vietnamese TFR? 2.05.)
zebrasays
Kevin, thanks for supplying some numbers.
For example:
“So, since the millennium, Vietnamese CO2 emissions roughly quintupled, while population grew about 22%. (BTW, current Vietnamese TFR? 2.05.)”
And zebra said, above:
“And I’ve been making the case, with examples, that the rate of population reduction has the potential to do 3 as well as being essential to achieving 1.
The reason for this is that the relationship between population and environmental degradation is non-linear and in fact discontinuous in many areas. Getting from 8 billiion to 7.9 does nothing, but what about getting to 6 while showing an accelerating downward trend?”
Huh!
So, would the rapid increase in emissions in China and Vietnam have happened in my global
6 billion and falling scenario?
Go ahead, play a little sci-fi-what-if.
nigeljsays
Kevin.
Thanks for the information. Rather a good find. I did a quick search on population policy out of curiosity to establish what was driving the lower fertility. I found some information on Iran, South Korea, North Korea, Suriname and Mauritius, Paraguay, and Mongolia. A common picture emerges where governments have been very activist in population policies with the exception of Paraguay. Namely that governments of those countries have typically successfully encouraged low fertility rates over the last 50 years or so.
However in most cases they have ageing population and governments are now stopping encouraging low fertility (eg Iran) or are encouraging higher fertility.
This is a bit of an over simplification for the sake of brevity. Some of these countries have had constantly changing government population policies. With so many factors involved, and so many changing government policies it looks pretty hard to predict global population growth in the future with any accuracy. And the countries in your list tend to have autocratic governments run by elites that will do what they think is best regardless of what the population want. So there’s not much ordinary people can do there to influence any of this.
Stopping population growth and accepting a shrinking global population seems a good thing to me overall, but whether this actually happens and at what rate it happens looks impossible to predict, especially when you look at the aforementioned swings in population policy by governments who may or may not be responsive to what voters want.
All things considered the whole population issue seems a bit of a distraction from the climate change problem to me. Its really hard to predict a firm trend and all we can say its likely population will peak near the end of this century and may stabilise or fall after that. I do promote smaller population on websites but I feel .there’s not much I can do to influence our own government, because they stay well away from activist population policies.. I don’t like telling friends how many kids they should have. These things are mine fields. So its a mystery to me how Zebra would see us influencing governments to dramatically reduce rates of population growth especially in countries with aging populations.
Nigel–I think you may be overweighting the particular countries I mentioned a bit; they were from my perspective pretty randomly chosen, except that I wanted to show that the demographic transition clearly is not dependent upon apex levels of economic development. To me, the crucial part is that about half of the nations were at or below a TFR of 2.
You’re right of course that governmental policy is important, but I think it’s often not determinative (as your link about N. Korea hints.)
Just around 4.2, and it’s been declining consistently since peaking in 1968, at 6.706. The UN’s ‘hope’ of decline hardly looks “forlorn”–not that I’m saying TFRs of 4 are where we need to be. The same suite of projections has African population nearing 4 billion (!!) by the end of the century. That’s certainly food for thought–if not, sadly, for hungry mouths.
Killiansays
“It found?” I didn’t know the knowledge was lost. And, wow! they found the answer in 2022?!
Amazing, Batman! Sigh…
1. The planet is largely finite. As in, all but a few items in the periodic table are entirely finite.
2. Using up finite stuff means you eventually run out of finite stuff.
3. Technology cannot make something out of nothing; it needs stuff.
4. Ergo, tech cannot solve this problem.
5. There are thus two broad choices: A. Don’t use up all the finite stuff. Live within the means of the planet’s stuff. B. Build out recycling as a priority – fund it above all else WRT tech-based activities. It makes some tech-based plans rational Make it mandatory. Invest in R&D to decrease the 30% we *cannot* recycle or the much of the rest of the recycling will grind to a halt.
We have known all this for a very long time. I have been saying it here for well over 10 years. But, gee, thanks Intercept. What would we do without you to… bring up the rear?
Don Williamssays
1) The vital fertilizer phosphate is finite stuff. Published reserves vs yearly production suggest we might not run out until 300 years. However, researcher Dana Cordell argues that only 20% of mined phosphate makes it to the plants and Peak Phosphate (demand exceeds supply) will occur around 2035.
3) I don’t deny that climate change is a major threat — but mitigation will have to occur within the context of multiple major threats and I don’t see a Kumbaya roadmap for that.
Killiansays
Look harder. There is a road map. But stuff the “kumbaya” nonsense. Only fools say such stupid things. This is all about math. Thermodynamics. Risk. Complexity. Etc. Kumbaya has nothing to do with it.
Barry E Finchsays
JCM 27 NOV 2022 has “Greatly suppressed … 17.9 Wm-2?”. No because the temperature unit is Kelvin, not W/m**2. Cease this hiding of your light under a bushel all the time. Simply work out the conductive & radiative transfers from whatever millimetres or microns within the solids at land surface you find are appropriate and the same for whatever skin thickness of the ocean, both up to whatever millimetres or metres above surface you find appropriate and determine within a few millimetres what elevation range your asserted change from 416.1 W/m**2 to 398.2 W/m**2 (so your asserted 17.9 W/m**2 difference) occurs over at the relatively-very-sharp gradient as alluded to by the reference you cited from a book and that then is your result. Present that for review.
———–
“I would argue this diffusion is a pretty powerful process”. I would argue that I’m Brad Pittlike but I don’t because the reception when I tried it a few times before wasn’t positive. Exact same thing when I told the volleyball team I was “pretty powerful” and it turned out that my definition didn’t much match theirs, so now I do what I do and not what I would do. So simply do the analysis and present for review in your next comment. You could use your cited 15K difference between stratified rubber-air at the surface and (presumably) 98 molecules or whatever you find correct inside the surface of your citation or do that analysis yourself to produce a different annually-integrally-averaged, regionally-integrally-averaged temperature difference between air at the surface and solid or liquid matter at your reasoned molecule count below the surface. With an Earth-realistic pair of 289K air at the surface and 304K at your appropriate molecules inside the surface and blackbody approximation it’s simply 88.8 W/m**2 “discontinuity” with 395.5 W/m**2 from the IR-active gas molecules at the surface parcel and 484.3 W/m**2 from the surface. Then simply do the analysis that adjusts your rubber-air calculation you made for air that has the thermal conductivity of air and the 2nd, convection, adjustment for air that’s as fluid as air instead of as fluid as rubber and thus results, with a bit of luck, in your asserted 17.9 W/m**2 difference in radiant energy, or perhaps some different quantity, instead of the example 88.8 W/m**2. Simples. I suspect that your book citation is only for the (~25% of Earth) non-ice solids surfaces and not for water surfaces >10 m deep nor for ice surfaces so you’ll need to do those separately because I’m suspecting that the average absorption of solar radiation below the surface molecule goes a tad deeper for the water surfaces >10 m deep and for ice surfaces than for the non-ice solids’ surfaces so perhaps the cited 15 degrees is a tad less for the former, but that’s details you’ll need to check. When your analysis is done I for one would be fascinated to see your correct analysis of correct annually-integrally-averaged, regionally-integrally-averaged data that proves 17.9 W/m**2 difference in radiant energy between a surface parcel of air and a few microns within the surface because that coincidence would even trump the other weird little coincidence that happened in our exchange in the last couple weeks that I detail below. Your asserted coincidence that the radiative energy transfer between a couple of metres or so of IR-active gases at the surface and within the surface film matches over 3-4 decimal digits the radiative energy transfer between a gas parcel of a couple of metres or so at the surface and a gas parcel above where temperature averages 8.6 degrees colder than the at-surface parcel would be a stunning coincidence to ponder. Go for it. Present that for review.
———–
A few years back I heard a talk on video from a bloke (lawyer I think) for an “Institute”, presumably for fee, about the huge energy available from electrical potential difference between Earth’s ionosphere & surface. Concluded with him saying he’d leave the power calculation to those expert in that. So a 1 hour talk consisting of him informing he had nothing to inform about his talk topic. Sweet sweet gig. Your “operating at all scales, from cm eddies … kinetic energy … some ambiguity in energy budgets … air parcel velocity; the winds… Mass flux … imperfect eddy covariance schemes at small scales in surface budgets … great degree … of energy” returns my mind nostalgically to that earlier, more youthful, less decrepit, time.
———–
When I did the calculation adjustment following your comment about the need to scale up the atmospheric window flux by it’s 10.1% portion of surface flux per NASA energy budget ratio for my 1 degree anomaly example and found it matched, it negated, coincidentally 106% of the 0.54 W/m**2 disparity in flux increase between an infrared-active parcel at the surface and one at -11.2 degrees above the surface I instantly recalled Costa & Shine June 2012 which I read January 2020. Costa & Shine assert an atmospheric window flux of 20 +/- 4 w/m**2 and in their paper quote Kevin Trenberth 1997 (KT97) as “KT97 estimate this component to be 40 W / m**2 compared to the total outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) of 235 W / m**2; however, KT97 make clear that their estimate is ‘‘somewhat ad hoc’’ rather than the product of detailed calculations”. The combination of Costa & Shine ‘‘somewhat ad hoc’’ for the KT97 40 W / m**2 calculation and the very odd coincidence that a disparity in your incorrect SE – OL = 1.00000 * (BR – UE) equality due to Kelvin**4 proportionality would be 106% negated (almost perfectly equal) by the change in the atmospheric window 9-13 microns portion makes me wonder whether ‘‘somewhat ad hoc’’ means that’s how the 40 W / m**2 was somehow derived in 1997. Derived by making your equality be assumed close enough for purpose back then. I’ll likely be looking into that over winter if there’s information somewhere I can find. I note that Global Physical Climatology Dennis L. Hartmann 1997 uses 40 W / m**2 but Global Physical Climatology Dennis L. Hartmann 2nd Edition Dennis L Hartmann 2015-12-03 uses 20 W / m**2 so my falsification of your incorrect equality by the Kelvin**4 proportionality spread would have worked with Global Physical Climatology Dennis L. Hartmann 2nd Edition Dennis L Hartmann 2015-12-03 because only 53% of your 0.54 w/m**2 error would have been offset (for just 1 degree anomaly) rather than 106% being offset.
JCMsays
Hartmann 2nd ed hasn’t changed much at all to do with section 4.5 The Atmospheric Boundary Layer.
“the downward longwave from the atmosphere and the emission from the surface are both relatively large and tend to offset each other” p. 107.
In the same section he’s speaking of emissivity issues causing ‘inaccuracies’ in surface flux at 5% and temperature at 4th root about 1%.
So longwave flux issues at 5% represent about 20 W m-2 …. 4th root, what, 2K or so?
Nothing changed in those numbers between 1994 and 2016.
It all seems pretty loosey goosey down at the surface – is that the problem?
Beyond that I’m not much interested in the intellectual bullying tactics.
Did anyone notice it was World Soils Day earlier this week?
The boys left the residues intact for the 3rd year running – soils might be a little cool and moist in the spring so we’ll cut some strips.
In the past I’ve been offered $20 a ton to sell the straw and chaff for biofuel stocks but IMO it’s best left in the soils. The herd will swing by to chomp it up a bit.
The township staff left pamphlets around for the Global Protocol for Community Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory and we all had a little chuckle about that. They want us at their public meeting. I think it was sent down from the regional council (townies). They don’t seem to have any idea what we’re doing out here.
UAH TLT has been posted for November with an anomaly of +0.17ºC, a bit of a drop from the Jul-Oct anomalies (which averaged +0.30ºC) and more akin to the Mar-Jun anomalies (which averaged +0.16ºC).The year-so-far Jan to Nov anomalies spanning +0.00ºC to +0.36ºC.
November 2022 sits as the 6th warmest November on the UAH TLT record, behind Nov 2019 (+0.42ºC), 2020 (+0.40ºC), 2016 (+0.34ºC), 2027 (+0.22ºC) & 2015 (+0.21ºC) and ahead of Oct 2009 (+0.14ºC), 1990 & 2018 (both +0.12ºC), 2014 (+0.10ºC) and 2021 & 2002 (both +0.08ºC).
Nov 2022 sits =86th 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 still looking a possible outcome for the full calendar year (requiring a Dec anomaly above +0.27ºC).
ERA5 SAT reanalysis has posted for November with a global SAT anomaly of +0.16ºC, the lowest anomaly of the year-to-date and a big drop from the October anomaly which at +0.41ºC is the highest anomaly of the year-to-date.
Nov 2022 is the 9th warmest Nov in the ERA5 record behind Novembers 2020 (+0.54ºC), 2016, 2019, 2015, 2021 (+0.35ºC), 2017, 2018 & 2012 and ahead of Novembers 2013 (+0.38ºC), 2009, 2010 & 2005 (+0.13ºC). Nov 2022 ranks 113th in the all-month ERA5 rankings.
The first 11 months of 2022 continue to average in 5th place but now it would take a Dec anomaly greater than +0.78ºC to climb into 4th place (so higher than the top Dec anomaly of+0.54ºC set in 2019), and a similarly extreme drop below -0.06ºC (a Dec anomaly not seen since Dec 2010) to be displaced by 2021 from 5th place into 6th.
I gave my climate change extremes: current trends and projections talk this afternoon, focusing on heat, rainfall, tropical cyclones and European windstorms. Biased towards Europe but attempted to include the globe where I could find some good clear figures from papers to present (referenced of course). Thanks to everyone who posted links, I used some of them and included a bit of trend analysis from data I sourced (HadUKP, HadCET UKMO MIDAS data and tropical cyclone stats back to 1980). It was tricky putting this together as I could only give a broad brush overview of each extreme to get the primary message across based on observations and model projections, and there is so much more that could have been included but made sure I kept it to 45 minutes. I got a fair bit of positive feedback. One comment I got which I found hard to counter was relating to despair, that it is too late, governments are all talk and little action (i.e. COP), there is little individuals can do. I tried to make the point that giving up never solved anything and although we are locked in to some impacts, maybe we can avoid the worst case scenarios by acting now. However, it is difficult to visualise that happening any time soon since we have not managed to stop emissions rising, never mind knocking them right down. I tried to be objective and not project a we’re-all-doomed message but nevertheless I find it difficult to counter attitudes of despair (there is a touch of that in myself). Any ideas?
JCMsays
“that giving up never solved anything”
exactly. You tell them to quit their whining and get on with it. Damaging hearts and minds never solved anything. Get out of cyberspace, back into the world, and restore your environments. Join the people doing the real work. The academics will engage in their reductionism, the industrialists will industrialize, the politicians will pontificate. Everyone talking glibly about The Science. Meanwhile, the real world is out there. Our attitude is a choice.
1. Despair, but fight, individually and with others, relentlessly, strategically and effectively.
2. Don’t despair, because we do not have time for it, we are busy taking action, bringing solutions to the problem, creating new solutions, thinking of others who cannot afford to despair and have not caused the climate emergency, but suffer its consequences more than the first world, the main cause. Others means also all the other species, as we need to save the entire biosphere.
3. Don’t despair because, as adults, we are responsible for our children’s future and well being. It is our duty to solve the climate emergency for them and to act upon the demands that they so well articulate, including when they through soup as some artifact to wake us up from our stupor and obsession with our wants, instead of life and the Earth’s life-supporting systems.
4. All aggregate actions/consequences are the result of cumulative individual actions, so of course individuals can do everything. What matters is which individuals, what they do and how they do it. Find the individuals who share the same values, have the best methods for winning, have the best influence on decision-making or, even better, are in decision-making positions. If you don’t find the latter, get yourself in a decision-making position.
5. Find, adopt and share as impactful as possible the success stories.
6. Act on the bottom line, as too many think and act as if our invented economy is more important than immutable nature. For example: stop using fossil fuels for anything, divest and ask your money holders to divest from fossil fuels, use, find, create sustainable biophilic alternatives.
@Adam Lea says: – “there is little individuals can do.”
ms: — The worst of all solutions to bettering the planet would be antidepressants for all
.
I have already given you what I think are the best (because they are the fastest and cheapest) solutions.
Claiming that there is nothing the individual can do…is a lame excuse & response from people who have given up moving before the hot dance has even begun.
Ray Ladburysays
Adam, Much respect for taking on this burden. I think that all of us that understand the gravity of the climate crisis oscillate between hope and despair. Hope and despair are close emotional cousins, as we find both in their purest form as the probability of success vanishes.
The thing is that despair is not adaptive or helpful or pleasant for that matter.. It is pretty much certain that we’re going to have some severe consequences. However, it is just as certain that consequences will be much worse if we do nothing. And the more we do–provided we ensure our actions are effective–the more people we’ll save and the more damage we’ll prevent.
And the other thing to hold onto is that whenever humans have had to confront a great crisis, we’ve managed to make improvements. After the Black Death, there was the Renaissance. After WWI, came some degree of social safety nets. And after WWII, came both civil and women’s rights as well as the UN. Decreased consumption, especially in rich countries (who are the problem, after all) needn’t necessarily correspond to lowered quality of life. The things that that bring the most pleasure in life are not material. And if we can preserve mass communication and connectivity, there is no reason we cannot preserve a scientific, global culture. Crisis always presents opportunities.
JCM 7 DEC 2022 “Hartmann 2nd ed … emissivity issues causing ‘inaccuracies’ in surface flux at 5% …. about 20 W m-2”. No because the 20 W m-2 would need to be the global proportioning and non-ice land is ~26% of Earth so from my detailed mathturbation at you 7 NOV 2022 8:02 PM it’s about 342 w/m**2 * 5% * 26% = 4.4 w/m**2 but it’s only as large as that if the 5% that it “can cause” is a calculated average error range from the 26% of Earth and I hugely doubt that. It’s poorly phrased so I’m not sure though. The young English non climate scientist with the Oxford climate science PhD has a video on that for some Kenyan scrub land at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZQTVvJaJLA A giraffe ate the climate scientist’s equipment though so it might not have a result.
JCMsays
In the video 3 or 4 seconds was devoted to mentioning the local land stewards who were trying to explain what’s going on with their landscape, amid Dr Dowling’s ranting about funding gaps around the 13:30 mark.
Hopefully their message is being heard, and I commend Dowling for pointing out their efforts to engage. They are on to something with their interest to talk about ecology; a process massively disrupted since recent colonial times, and a process far more impactful to the system beyond mere emissivity. My impression is there is a lot of dancing around the issue.
It sounds like the brief field work excursions are quite a novelty to those two, with lots of fun stories and photos to take home.
RSS have posted their TLT anomaly for November (their browser tool has yet to update) showing the big drop from October as seen in UAH TLT & EAR5 SAT. RSS put the Nov anomaly at +0.545ºC being down on Oct’s +0.73ºC. Previous RSS TLT 2022 anomalies sit in the range +0.50ºC to +0.77ºC.
November 2022 is the 8th warmest November on the RSS TLT record, behind Nov 2020 (+0.83ºC), 2015, 2019, 2016, 2017, 2019 & 2021 and above 2014, 2009, 2005 & Nov 2010 (+0.47ºC). It is the 106th highest anomaly in the RSS TLT all-month record.
The average of the first 11 months of 2022 sits in 7th place but the full year could still feasibly drop to 8th (Dec anomaly below +0.59ºC) or climb to 5th (Dec anomaly above +0.66ºC) with 2021, 2015 & 2010 having very similar annual anomalies.
“One of climate change’s great mysteries is finally being solved….We’ve found evidence of the amplifying impact of clouds on global warming,” said Paulo Ceppi, a climate scientist at Imperial College London.”
ms: — How exciting – I think Paulo Ceppi found an old hat. Years ago it was already clear that the value for the warming cloud radiative feedback is ~ 0.42W/m² per °Kelvin due to fewer, higher and due to increased optical depth of clouds. Clouds also tend to form further north toward the poles on the NH. (IPCC AR6 WG1)
Please let me briefly comment on 2 sentences from your link:
1.) “…even small changes in clouds as the world warms can have large effects on future temperature change.”
ms: — It is completely beyond me why hardly anyone would come up with the idea of producing clouds because of this fact.
2.) “We concluded that as the ocean warms, the low-level clouds over the oceans tend to dissipate,”
ms: — Warmer oceans should actually allow larger amounts of water to evaporate and form clouds. The sentence seems to me without logic.
ms: It is completely beyond me why hardly anyone would come up with the idea of producing clouds because of this fact.
BPL: Yes, it does seem to be completely beyond you. We’ve explained to you why this wouldn’t work many, many times. Only you just refuse to accept it. So I guess it will always be beyond you.
ms: — when/how/where ??? I only see a herd of thick-skinned sheep standing in the desert at 50°C and staring thirsty at the bright, blue, cloudless sky… many months ago we were further… that was when I explained to you how to pee on a tree… even if you’re standing in the middle of the forest and can’t see the trees for the forest………………….!!! – 1t of cloud is created from 1t pee water – !!!
Even the IPCC has now noted that irrigation has a cooling effect on the planet’s radiation budget. (even if it took 30 years to realize it) – it’s all just a question of the dimensions of irrigation, evaporation and formation of cloud mass (x1000km³)…
Now another 30 years until Levenson will understand that the loss of evaporative landscapes is mainly caused by humans and that everything here also depends on the dimensions.
What do you say to “Marine Cloud Brightening” as a geoengineering strategy that has been discussed as a serious possibility for over 10 years ?
“…..Now another 30 years until Levenson will understand that the loss of evaporative landscapes is mainly caused by humans and that everything here also depends on the D…”
The regulation of rivers, saving waqter in bassins and pumping up even of groundwater for that is done in order to make evaporative landscapes.
It evaporates and cools that way like never before.
The very Hollywood cool their luxurious Villas and Lawns and bodies by evapotranspiration of extreemly scarce groundwater and relicts of the Colorado river.
The very Schürlers seem to be quite blind to the “dimensions”.
John Swallowsays
This New York Times site is interesting to show just how much of the earth is cloud covered.
“One Year of Clouds Covering the Earth
At any moment, about 60 percent of the earth is covered by clouds,(According to a NASA web page 70% of the earth is covered by clouds) which have a huge influence on the climate. An animated map showing a year of cloud cover suggests the outlines of continents because land and ocean features influence cloud patterns.” http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/01/science/earth/0501-clouds.html
“It is completely beyond me whyhardly anyone would come up with the idea of producing clouds…”
Maybe that idea is old as stoneage and very well tried out allready. Think of smoke signals and of smoking the landscapes. Further of military smoke grenades, what they cost and how little they work.
But what reaqlly works is the climate and its elements and components and causes.
Now for instance we can see the “polar vortex” and its sudden coldfronts both in the east and in the west. There is suddenly 34cm of snow in Moskva where it is normally quite steady continental and dry. They have snow record since 1941 at chistmas when they also really needed it. The whole city is suddenly clogged for traffic..
And a few days ago, polar chill coldfront falling southeast over warm northatlantic water and causing 2 very intense storms onto Helgeland and Troms. With sudden meters of snow on land and very dangerous “icing” on fisher and freighter boats at sea.. Who get out of balance and capsise in 2 hours.
It is the work of Claussius Clappeyron and the summer Sun and Big Bang the polar night and http://www.Midgardsormen , alltogether, when he suddenly changes meanderings.
That is really what is beond your learnings and horizons. The late autumn and fameous new year storms
Just saw the recent paper by Hansen et.al. “Global Warming in the Pipeline”. Any chance we could get a review from Gavin or others? https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04474
Killiansays
mproved knowledge of glacial-to-interglacial global temperature change implies that fast-feedback equilibrium climate sensitivity is at least ~4°C for doubled CO2 (2xCO2), with likely range 3.5-5.5°C. Greenhouse gas (GHG) climate forcing is 4.1 W/m2 larger in 2021 than in 1750, equivalent to 2xCO2 forcing. Global warming in the pipeline is greater than prior estimates. Eventual global warming due to today’s GHG forcing alone — after slow feedbacks operate — is about 10°C.
Does it matter that a person presents analysis after analysis for well over a decade that proves to be accurate, yet nobody listens, and, in fact, constantly insults and denigrates that person because they aren’t a scientist and have the audacity to tell scientists and other laypersons they are getting it wrong?
Why, yes, yes it does. Because we lost a decade when the risk analysis says…. we didn’t have a decade to give.
so…. maybe listen. Cuz I said sensitivity HAD to be at the high end all the way back in 2007, I believe. Simple logic made it clear it could never have been any different.
I promised. I guaranteed. I was right.
The rest of you were wrong. It matters.
Listen to the arguments, not your egos, biases, etc. Understand there are ways of knowing, analyzing etc., that YOU may not understand. That does not make them invalid.
K: so…. maybe listen. Cuz I said sensitivity HAD to be at the high end all the way back in 2007, I believe. Simple logic made it clear it could never have been any different. . . . I promised. I guaranteed. I was right. . . . The rest of you were wrong. It matters.
BPL: The rest of us weren’t listening and didn’t care. I don’t remember anybody in particular bringing this up, and I still don’t care. Climate sensitivity is high enough to cause a great deal of damage; that’s all that matters. That it will be more damage than expected doesn’t really change what we have to do. It’s like trying to scare people with the idea that after their house blows up with them in it, another bomb will flatten the rest of the neighborhood. They won’t care at that point.
Why you feel this need to be right all the time, to be vindicated, to be the smartest guy in the room, escapes me. But it’s another thing I just don’t care about. You can scream “I was right!” all you want, but again, nobody cares. I’m sure you were right that 2 + 2 = 4 and that the Revolution was in 1776, too, but nobody was disputing those, either.
Ray Ladburysays
Barton, As a friend, I would ask if a comment like this is really the best use of your time and talents. If Killian was right, then fine. If not, it doesn’t matter–he’s just one more voice in an already growing choir of people who do see climate change as a serious threat. The value of the climate sensitivity is of interest for understanding the climate, but to a non-climate-scientist, it is really just asking “How fucked are we?”
I realize that the sniping back and forth can be annoying. However, we do not advance our cause if we let the disputes become personal–especially among those of us who recognize the magnitude of the threat. The solution I see is to try to not let our circle of realists become a circular firing squad. And yes, I realize that I can improve in this regard myself.
nigeljsays
Ray Ladbury. The worst offender at making disputes personal is Killian and by a very wide margin. Literally DOZENS of people have pointed all that out. It would be nice if you held Killian accountable just for once, instead of criticising the rest of us.
Killiansays
Shush. Didn’t even read your stupid response bc you only ever respond to me with childish shit.
You’re a bad person: Your ego, biases, and bigotry are more important to you than solutions.
Quiet.
nigeljsays
Killian, you’re gas lighting BPL .And he was largely quite right with what he said.
Mike Robertssays
A few years ago, when we were at about 1.1C warming and the atmospheric concentration was 40% up on what it was in 1750, another 40% increase on top would have lead to double the concentration of pre-industrial. As a 40% increase should lead to the same amount of warming as the last 40%, the transient sensitivity alone already had to be at least 2.2C, but another couple of decades would have been needed to see where that first or second 40% would lead. But the notion that the lower bound was 1.5C (less if your were a contrarian scientist) seemed absurd. to me. An even higher value doesn’t surprise me.
Chuck Hughessays
Killian says: “I promised. I guaranteed. I was right.
The rest of you were wrong. It matters”
Sounds like something Donald Trump would have said.
Solar Jimsays
RE: Hansen’s: Improved knowledge of glacial-to-interglacial global temperature change implies that fast-feedback equilibrium climate sensitivity is at least ~4°C for doubled CO2 (2xCO2), with likely range 3.5-5.5°C. Greenhouse gas (GHG) climate forcing is 4.1 W/m2 larger in 2021 than in 1750, equivalent to 2xCO2 forcing. Global warming in the pipeline is greater than prior estimates. Eventual global warming due to today’s GHG forcing alone — after slow feedbacks operate — is about 10°C.
1) At over 500ppm,equivalent concentration at present, the planet will blast through 1.5 C rise in just a few years. (4C for (2 x CO2) for fast-feedback implies that all other forcing gases should be considered)
2) Since concentrations are rising, with emissions at historically high rates, radiative forcing and attendant Earth Energy Imbalance are rising.
3) Slow feedbacks may not be very slow, since “western man” continues to force the climate exceptionally. In addition, paleoclimatology indicates a planet primed for instability when forcing is so substantial..
4) At 4.1 W/m2 radiative forcing and EEI rising just this century (two decades) from about 0.5 W/m2 to about 1.2 W/m2 we seem to have a large way to go for equilibrium. Which will be catastrophic.
5) Western Man seems to have made a mission-critical error by defining uranium and fossil carbon as “Forms of Energy” (they are forms of matter).
“2) Since concentrations are rising, with emissions at historically high rates, radiative forcing and attendant Earth Energy Imbalance are rising.
4) At 4.1 W/m2 radiative forcing and EEI rising just this century (two decades) from about 0.5 W/m2 to about 1.2 W/m2 we seem to have a large way to go for equilibrium. Which will be catastrophic.”
ms: — From ~ 0.4 to 1.16W/m² in 20 years. The net increase in EEI by 0.76W/m² is caused by a decreasing albedo (shortwave out @ TOA) of 1.4W/m² while longwave out @ TOA increased by 0.56W/m².
These are NOT necessarily the symptoms that indicate an increase in CO2 concentration. (due to more climate gas, longwave out @ TOA should actually decrease and NOT increase)
I am sure that the loss of clouds and sea ice were the main causes of the increase in EEI.
In addition to the rise in temperatures caused by CO2, there is a 2nd important human-caused forcing. It is also the loss of evaporative landscapes that increasingly prevents cloud formation and is partly responsible for high temperatures, droughts and heavy rain at the land surface.
The value for the EEI has also fluctuated greatly over the years. Interestingly, it always tends towards zero (neither warming nor cooling) when the global average humidity in the atmosphere is at its highest.
The misjudgment of the IPCC and many other climate researchers of H2O is one of the biggest mistakes that mankind has ever committed.
b fagansays
Thanks, Kent, you saved my needing to ask.
Mike Robertssays
Recent commentary says that the paper shows that the long term warming from the current GHG forcing is 10C. I’m not sure what long term is (centuries?) but does this have implications for the supposed budgets of 1.5C and 2C (presumably both are now zero) and for the recent understanding that stopping all emissions today would lead to near zero future warming?
then it should actually be clear that with the increasing and accelerating
earth energy imbalance (EEI) your dreams of zero emissions and stopped temperature rise are superfluous, also because they do not correspond to reality.
From ~ 0.4 to 1.16W/m² in 20 years. The increase in EEI by 0.76W/m² is caused by a decreasing albedo (shortwave out @ TOA) of 1.4W/m² while longwave out @ TOA increased by 0.56W/m².
These are not necessarily the symptoms that indicate an increase in CO2 concentration. (due to more climate gas, longwave out @ TOA should actually decrease and not increase)
I am sure that the loss of clouds and sea ice were the main causes of the increase in EEI.
In addition to the rise in temperatures caused by CO2, there is a 2nd important human-caused forcing. It is also the loss of evaporative landscapes that increasingly prevents cloud formation and is partly responsible for high temperatures, droughts and heavy rain at the land surface.
The value for the EEI has also fluctuated greatly over the years. Interestingly, it always tends towards zero (neither warming nor cooling) when the global average humidity in the atmosphere
is at its highest. — https://climateprotectionhardware.wordpress.com/
Mike Robertssays
macius shurly, I have no dreams of zero emissions, I was simply referring to research that showed warming would effectively end if emissions went to zero. I’m absolutely certain that won’t happen but the research was an interesting modification of the perceived wisdom that even stopping all emissions would still be followed by further warming for quite some time.
@ Mike Roberts says: – ” warming would effectively end if emissions went to zero ”
ms: — It is not only CO2 or CH4 that decides whether the earth warms up or cools down, but the EEI already described above. The value for the EEI was zero for the last time in 2010, after it had been 1.2W/m² in 2008, it fell to zero within 2 years and then rose again to 1.4W/m² by 2012.
Other than the abstract, I’ve not yet read Hansen et al (2022) ‘Global warming in the pipeline’ but it does indeed say in the abstract “Eventual global warming due to today’s GHG forcing alone — after slow feedbacks operate — is about 10°C.”
Hopefully the ‘pathway’ we humans will be following will be something close to SSP1-1.9. And under such a ‘pathway’, Meinshausen et al (2020) shows the future concentrations of the big GHG players as follows: ☻ N2O shows little change and it is an increase from today’s 335ppb to 357ppb in AD2500, ☻ CH4 shows a big reduction from today’s 1,900ppb, dropping through natural drawdown under a period of greatly reduced emissions to 870ppb in AD2500, and ☻ CO2 dropping from today.s 418ppm down to 335ppm in AD2500, this both due to natural drawdown and also net negative emissions achieved through the period 2050-2180. These net negative emissions would see every molecule of our future CO2 emissions along with all those since 2007 captured from the atmosphere and stored away presumably in saline aquifers.
So Meinshausen et al (2020) is showing we do not need to suffer a world with “eventual global warming due to today’s GHG forcing.” although it is showing we need to act and act quickly and strongly. Some of the GHG concentrations shown for ‘pathways’ which do not require quick strong mitigation actions will not be good for our futures.
Mike Robertssays
That’s some hope, MA Rodger. The pathway will change as effects of climate change begin to affect close to a majority of people but I doubt SSP1-19 is what we’ll start on. What happens in 2500 may well be the result of far fewer humans on the planet at that point and our current civilisation something for future archaeologists to discover.
Mike Roberts,
I think it is more correct to say the humanity will not stick to the SSP1-1.9 pathway, rather than “pathway will change”. And indeed, that can be seen already. The concept of “net zero” by 2050 seems to be acknowledged and the net negative beyond goes undiscussed. But most important is the need to restrict cumulative CO2 emissions by the time “net zero” is achieved and that goes with the halving of net emissions by 2030.
And the simplest scientific message has been for many years that CO2 emissions must peak by 2020. (Of course, there is the more exacting atmospheric concentrations and on that score we are running below the SSP1-1.9 projections, these available on a spreadsheet linked by Meinshausen et al showing 2021 – SSP1-1.9 global 417.0ppm while NOAA global is 214.7ppm, but that is likely more to do with ENSO and Covid than it is to do with AGW mitigation.)
Mr Kia.
I figured it would be worth it to find out how someone would misrepresent a congestion-management scheme, so I spent two minutes with your “climate change lockdowns” doggie whistle link.
First, this Oxford Mail’s article is kind of harsh (and falsely claims “road blocks”), but seems to conflate the congestion filter plan with a separate goal there to have each neighborhood have business services like pharmacies within that place’s “15-minute” radius. So a goal to have more local businesses instead of fewer that require transportation to get to. Walkable living – the horror!
Note that there’s an embedded link in the above article to a second that has the link tag “READ MORE: Council staff abused after conspiracists circulate fake news about traffic filters”
There are no fixed barriers, people can travel where they wish, though certain paths with a private car might result in congestion fines. While I have no idea if it will work, I do believe the statement from the Oxford City Council is a bit more (actually, a lot more) believable than your link.
“Oxford City Council statement on Oxfordshire County Council’s approval of six trial traffic filters.
Councillor Louise Upton, Cabinet Member for Health and Transport, Oxford City Council, said:
“The City Council has long supported the need for measures to tackle congestion such as the proposed trial traffic filters that are designed to reduce traffic levels and congestion, to improve bus services across the city and make cycling and walking safer and more pleasant.
“There is an absolute need to reduce traffic in our city. We know that Oxford’s medieval roads cannot handle the current traffic levels, and there is no space to build new roads. The current congestion is so bad that it is making buses unviable, we cannot allow more bus routes to be cut. 30% of Oxford households don’t own a car, and depend on buses. We need to change the way we travel, rethink our own journeys, and support those who do need to travel by public transport, car and bike.”
But again, “lockdowns” has become another dog whistle phrase in the conspiracy-minded types. And naturally, it’s led the conspiracy-minded to act out, making it necessary for statements like the following
“Joint statement from Oxfordshire County Council and Oxford City Council on Oxford’s traffic filters
Published: Wednesday, 7th December 2022
“Staff and councillors at both councils have been subjected to abuse due to inaccurate information, being circulated online, about traffic filters.
We take the wellbeing of our colleagues seriously and are taking appropriate steps to provide staff and councillors with support. We are working with Thames Valley Police to report the most extreme abuse. ”
That’s from this link, which also includes a Q&A to correct the distortions created by people who spread conspiracies.
ZeroHedge is hardly a reliable source. The scheme won’t work like that.
Mr. Know It Allsays
All sources of “news” must be scrutinized and looked on with skepticism, same with pronouncements from scientists, doctors, or anyone else. Just one example of another “news” source many would incorrectly consider reliable:
Stop posting Junk Science b.s. Your “Ignorance is Bliss” routine is stupid trolling and highlights your disdain for intelligent discussion here. I have no idea why the moderators of this site continue to allow your behavior on this forum because you’re just an annoying jerk.
Over the years I have learnt to dismiss anything that uses the term “leftist”. Anthropogenic climate change and the large scale consequences has been researched and presented through science, whereas using terms like “leftist” is attempting to turn it political and trying to oppose it by appealing to the tribal mentality in people.
Mr. Know It Allsays
I thought Ben did a good job of stating his opinion about why we should not despair over climate change. As he stated, he agrees with the IPCC reports, but says CC is a problem, not an emergency. The lady asking the question did a good job as well – I suspect she would have liked to challenge him but he was on such a roll that it was hard to get a word in edgewise. :)
“Leftist” is merely the term used to describe the emotional, irrational, non-scientific (think “men can get pregnant, kids can change gender”) globalist/collectivist side of the political spectrum here in the USA. I think in Europe, they have different meanings for conservative and liberal (or leftist), etc, so I think it is different there.
The GISTEMP anomaly for November is +0.73ºC the lowest monthly anomaly of the year-to-date, previous months sitting in the range +0.83ºC to+1.05ºC. Nov 2022 sits as the =12th warmest November on the GISTEMP record, and is the lowest Nov anomaly since 2014. The GISTEMP Nov anomalies run 2020 (+1.11ºC), 2015, 2019, 2021, 2016, 2017, 2013, 2018, 2009, 2012 (+0.78ºC), with 2005, 2006, 2022, 2001 & 2004 pretty-much equal, ahead of Nov 2008 & then 2014 (+0.66ºC) ranked 18th warmest Nov.
Nov 2022 is the =129th highest all-monthly anomaly in GISTEMP.
2022 remains ranked in 5th position for the year-to-date although the likelihood of snatching 4th place for the full year would require a pretty hot December (equaling Dec 2019, the 2nd hottest Dec on record) and with the Dec 2022 anomaly likely also to be low like Nov, the likelihood is that the full 2022 anomaly will drop below 2015’s, thus becoming the 6th warmest year on record (this requiring the Dec 2022 anomaly to be below +83ºC).
…….. Jan-Nov Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2020 .. +1.04ºC … … … +1.02ºC … … … 1st
2016 .. +1.03ºC … … … +1.01ºC … … … 2nd
2019 .. +0.96ºC … … … +0.98ºC … … … 3rd
2017 .. +0.92ºC … … … +0.92ºC … … … 4th
2022 .. +0.90ºC
2015 .. +0.87ºC … … … +0.90ºC … … … 5th
2021 .. +0.84ºC … … … +0.84ºC … … … 7th
2018 .. +0.84ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 6th
2010 .. +0.75ºC … … … +0.72ºC … … … 9th
2014 .. +0.74ºC … … … +0.74ºC … … … 8th
2007 .. +0.68ºC … … … +0.66ºC … … … 12th
2005 .. +0.67ºC … … … +0.67ºC … … … 10th
2013 .. +0.67ºC … … … +0.67ºC … … … 11th
John Swallowsays
MA Rodger says on 18 DEC 2022 AT 8:52 AM that; “The GISTEMP anomaly for November is +0.73ºC the lowest monthly anomaly of the year-to-date, previous months sitting in the range +0.83ºC to+1.05ºC. Nov 2022 sits as the =12th warmest November on the GISTEMP record, and is the lowest Nov anomaly since 2014. The GISTEMP Nov anomalies run 2020 (+1.11ºC), 2015, 2019, 2021, 2016, 2017, 2013, 2018, 2009, 2012 (+0.78ºC), with 2005, 2006, 2022, 2001 & 2004 pretty-much equal, ahead of Nov 2008 & then 2014 (+0.66ºC) ranked 18th warmest Nov”.
I’m sure that the truth makes no impression on MA Rodger due to him only believing what he wants to believe about his favorite hoax that CO₂ drives the Earth’s temperature.
U.S. BREAKS HUNDREDS OF LOW TEMPERATURE RECORDS, SNOW BENCHMARKS ALSO TOPPLED; CENTRAL EUROPE LOGS LOWEST NOVEMBER TEMPS IN DECADES; SNOW WARNINGS ISSUED IN SWEDEN; + COLD INDIA
NOVEMBER 21, 2022 CAP ALLON11 COMMENTS
Hundreds rescued from snow, says New York governor, as a snowfall event eclipsing the Blizzard of 1977 batters the region. https://electroverse.co/?s=November
John Swallow,
Are you intentionally acting like a moronic troll?
Or do you live in such a deluded fantasy world that you think by linking to swivel-eyed nonsense at Electroverse (which has elsewhere featured among the denial-mongers and a place you have linked-to before in an RC comment) that you are contributing to scientific discussion here?
Thank you for the weather report, but I had already noticed that it is December.
Adam Leasays
Despair:
I don’t think it is fair to respond in an antagonistic way to people who spout despair about the climate crisis because in some ways they do have a point. On a purely individual scale anything one does is a drop in the ocean unless you have a lot of power and/or influence (which most people don’t). To truly address the climate crisis needs the majority of the global population pulling in the right direction, and whilst I can make positive changes to my life, I cannot force anyone else to do the same.
I make efforts to reduce my own carbon footprint and consumption, not because it makes a difference in the grand scheme of things, but because I believe it is the right thing to do and doing so means I can advocate likewise without being vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy. My sphere of influence, for what it is, does not extend beyond my loved ones and there is no way I have the personality and knowledge/skill to be able to influence a population on a regional, county or national scale, only a tiny percentage of humanity has that ability which is why Albert Einsteins, Bill Gates’ and Nelson Mandellas are extremely rare.
A simple example of individual actions being insufficient is my own case of going car free several years ago and using a bicycle as a primary mode of transport, which was tough given my workplace was a 19 mile round trip with hills, and going car free means increased vulnerability and reduced mobility. My few years being car free made not an iota of difference to the air quality in my district or the levels of motor traffic which have continued to increase year on year. My car free period ended shortly after nearly being killed by a careless driver, an experience which does not help in the advocacy of more sustainable and more energy efficient human powered transport.
At a recent duplicate bridge session, the subject of holidays came up and my bridge partner, having travelled to Iceland earlier this year and Australia last month, is now off to Marrakech, whilst someone else is planning to go to New Zealand (I live in the UK). Given the carbon footprint of these wealthy pensioners jetting off to far flung destinations several times a year, is it really logical for me to claim I am achieving anything by setting my thermostat to 15C and wearing an extra layer or two indoors in order to reduce the carbon footprint of my gas consumption for central heating (the UK has just come out of a longer than normal cold spell this month)?
I apologise for my occasional momentary flare-ups of despair but this is why.
Ultimately the whole neo-liberal capitalism systems need to be overhauled, maybe linking wealth to eco-footprint so maximising eco-footprint leads to increased wealth and happiness, but how do we get from here to there? I don’t have the power to do it myself.
I have tried voting in local/national elections for green political parties but with the first-past-the-post system in the UK that actually makes it more likely one of the primary big parties will (re)gain power (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9rGX91rq5I), and many citizens know this so they undergo tactical voting to lessen the chance of the party they most dislike gaining power, rather than voting for the party that aligns closest with their world view. I cannot see how the UK’s Green party can ever be more than a blip on the political spectrum, and without an overhall of the neo-liberal capitalist system, I cannot see how whichever of the big political parties in power is going to do anything other than prioritise economic growth, which at least partly contributes to environmental destruction globally.
At the risk of taking a beating on here these are my thoughts laid out. If they can be logically countered I would be glad to hear any counterarguments.
Ned Kellysays
I hear you Adam, you’ve summed it up in a nutshell using all those anecdotes.
The future? More of the same.
Mr. Know It Allsays
Quote: “Ultimately the whole neo-liberal capitalism systems need to be overhauled, maybe linking wealth to eco-footprint so maximising eco-footprint leads to increased wealth and happiness, but how do we get from here to there?”
This comment shows there is some truth to the old saying about climate change: Where the weather is always your fault and the only solution is more communism.
On voting “the party that aligns closest to your world view”, it works exactly the same here in the USA where 99% of the time either a D or an R wins. If you vote for a conservative 3rd party, you make it more likely the liberal candidate will win; and if you vote for the liberal third party you make it more likely the conservative will win. Some have come up with schemes like ranked choice voting which means that many times the winner has nothing at all to do with the will of the voters:
It is absolutely rich and laughable that you actually reference the immensely anti-science Heritage Foundation on a science web site. Read the room, sport. lol
Yeah, like the status quo consistently has a whole lot to do with the will of the voters, either. IMO, Heritage is arguing against something they don’t think will be in their interest, not conducting an impartial investigation–or even a good-faith argument, for that matter.
Chuck Hughessays
Congratulations on having not learned one damn thing for the entire time you spent here. If you don’t already know about the Heritage Foundation there’s no hope for you.
Mike Robertssays
I have much the same thoughts. I also try to reduce my footprint, knowing it will have no impact globally, because I think it’s the right thing to do. That it reduces the force of hypocrisy come-backs is a bonus. I know I could do more but it’s hard in our current economic and social system, plus implicit peer pressure makes it even more difficult. I’ve even given up voting Green, as a matter of course, because our green party also advocates economic growth (as do the so-called Sustainable Development Goals that often seem to justify unsustainable policies). The push for economic growth negates any actions governments might take (though there haven’t been significant actions on this for 30 years).
MR: there haven’t been significant actions on this for 30 years
BPL: The Inflation Reduction Act.
John Swallowsays
I can’t help but wonder if Mike Roberts will be happy when he is able to avail himself to the natural gas from Norway that will keep him from freezing to death for many years into the future?
“How They Built The World’s Longest Underwater Pipeline”
It WILL burst at some point because they always do. Just like Keystone did, and the damage it WILL do is absolutely not worth it. Period.
John Swallowsays
I wonder how long Chuck Hughes has been using the oil that has been delivered by the Trans Alaska Pipeline?
Chuck Hughes needs to get up to speed on this issue of pipelines and realize the trans-Alaska pipeline
crosses three mountain ranges and more than 30 major rivers and streams. “In 1978, sabotage at Steele Creek caused about 670,000 gallons – 16,000 barrels – to leak.”
“In 2001, a Livengood man shot the pipeline with a high-caliber rifle, causing 258,000 gallons – 6,143 barrels – to spew from the line before Alyeska could secure a clamp over the hole.”
This is a splendid record for close to 40 years of operation
Chuck Hughessays
The Green Party couldn’t get anyone elected to a school board. Voting 3rd party takes away votes from potential Democratic candidates who could and would actually implement environmentally friendly policies. Right now we have an out of control GOP hellbent on subverting Democracy and overthrowing the government. If we lose our Democracy you can forget about Climate Change because at that point we’re all screwed. We’re still in the middle of an ongoing coup and Trump is poised to try again unless he gets stopped by the DoJ. Even then the next Republican president would grant Trump a pardon so strap yourself in and VOTE BLUE. Anything else is political suicide.
zebrasays
Adam, I tried to address your earlier comment above but it was mixed in with responding to others. The specific question was, what is it despair about?
I have been expressing my projection for the future for some time here. It is that it is unrealistic to expect sufficient change to occur in the next 30 years to prevent considerable disruption and suffering. I expect serious reductions in FF use to occur, with luck, over the next 150 years. That’s why I consistently emphasize making serious efforts towards speeding up the demographic transition along with the energy transition. I accept that the next 2-3 generations will have a rough time, but I think it is possible for their progeny to move towards a sustainable, science/technology enhanced culture.
The point is, you are exactly correct… neither you nor any of us here is going to change the world. The best we can do is to understand the world, and help others understand it. So, again, what is there to despair about? If we help one young person see the options for the future more clearly, that’s success. If we personally produce less CO2 than we might have, that’s success. I don’t despair that I am not an all-powerful individual; in fact, the most difficult obstacles to achieving our goals are the people who want to be.
Adam Leasays
“what is there to despair about?”
We don’t have 150 years to reduce our FF usage, we have a few decades if we are lucky. We haven’t even managed to stop increasing our emissions over the last 50 years despite frequent warnings about climate change and its potential consequences over that period, never mind stabilise and start reducing them, so why should I believe anything significant will happen over the next 50 years? That is what there is to despair about, the absence of a vision to get from where we are now to where we need to be in order to live sustainably in less than a few decades when we haven’t yet stopped going in the wrong direction, and if you hear many of the general public talk, you’ll realise it means little to them going by their lifestyle choices.
Show me a roadmap and methodology of transitioning from the current unsustainable and damaging neo-liberal capitalism to a sustainable and egalitarian way of living on a global scale that can be done within half a century and my feelings of despair will dissipate.
zebrasays
Adam, I despair of being able to fly by flapping my arms. And I assume I am not alone in that.
The point is, we are supposed to be the objective-science-people, but, as I have pointed out many times, there is much denial of reality here in many areas, including human behavioral characteristics, and economics, and material technological progress.
So I say “you can’t do it in 50 years”, and you say “but that’s what I want!”. Meh.
Supposedly, we here are all up on the concept of chaotic systems, and the large consequences of small changes. So, folks, how many votes did Al Gore “lose” by? What small decisions of various actors resulted in that outcome? How different might things be now, eh?
For me, it is pointless to indulge in ideal fantasies… call it Kumbaya or Nirvana Fallacy or whatever. Stuff happens, and the best you can do is “nudge” things to go in the direction you want, and hope that the system responds the way you prefer.
@Zebra says: – ” … what is it despair about ?… expressing my projection for the future …to move towards a sustainable, science/technology enhanced culture… I accept that the next 2-3 generations will have a rough time… neither you nor any of us here is going to change the world… If we help one young person see the options for the future more clearly, that’s success… I am not an all-powerful individual.
ms: — did you know that a person with < 100m² of well-reflecting paintwork in the right region and in the right place can compensate for his CO2 footprint of 10t/y ?
New color systems and films reflect short and long-wave light so well that they even have cooling properties at night. Their nano-surfaces modulate the outgoing IR wavelengths onto the range of the atmospheric window.
It is not about getting global warming under control with only one measure, but ultimately about putting the 1001 different conceivable approaches into operation and using all possibilities. Especially if they do not cause any additional costs and can be implemented quickly.
Neither a 10-year vegan diet, zero emissions by 2050 nor 800,000 km² improved albedo, etc. are, according to our realistic assessment, a stand-alone option. Nevertheless, there are millions of people who have long since implemented these options in their lives and culture in order to live (or survive) better.
If you are not an all-powered individual, you should leave false prophecy alone and give no advice to other people and generations about what to expect – because you apparently lack the overview of time, space and state of mind.
As an artist, you are (I am) an all-powered individual until someone comes along who, using the proven knowledge and imagination, suggests and finds an easier way.
This is especially true when it comes to climate – when someone tells you how easy it actually is to lower sea levels, earth temperatures and CO2 concentrations – without an uncertain waiting period of 300 years to achieve it – if ever.
As a consolation – you're not the only untalented artist here who lacks imagination.
Silvia Leahu-Aluassays
Adam, you are right to despair by any objective criteria. None of the vital signs of the planet are trending on any scenario that justifies a modicum of optimism.
I envy you for being able to influence your family, I am failing at it and that should make me despair. But I do not, I just persevere in asking, begging, shaming, criticizing, showing by example, communicating science and expertise, doing everything I can to bring, my family and everybody I can reach, to a biophilic behavior. Apropos of shaming, next time you play bridge mention flygskam and have your biophobic partners check it out. As I said before, I disagree that individuals, irrespective of their level of public influence, have no power to make change, including the radical change needed to save the biosphere. Please do not take it as a critique, but as a form of encouragement, solidarity and support.
In that spirit, let’s continue to exchange ideas and experiences that solve our multiple, self-inflicted crises.
2. Same legal action but against any entity that is committing ecocide, “Ecocide” means unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts. https://www.stopecocide.earth/
3. What economic and value system should capitalism be replaced with, as it definitely has to be, as all attempts to reform it have failed? There are a lot of young thinkers and practitioners in this field, which gives me confidence that we will find the sustainable and fair substitute or substitutes before the point of no return. https://degrowth.org/ https://timotheeparrique.com/sufficiency-means-degrowth/
SL-A: What economic and value system should capitalism be replaced with, as it definitely has to be, as all attempts to reform it have failed?
BPL: They haven’t all failed. Reformed capitalism works very well in Scandinavia and many other countries. It can work here, too, if given a chance. Meanwhile, “experimental” new economic systems have historically turned into human rights disasters.
Nigeljsays
Experimental economic systems have also often had shortages of even the basic goods needed to survive.
David Markssays
I Googled site:realclimate.org for climatehealers and pulled up no results.
You guys need to read their calculations for animal agriculture over the holidays.
Ten years of a plant based diet for humanity could save Earth.
Their calculations are succinct, comprehensive, and robust:
THANKS – Contributions from the perspective of ecologists are always refreshing and revealing when climate science is all too neurotic, based solely on CO2 emissions, on the causes, effects and consequences of global warming.
You are right to also criticize the IPCC when it comes to precisely and holistically researching and quantitatively describing the anthropogenic influence on the earth’s climate and communicating these findings to the rest of the world just as precisely and holistically.
The fact that long before 1750 (~ > 8000 years) man has been extensively clearing by fire and has released carbon stores through constant, expansive land use changes (also for meat production) and at the same time reduced CO2 sequestration is just as undisputed as the annual ~36Gt CO2 -Greenhouse effect by burning FF. The proportional quantification in W/m² cannot succeed as long as ALL man-made climate drivers (whether warming or cooling) are on the laboratory bench.
CO2 & CH4 are described in your posted links as the two strongest man-made greenhouse gases – which I hereby dispute. Their calculations are not robust because they are not complete. The strongest and most important climate gas H2O is missing. It is gross ignorance to assume that humans did NOT affect water cycles over land before 1750 or after 1750.
Not only slash-and-burn agriculture and fodder, but also by channeling rivers, destroying and sealing soils, exploiting aquifers, etc., humanity has caused a loss of evaporative landscapes, the extent of which is difficult to measure or estimate.
However, there is one reliable factor – the relative humidity of the atmosphere over land. Comparative studies between e.g. (rain) forests, agricultural land and cities also provide reliable, quantitative results that can be extrapolated over the global land area.
Over land areas, the generally increasing evaporation caused by higher temperatures will decrease due to the human activities mentioned above.
I calculated a ~10% lack of absolute water content and evaporation over land accumulated by land use change and closed stomata of vegetation of ~ 6800 km³/y within the last 50-75 years alone.
This can explain a warming effect of +3.5W/m² over the land surface – but also the quickly spreading global desertification.
The graph below shows the cooling effect (black numbers) on today land climate with additional irrigation of ~1350 km³ (20% = 0.7W/m²)
However, 1350 km³/y of water correspond to ~4.5 – 9 Gt CO2 during transpiration in the photosynthesis of plants when binding carbon (~ 1m³/1-2Kg carbon or 3.6-7.2Kg CO2).
! That’s up to 25% of the annual human CO2-emissions. !
– Arrogant stupidity hasn’t gotten anyone any further…read a book yourself…preferably about large and small water cycles, clouds, evaporation and land use change. The role of H2O as a greenhouse gas and alleged feedback from CO2 is just a one-sided, reduced perspective.
nigeljsays
Interesting plain language view of the state of the science relating to the current very cold weather in the USA:
“Scientists say Arctic warming could be to blame for blasts of extreme cold”
With the end of the year upon us, the 2022 Arctic sea ice can be seen as not particularly melty when compared to recent years but things are a bit more interesting down in the Antarctic.
♥ The headline Arctic September SIE average (NSIDC data) show 2022 as =11th with SIE at 4.87M sq km and slightly meltier than 2021 but trailing the top-ten 2012 (3,57M sq km), 2020, 2007, 2019. 2016, 2011, 2015, 2008, 2018 & 2017.
♥ The slightly wobblier minimum daily numbers (this & all the reast below JAXA data) show pretty-much the same with 2022 again 11th meltiest.
♥ Less wobbly than both these measures is the average annual SIE and 2022 stubbornly sits again in 11th spot, but now below 9th spot 2021 with 2022 the iciest year since 2014. The top ten years rank 2020, 2016. 2019. 2018, 2017, 2012, 2011, 2007, 2021 & 2015.
♥ And 2022 didn’t manage to claim one single day-of-the-year with the lowest SIE for that day, the nine years that do tabulated thus, (with 2014 the most recent year that also doesn’t feature):-
2016 … 119
2012 ….. 65
2018 ….. 59
2020 ….. 56
2019 ….. 28
2017 ….. 24
2015 ……. 8
2010 ……. 4
2021 ……. 3
So up in the Arctic, 2022 was not particularly melty when compared to recent years.
.
But Antartica holds a bit more interest.
♥ 2022 managed to lowest annual minimum on record, not by much, the top meltiest 5 years running:- 2022 (2,13M sq km), 2017 (2.15), 2018 (2.21), 1997 (2.25) & 2011 (2.32).
♥ 2022 holds the second lowest average annual Antarctic SIE, behind 2017 and ahead of 2019, 2002, 2018 & 2016. After the not-so-melty 2020 & 2021, the Antarctic SIE is again dipping well below the long-term average.
♥ And in terms of the number of meltiest days for that day-of-the-year, 2022 again comes in 2nd behind 2017. 2022 ends the year setting such meltiest-days and these with the second highest anomaly on record, the only higher being through Nov/Dec 2016. The meltiest days table runs:-
2017 … 107
2022 ….. 78
2019 ….. 66
2016 ….. 65
1986 ….. 20
2018 ….. 11
2002 ….. 11
2001 ……. 7
So the Antarctic ice may be pointing to an interesting 2023.
Some graphs of Arctic & Antarctic SIE anomalies (so stripped of the annual cycle) are posted here – Graphs 1 & 3a & 3b)
nigeljsays
Regarding James Hansens study mentioned previously on this page, where he found climate sensitivity was high:
I’m just an interested lay person. When you look at warming projections in the IPCC reports out to the year 2300 based on assumptions of medium sensitivity and others on high sensitivity warming is significantly over 5 degrees C for both. So not good either way.
Killiansays
Guaranteed: Mann is wrong. At most, there may be some slight adjustment(s) to the paper by publication. Mann’s response is likely confirmation bias given his hyper-rosey views on the future. Given what Mann advocates WRT acting on climate, his judgment may not be what it once was – and his specialty is historical data, is it not?
I’d take Hansen over Mann any day of the week: A greater body of work, excellent history of accuracy.
Killiansays
Further, Mann relies on outdated studies – 13 years! – like you, to disprove *more recent* scholarship? This is silly behavior from both of you.
nigeljsays
Killian
“Further, Mann relies on outdated studies – 13 years! – like you, to disprove *more recent* scholarship? ”
The study Mann quoted is not necessarily out of date. Just because research is old does not mean its necessarily out of date in the sense of being poor quality or superseded. Last time I checked Einsteins, Newtons ‘ Arrhenius’s, and Darwins basic theories are still valid. Killian has not been able to falsify the study I quoted to show that its outdated.
And just because research is new doesnt mean its right. We have just seen examples of new research discussed on this website, with separate research papers by Connolloy, Scarfetta and Kininmonth that have been heavily criticised. We only know if a new paper like Hansens is valid by the reaction of other scientists, like Mann. And Mann does make some good points on Hansens paper..
One of the reasons I started to believe we had a serious climate problem was Hansens testimony but hes unlikely to be right about absolutely everything. I think we have a serious climate problem and I lean towards doomerism about the future myself, but knowing this I pull back a little bit and like to maintain some semblance of objectivity.
K: Mann relies on outdated studies – 13 years! – like you, to disprove *more recent* scholarship? This is silly behavior from both of you.
BPL: Because, as everybody knows, scientific findings come with a “use by” date on them, like “THIS STUDY NOT VALID AFTER 12/23/02.”
nigeljsays
Killian
“Mann’s response is likely confirmation bias given his hyper-rosey views on the future. ”
Mann doesnt have a hyper rosy view of the future. In his own words:
“The rule of thumb that I like to use is that if we continue to go down the road of what we might call business as usual, where you know, that we don’t successfully implement global agreements to dramatically reduce carbon emissions, and we blow past 1.5. And then we blow past two degrees Celsius. By the middle of this century, we’re looking at a planet where the sorts of events that we think of as almost unprecedented and extreme become commonplace. What we might think of today, as you know, an extreme summer heat wave, we will just call a summer day by the middle of this century, if we go down this road. And of course, we will see more inundation, we’ll see retreat from our coastlines and Florida along the east coast of the US, the low countries of Europe, low lying island nations coastlines around the world. If we don’t act, by the middle of this century, the impacts that we start to see, you know, reasonably resemble some of our sort of worst predictions. If you will, even some of the dystopian futures that have been presented by Hollywood. You know, that’s one possible future, but it doesn’t have to be our future….”
“Given what Mann advocates WRT acting on climate, his judgment may not be what it once was”
Manns judgement is just fine. My understanding is Michael Mann advocates the standard formula most authorities recommend: renewable energy, electrified transport, reduced agricultural emissions, a mix of negative emissions technologies and moderate reductions in consumption of energy. Its not perfect and we are struggling with it but a transition to renewable energy is underway. Other alternatives of simplification (simple living) and massive and rapid reductions in energy use, while theoretically of interest, just arent practical, and have gained almost zero traction in places like America. So Manns judgement seems just fine to me.
And James Hansen seems to support the same sort of largely technology based response to climate change, including nuclear power. So if Killian is arguing that such technological mitigations respones are wrong and means someone has bad judgement ,he would have to include James Hansen in the same category.
“I’d take Hansen over Mann any day of the week: A greater body of work, excellent history of accuracy.”
While Hansen has a generally good record, new research always has to stand on its merits. Not on someones past history. A paper by a complete new comer might be ground breaking.
“– and his (manns) specialty is historical data, is it not?”
Manns comments should stand on their merits. Thats how science is done. He has a science degree. Killian pontificates on numerous subjects he did not major in and demands to be taken seriously.
Linguistics, Genosse, and that one is able to read and to understand litteratures from worldwide.
in order to judge wheter they are right or wrong and to state ones judgements decisions on that.
That is quite an art.
To my opinion, one should not declare and sell oneself as english teacher for foreighners,
and as philologists and try and teach on systematics also, before that is absolved and understood.
the Mann with the Scytch… I repeat….
…… it is not a hockeystick you see, it is a classical agricultural re- cycling permaculture scytch!……..
Which is what is so scaring to many. Mann with the Scytsch,……. and Michael…..
Do I have to remind people of anything more?
Drunken Sailors cannot read and understand even that .
Fifteen Sailors on dead mans chest
Hey ho a bottle of Rhum
Satan got them all at last
Hey ho a bottle of Rhum…
Femten gaster på død manns kiste
Hei hå ei flaske med rom
Fanden tok dem alle til siste
Hei hå ei flaske med rom..
UAH has posted the December anomaly* for its trend defying TLT record with an anomaly of +0.05ºC, this a bit of a drop on the +0.17ºC November anomaly** and the third chilliest of the monthly anomalies of 2022 which sit in the range +0.0ºC to +0.36ºC and average +0.17ºC.
December 2022 is the =13th warmest December on the UAH TLT record and the =154th highest of all monthly anomalies. [*Anomaly base = 1991-2020]
This puts the full year 2022 the UAH TLT into place as 7th warmest yer on record and above 2021 in 9th.
** While the TLT December anomaly may have dropped further below the November value, the initial indications from prelimenary reanalyses are that the SAT anomaly has partially bounced back up from the November drop (CDAS being reported with a +0.09ºC incease on the November anomaly).
And RSS has also posted its December TLT anomaly, at +0.42ºC, the lowest monthly anomaly of 2022, down on November’s +0.55ºC which was in turn down on October’s +0.73ºC. December 2022 was the 11th warmest December on the RSS TLT record and the =169th highest monthly anomaly for all months.
The annual average anomaly for 2022 of +0.60ºC thus drops below El Niño year 2010 and 2022 becomes 8th warmest year on the RSS TLT record.
1st … … 2020 ,,, ,,, +0.82ºC
2nd … … 2016 ,,, ,,, +0.82ºC
3rd … … 2019 ,,, ,,, +0.76ºC
4th … … 2017 ,,, ,,, +0.69ºC
5th … … 2021 ,,, ,,, +0.62ºC
6th … … 2015 ,,, ,,, +0.62ºC
7th … … 2010 ,,, ,,, +0.62ºC 8th … … 2022 ,,, ,,, +0.60ºC
9th … … 1998 ,,, ,,, +0.58ºC
10th .. … 2018 ,,, ,,, +0.55ºC
Ned Kellysays
The Simple Story of Civilization
Story Timeline
In order to make comprehensible the vast tract of human time on this planet—itself 5,000 times shorter than the age of the universe—I will compare the 2.5–3 million year presence of humans (genus Homo) on Earth to a 75 year human lifespan: a span that we can grasp intuitively. https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/12/the-simple-story/
Post-Script: Recent Influences
As my posting history reveals, I have been on a journey of expanded thinking about the nature of our predicament, moving beyond the initial phase of quantitative assessment of energy (during which I was still in the mindset of a tech-driven solution space), into deeper questions of what we’re all about and why we do the things we do. In the summer of 2022, after several recommendations over the years, I finally sat down to read Ishmael, a novel by Daniel Quinn. I was simultaneously impressed by how familiar the logic already was to me and by the degree to which it sharpened my ability to separate successful approaches from (ultimately) unsuccessful ones. I followed this up by the two other installments in the series (The Story of B and My Ishmael) and Quinn’s non-fiction framing work, Beyond Civilization. I have valued them all, and view them as helping to crystalize the path I was already walking down. I wouldn’t call myself a faithful adherent—accepting all arguments/premises—but a largely-resonant admirer of the worth of these important works. Check your library and give it a try!
More recently, I read An Inconvenient Apocalypse by Wes Jackson and Robert Jensen. This work also deeply resonated as a careful, deliberate, sober, thoughtful, and insightful approach to how we deal with the predicament of civilization. It’s not a go-to resource for making the case that we’re in deep trouble, although it plucks some of those chords. Mostly, it reflects on our reactions and choices in this moment, and offers valuable food for thought for those who already sense that this deal is going sideways. My small-town library had a copy, to my surprise and delight.
Other voices are starting to broadcast what I think is an accurate message. I already posted last year praising David Attenborough’s powerful conclusion. In the last few weeks, articles in The Intercept (amazing!) and New York Times made the case for biodiversity and ecosystem health above secondary concerns like climate change and the usual technological “solutions” proffered in response. Although, I have to complain that the NYT article contained one of those paragraphs almost always accompanying warnings about an animal’s endangerment: what potential benefits those animals have to humans, including the ever-present dangling of a possible key to some medical cure. It drives me crazy that we are so transactional as to require direct benefit to us to justify another animal’s existence.
To echo a provocative sentiment others have used to great effect: What good is a Honduran white bat, you ask? Well, what good are you? How have humans, or you personally, (on balance, or in net terms) helped the planet’s wild species or overall ecosystem health? Are you more valuable, or less valuable to sustaining biodiversity than the bat, the newt, or even the mosquito? Yeah, that hard truth stings me, too.
Hits: 4119
links in the original to explore
Chucksays
Are we going to get a January thread before the end of the month?
Killian on egalitarianism on last months UV thread. I have no doubt you would have posted some links related to egalitarianism some years ago, but I cant recall them and I don’t read every link that everyone posts. I was basically wanting you to post the links again!!!!!! That should have been really obvious. So if you have a record of them please post them again.
.
No. and not years ago. Had you any interest in honestly researching any of this, you already would have. You’ve been told these things since you arrived here. Why waste my time?
K. I’ve read plenty about hunter gatherer society, and I deliberately read differing view points. Just haven’t read anything to prove that humans are not innately hierarchical.
You deliberately read racist propaganda. *I* read holistically. Reading racist nonsense does not equal “reading different viewpoints.* I *discuss* different viewpoints with real anthropologists and real indigenous people. There are recordings. Did you go listen to them? No. instead, you read outdated, myopic books and papers by outdated myopic White men.
If you believe ANY of the tripe you post on indigenous societies, you’re a racist. Period. Ipso facto… Bob’s your racist uncle.
This isn’t up for debate. You lost six years ago but still repeat the same racist tropes.
K: You deliberately read racist propaganda. . . . If you believe ANY of the tripe you post on indigenous societies, you’re a racist.
BPL: Only Killian is free from racism. Anything that disagrees with Killian is racist by definition. You’re all racists! There are racists under Killian’s bed… In his closet… Hiding in the bathroom… Spying on him…
Killian
“You deliberately read racist propaganda..*I* read holistically. If you believe ANY of the tripe you post on indigenous societies, you’re a racist.”
Those are very comically inaccurate claims, because a couple of years ago I posted a large comment on this website, with links to five papers finding hunter gatherer culture was violent and five papers showing it was non violent and one large meta study arguing “its complicated”. I’m pretty sure Killian responded to that comment or something similar posted later on.
And personally I’m inclined to agree with the meta study, that whether hunter gatherer culture was violent was complex, and it varied form society to society. Which doesn’t actually surprise me. To suggest believing that study would make me racist is pure ignorance of what racism even means.
The only papers I’ve seen Killian quote are papers telling us how wonderful hunter gatherer culture is, and a grudging admission that there may have been some inter tribal conflicts. This sure looks like confirmation bias to me.
Killian,
I had plenty enough of time in Highschool to learn from and to study the National Socialists.
Above your land and horizons and religion and understandings and training in the grades allready as I entered there.
So why waste our time?
http://www.Dovregubbens/hall
Killian at last months UV thread @ 3 Nov. Thanks for the video on hunter gatherer society:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4SDBVaUboc&t=323s
I asked you to provide links to back up your assertion that humans, particularly modern humans, are ‘innately’ egalitarian. The link talks about hunter gatherer culture and how its egalitarian, something that nobody seriously disputes, but at no stage can I recall James Suzman arguing that humans were ‘innately” egalitarian or providing proof they are. Therefore the links I quoted arguing very specifically that humans are innately hierarchical and can learn to be egalitarian in some circumstances are more convincing to me. As is Richard Creagers book.
Hi Nigelj,
I wonder which species our DNA is closest to, chimpanzees or bonobos. I hope it’s bonobos, I expect it’s chimpanzees.
A report from The Intercept pointing out that fixing climate change will not save the large number of animal species being destroyed by 8 billion humans — that the transition to renewable energy (solar farms, mineral mining,etc) will increase the destruction of wildlife habitat.
https://theintercept.com/2022/12/03/climate-biodiversity-green-energy/
I found it interesting that when I searched the IPCC AT6 paper for “overpopulation” I received no hits.
Africa’s birthrate is around 7 to 8 children per woman.
Don Williams.
Thank’s for the link. I agree renewable energy is not a panacea, but it’s the most useful and workable climate mitigation policy available. It will cause some biodiverity loss due to mining, but we have to consider the viability of alternative strategies to renewables, and it doesn’t look like there are many good options.
Solving the climate problem primarily by manipulating the size of the human population is not viable in my view . To keep warming under 2 degrees would obviously require killing billions of people and obviously this is not acceptable. Africa does have a high birth rate, but they have very low per capita emissions on average,so it is the least of our concerns. This is all why the IPCC have little interest in the population issue.
Reductions in the consumption of energy has some part to play but just doesn’t look viable at large scale Consider the massive covid lockdowns in 2020 caused only a 6.4% drop in emissions as a result of reductions in travel and economic activity, and that very small drop drop bounced right back to business as usual this year once restrictions were lifted. Even in a police state like China which has persisted with forced covid restrictions their population is now in open rebellion.
So please get out there and promote renewables and electic transport, because its the main thing that just might stop the world frying. Its the ONLY thing that has made a significant difference so far. Use of coal has not stopped, but the rate of use has declined quite substantially as a result of wind and solar power, and enough to already make some difference to the worst case warming projections according to various studies.
Incentivizing everyone into sn electric vehicle will not only do little to reduce climate change it will put a tremendous drain on the worlds resources. Further, It incentivize business as usual which is a certificate for death on this planet. Far better to go after fossil fuels. If you stop fossil fuels – alternative transportation will quickly force its way into the picture.
EVs will not “put a tremendous drain on the worlds [sic] resources.” Look again:
https://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/961711588875536384/Minerals-for-Climate-Action-The-Mineral-Intensity-of-the-Clean-Energy-Transition.pdf
1) Your comment left me puzzled. The World Bank report you cite supports Dave Petersen’s comment , not yours.
2) The report says that the B2DS scenario (future temp increase limited to 1.75 deg C) will require 1.7 billion tons more minerals than the RTS (business as usual. ) –Fig ES-1, p. 11. This is an increase of 100% and and this is just to 2050 AD.
Plus the report notes that demand for some minerals will increase up to nearly 500% “especially those concentrated in energy storage technologies” –p.93. On p. 59, it says batteries for Electric Vehicles (EV) are expected to account for 90% of energy storage deployments.
3) The report also acknowledges that multiple adverse impacts and problems are possible (major environmental damage in mining areas, water pollution and shortages, refusal of countries to export necessary minerals, etc ) For solutions, the Report waves its hands and merely offers hope (p. 97)
4) Plus I didn’t see an estimate in the Report re demand for one resource: Money.
Or for the transfers thereof –who receives and who pays. Search in the Report for “money” or “budget” yielded no hits.
From the WORLD BANK.
OK, shill.
But thanks for your simpletonesque response: Do we only need resources for EVs? Nope. They are needed for many different industries all trying to grow to global behomeths at the same time.
The resources don’t exist. Learn the simple math.
Without a 15-fold, or more, increase in global recycling ability and the discovery of ways to recycle the 30% of waste we have no way to currently recycle, none of the tech crap people drool over is ever gonna happen on any scale that avoids collapse.
Reality: Resources and Reality w/ Prof. Simon Michaux:
https://www.clubhouse.com/room/M14OJAaR?utm_medium=ch_room_xerc&utm_campaign=0vIh7fkq9PMM2ZU9Db7TFQ-508228
K: we have no way to currently recycle, none of the tech crap people drool over is ever gonna happen on any scale that avoids collapse.
BPL: https://bartonlevenson.com/Renewables&Environment.html
Levenson
I have my doubts on electriv vehicles.
I am a passionale electrician,…
It is sinful to burn away hydroelectric power in large resistors. If houses and even pathways are to be heated, then try your best to use waste heat that willm be wasted in any case, and,… heat pumps. I once conscidered a low compression kerosene engine saying Dumdumdumdumdum….on the christmas market place, finely tuned and adjusted,.. and with buffet along the exhause- pipe. Toasts, hotdogs warm cofee and grog for sale, and the remainings for warming frozen hands and thawing snow. And tell that tyhis is responsible and sustainable. The fuel could be distilled from straw and twigs if necessary.
on how to use the heat at all its temperatures.
I am very sceptic at burning away hydroelectric or atomic power in the road traffics. It is much too valuable for that. And Aluminium should be strictly re- cycled.
The worlds pissoirs to be scrupulously seized and updated.
Then we can whish merry christmas and a happy new year.
Don Williams,
The ‘fertility rate’ in Africa has never been “around 7 to 8 children per woman” but always below. It peaked at 6.7 but that was half a century ago. It is now down at 4.2 and falling. And IPCC AR6 (or the thick-fingered AT6) does not use the word “overpopulation” but does use the phrase “population growth” and indeed says “High mitigation challenges, for example, due to assumptions of slow technological change, high levels of global population growth, and high fragmentation as in the Shared Socio-economic Pathway SSP3, may render modelled pathways that limit warming to 2°C (>67%) or lower infeasible.” [My bold] And do remember it is very easy to blame somebody else for mankind’s destruction of the natural world, easy for you and perhaps yet easier for the citizen of Africa whose continent has been increasingly ravaged by outsiders for a very long time.
Africa is now (at last) rapidly advancing. That should mean the demographic transition -to small family size, ought to proceed pretty quickly. I am associated with some of the transplants (Nigeria to USA), and their family sizes are similar to those of the larger population here. So there is cause for optimism about population stabilization.
MA, Don, and also re Adam Lea below,
I find myself constantly encountering these “answers without questions”; whether it is a lack of imagination or just reflexive Strawmanning.
Questions:
1. How can you have a sustainable human society that enjoys the advantages offered by science and technology?
2. How can you avoid great disruption and suffering over the next 100-200 years due to climate change caused by CO2 and other human activity?
3. How can you ameliorate 2 while getting to 1 as quickly as possible?
But when my answer to 2 (which seems to coincide with IPCC probabilities) is “you can’t, but here’s how you do 1 and 3”, the response seems to always be “but you haven’t solved 2!”.
So my answers to 1 and 3 involve population, which should make Don happy, assuming he is serious and not just doing the standard owning-the-libs-concern-trolling-gotcha-haha-it’s-the-Black-people-haha.
And in terms of Adam’s comment about despair… well, what is it despair about ?? My solution to problems I can’t solve is to move on to problems I can. And I’ve been making the case, with examples, that the rate of population reduction has the potential to do 3 as well as being essential to achieving 1.
The reason for this is that the relationship between population and environmental degradation is non-linear and in fact discontinuous in many areas. Getting from 8 billiion to 7.9 does nothing, but what about getting to 6 while showing an accelerating downward trend?
I’ll probably follow up on this with some references at some point but right now there are immediate getting-ready-for-winter projects I need to address… there are these strange white particles falling from the sky which I think are trying to tell me something.
1) My “concern” is that central Africa is densely populated, in moving to become even more densely populated and yet is projected to be severely damaged by global warming. It lies within plus to minus 15 degrees of the equator.
2) Yet the people there seem unaware of the threat looming over them. When it comes to the USA Jem Bendell’s forecast of doom seem greatly exaggerated — worse case we simply conquer and occupy Canada. But his forecast does not seem so exaggerated when you look at Africa.
3) There seems to be the idea that the USA and EU will cough up several hundred $Billion in aid to rescue Africa. Given that our federal debt is $31 trillion and we are gearing up for World War III with China and Russia I am sceptical that much aid will be forthcoming. Plus there is the heavy cost of even a token transition to renewable energy. Look at the maneuvering at COP27.
4) The larger point is that there are a lot of threats looming on the horizon and looking at climate change in isolation gives an optimistic picture of the situation.
PS to MA Rodger: As an American, I am deeply embarrassed to admit I picked up information from President Macron of France without double-checking it. But note he doesn’t seem willing to toss much rescue money onto the table either.
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/15949392/macron-women-children-7-or-8-g20-stumble-twitter-storm
Don, Omega C just above has identified one solution to your concern… one I’ve suggested in the past as well.
If you allow immigration to USA, high fertility rates are eliminated in one or at most two generations. As long as the US population is fixed, with reductions in FF use, those individuals contribute little to rising emissions.
There are two additional benefits:
-Remittances to the source country work to improve conditions that drive high fertility… the immigrant to the US sends money to her sister that pays for education, reduced infant mortality, birth control, reducing long-term economic insecurity.
-The values and concerns of a Western liberal society (that’s about 60% of the US population) are also transmitted/demonstrated to the sister… concern for the environment certainly being a major one, along with female empowerment to oppose religious patriarchal forced birth.
So, your problem about governments spending money to “rescue” Africa would be greatly reduced. The people who come here to work will be doing the job at the non-bureaucratic actual grass roots level; they will be earning the money to send along with contributing to Social Security and paying other taxes. (And providing labor here that is often in short supply.)
Sounds like a win-win-win to me… whaddaya think?
I always find it amazing that people seem to want to look to far off lands for problems–especially without asking the inhabitants of said far off lands their opinions. While it is true that some parts of Africa are quite densely populated–especially urban areas–some areas are fairly wide open. And if you ask young African men and women how many children they want, invariably you get numbers in the 3-5 range–sometimes even less–rather than 7-8. The main problems in Africa are the lack of opportunity. There is a lack of opportunity for young people (especially girls) to get an education, and once they get an education, the economy can’t use them (hence all the computer-literate scammers in Nigeria). This was also the case for India and, to a lesser extent, China until the 90s or so. And the more opportunity you provide, the lower the birthrate will fall.
Renewables are quite prevalent in rural villages–just about every village in Madagascar has solar panels, especially if they aren’t on the national or regional grid.
You neglect to mention that an average American consumes hundreds of times as much energy as an average African–so, who, really, is overpopulated.
Your #2 betrays a common misconception–that land area is interchangeable, and as the South warms, we can just move north. May I introduce your optimism to the Canadian Shield–an area of bedrock scraped nearly clean of topsoil by the last ice age.
And as to your #3, your 31 trillion $$ ain’t gonna mean much when we are living as scattered tribes of hunter gatherers in a couple hundred years. You can decry the expense of creating a sustainable economy all you want, but it really isn’t optional. And yes, there are many, many problems we face–but that doesn’t mean we can pick and choose which we address. We may find that many of the problems all have the same solution–deliberate sustainability.
@zebra
1) A complex question. Given the widespread custom of polygamy in Africa, moving men from Africa would probably not lower the rate of population increase very much.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-where-polygamy-is-legal
For example, former President Jacob Zuma of South Africa has had up to 5 wives ( 3? at present) and over 20 children
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_South_Africa
2) There is an argument that increased immigration into the USA will be necessary to have a young work force large enough to sustain Social Security and Medicare.
There is also an argument that genius exists throughout the world and admitting high functioning scientists, engineers, doctors helps this country.
3) But bringing adult women here who have little education would be expensive –either for life time welfare or for 12 ? years of basic education before they could enter the workforce for even low-skilled labor – at which time they would be 30? years old. Families in Africa would probably not give up their young (7 year old) girls to be educated here.
4) Also, the USA population is around 335? Million and the female population of Africa is 714 million.
https://countrymeters.info/en/Africa
One problem is that a large percentage of African females are young — with many years of fertility before them. I am not expert but I believe this is called “demographic momentum”.
4) I am sceptical re the claims of unfilled US jobs – many of them are unfilled because they have crappy wages too low to sustain a family. We have large numbers of unemployed –and underemployed Americans. Our first duty is to them.
5) We also consume natural resources – and emit CO2 — at very high rates per person compared to most countries. So I am not sure doubling our number will aid the global environment.
6) Finally, I think Congress will be lacking in charity, given the major problems facing us: hugely expensive competition/war with Russia and China, climate change, a large retiring baby boomer cohort with a near bankrupt Social Security/Medicare system and a rebellion by young workers in the near future, $31 Trillion in federal debt that is a high percentage of our GDP –and not counting household and corporate debt , etc. Our NIIP (net debt to foreigners ) has exploded since 2002 and I’m not sure what happens if that faucet gets turned off.
@Ray Ladbury
1) Re Canada , note that the northern tier of US states will be able to handle climate change — we merely need a place for residents of Texas and other Southern states. Alberta and Saskatchewan will do nicely — Goode’s Atlas indicates they already grow wheat and oats and raise cattle. in significant amounts. With global warming, maize cultivation will probably become feasible.
2) Plus Alberta is already wanting to lift the heavy hand of Ottawa’s oppression by seceding and joining the USA. We would merely need to er … “spread democracy”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_separatism
Don Williams:
Precisely–the areas where cereal crops can be grown already grow them. The places where climatic conditions improve temperature-wise likely won’t be suitable in terms of fertility.
I would also caution you against drawing conclusions about a continent based on a Wikipedia-level understanding of the region and people. Yes, polygamy is practiced in Africa, but mainly in rural areas where women have few options. Again, the quickest way to reduce polygamy and fertility is to present young women with more opportunities for education and satisfying careers. This also improves the welfare of the men in their lives. If you ask young Africans about their attitudes toward polygamy and # of children, most of them view polygamy less favorably and favor smaller families–3-4 children rather than 7-8. Many Africans who come to the US and Europe are highly trained–nurses, doctors, engineers… And in advanced countries, it is almost inevitably the migrants who do the “shit” jobs that natives eschew. Indeed the economies of these countries depend on it. If you want to prevent mass migration of unskilled workers, the best strategy is to present the people with more opportunities to improve their skills–both in their home countries and in countries to which they may migrate.
And in terms of climate change–Africa ain’t the problem. Indeed, population ain’t the problem (it is more of a problem for biodiversity, however). What matters is consumption of resources, especially energy. And that is a problem mainly in North America and to a lesser extent in Europe, and the industrial economies of Asia. Africans are already embracing solar with enthusiasm, and it is easier to engineer a renewable energy grid there than it is to retrofit our own outdated grid to renewables.
As an aside, I think that while the recent advance in fusion is important, any future economy based on fusion as a “clean” energy source faces a daunting, if not insurmountable, problem–the supply of tritium. It doesn’t occur (for all practical purposes) in nature. It decays with a half-life of 12.3 years, so you cannot mass produce it. The small supply of tritium we do have comes from only a few CANDU reactors, which use heavy water (D2O–Deuterium-rich), and only a few facilities exist for harvesting the isotope. A single commercial fusion reactor would exhaust the world’s supply of tritium in less than a year. So, reliance on fusion also implicitly requires a reliance on fission–and fission with a particular type of reactor that isn’t being build anymore.. So from my point of view, the old adage still applies: “Fusion is the energy source of the future–and it always will be.”
Don W re list of 6,
I’m not following your reasoning or your factual basis. Perhaps I have a different perspective, since my parents were immigrants who did OK. My mother had a third-grade education, and my father had been an indentured servant in a different country from where he was born during his HS years. They worked really hard, and raised some pretty smart kids.
But I guess those African girls who grew up in a subsistence farming environment carrying water and firewood for miles while dodging rapists will get on welfare first thing, right? No doubt they have some different genetic characteristics from my folks… you can tell just by looking at them, eh.
And yet, Don, your own source puts Albertans favoring the “heavy hand of Ottawa” at about 3x those favoring separatism, per the last poll listed.
I wonder what a poll of Texan separatists would discover?
https://www.reportingtexas.com/texas-separatists-aim-to-go-mainstream/
1) As late as 2000, Central Africa’s birth rate was near 7 births per woman while East Africa and West Africa’s was around 6. It was the steep drop in North Africa’s birth rate that brought Africa’s average down. Since 2000 there has been a decline also in East, Central and West Africa.
2) However, the Wilson Center has noted that the number of children desired by African women is as follows: West Africa: 5.9 Central: 6.0 East: 4.6
https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2015/05/whats-west-central-africas-youthful-demographics-high-desired-family-size/
Niger’s , for example, was 7.6 in 2005 but dropped to 6.9 in 2018. Congo’s was 6.8 in 2000 but dropped to 5.9 in 2018. In 2018, Mali was 5.9, Chad was 5.7, Somalia’s was 6.1, Burkina Faso was 5.2.
One reason for the drop in birth rates in the past 20 years is possibly the steep decline in African child mortality, from around 150 children per 1000 to 75.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1072803/child-mortality-rate-africa-historical/
3) Cultural preferences and improved medicine are some of the reasons why projections of Africa’s future population growth are so high:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#/media/File:World_population_(UN).svg
http://www.dehai.org/dehai/dehai_hagers/281112 (Economist article)
4) The UN’s forlorn hope is that if you give 8 billion people the living standards of the USA then their birth rate will drop to our low level. However, others have noted that you would need to plunder 3 or 4 more planet Earths to accomplish that. The explosive growth of Asia’s population caused a massive increase in CO2 levels.
In the meantime, how do we feed these people if global warming greatly reduces US and Canada’s grain harvests? How do we feed our own? Even with the despicable and cruel practice of factory farming animals.
Don Williams @11, Africa is unlikely to need high levels of prosperity to have a much lower birth rate. Studies show the main factors in a low birth rate are contraception, women’s education / rights and low infant mortality (which only requires fairly modest prosperity and health care systems):
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200908170532.htm
https://www.volusonclub.net/empowered-womens-health/4-contributing-factors-to-declining-fertility-rates-a-global-overview/
However its clearly still going to take a while before Africa’s population stops growing. I agree climate change is likely to reduce grain harvests, and thus will be painful particularly for countries like Africa.
You guys argue that economic opportunity lowers fertility rates — but for the past 100 years that “opportunity” has been tied to vast emissions of CO2. First in America and Europe then in Asia.
The question is, will the transition to renewables provide INCOME to enough people to keep fertility rates low? People pursue careers to buy things — and producing those things has environmental costs such as pollution, ,depletion of natural resources, and destruction of wildlife habitat.
Plus POVERTY plays a role in fertility rates — and rising income inequality is increasing poverty. Also, will the taxes needed to fund the renewable transition deplete people’s incomes so much that they can no longer buy things and have no motivation to pursue careers? In the USA, our richest 1% seem to see renewable transition as an excellent excuse to raid the US Treasury. Real wages for working people are falling.
I did not cite Africa’s population growth as a factor in Africa’s CO2 emissions — I cited it because it takes a lot of work, resources and money to feed people.
Don Williams
“You guys argue that economic opportunity lowers fertility rates — but for the past 100 years that “opportunity” has been tied to vast emissions of CO2. First in America and Europe then in Asia.”
No Don. I said the complete opposite namely : “Africa is unlikely to need high levels of prosperity to have a much lower birth rate. Studies show the main factors in a low birth rate are contraception, women’s education / rights and low infant mortality (which only requires fairly modest prosperity and health care systems):”
“Also, will the taxes needed to fund the renewable transition deplete people’s incomes so much that they can no longer buy things and have no motivation to pursue careers?”
Studies like The Stern report show the world can make a transition to renewables that would cost about 2% of global gdp (global economic output). This very roughly equates to 2% of our yearly incomes, so therefore also equals a 2% tax on our yearly incomes if funded that way. So most people could afford that and those et the bottom of the economic heap could be subsidised. Now the 2% number could be contested, but I would suggest most people could still easily afford a 5% tax.
I repeat what I said before: Renewables are not problem free. Neither is our avaricious and materialistic capitalist economy. They require a lot of resources and cause pollution, but unless you have a BETTER solution to the climate problem that is workable and practical you have very little credibility with me. So what is it?
Nigel already essentially made this point, but no, you don’t need US levels of economic excess to see the demographic transition occur. In the list below of 227 listed nations and territories, 108 are at or below 2 children per woman:
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/total-fertility-rate/country-comparison
This includes nations such as Iran, both Koreas, the Bahamas, Suriname, Nepal, Mauritius, Paraguay, and Mongolia. These are vastly disparate countries, but none of them–barring South Korea–could be considered “fully developed” (to use the rather problematic conventional terminology.)
While I wouldn’t claim that the increase in Asian population is irrelevant to emissions growth, I think you’ll find that Chinese CO2 emissions roughly tripled between 2000 and 2010:
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/international-issues/chinas-carbon-dioxide-emissions-more-than-twice-those-of-the-u-s/
Meanwhile, their population increased by a little over 6%:
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/china-population/
So my attribution of emissions would focus much more on the growth of manufacturing than on population growth. China isn’t typical, of course, but it’s also demographically and emissions-wise the elephant in the Asian (and global) room.
And it isn’t just China that’s acting as ‘manufacturer to the world,’ albeit on smaller scales. For just one notable example, see Vietnam:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1048297/vietnam-gdp-value-of-manufacturing-sector/
Vietnam emissions history:
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/vietnam
Vietnam population history:
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/vietnam-population/
So, since the millennium, Vietnamese CO2 emissions roughly quintupled, while population grew about 22%. (BTW, current Vietnamese TFR? 2.05.)
Kevin, thanks for supplying some numbers.
For example:
“So, since the millennium, Vietnamese CO2 emissions roughly quintupled, while population grew about 22%. (BTW, current Vietnamese TFR? 2.05.)”
And zebra said, above:
“And I’ve been making the case, with examples, that the rate of population reduction has the potential to do 3 as well as being essential to achieving 1.
The reason for this is that the relationship between population and environmental degradation is non-linear and in fact discontinuous in many areas. Getting from 8 billiion to 7.9 does nothing, but what about getting to 6 while showing an accelerating downward trend?”
Huh!
So, would the rapid increase in emissions in China and Vietnam have happened in my global
6 billion and falling scenario?
Go ahead, play a little sci-fi-what-if.
Kevin.
Thanks for the information. Rather a good find. I did a quick search on population policy out of curiosity to establish what was driving the lower fertility. I found some information on Iran, South Korea, North Korea, Suriname and Mauritius, Paraguay, and Mongolia. A common picture emerges where governments have been very activist in population policies with the exception of Paraguay. Namely that governments of those countries have typically successfully encouraged low fertility rates over the last 50 years or so.
However in most cases they have ageing population and governments are now stopping encouraging low fertility (eg Iran) or are encouraging higher fertility.
This is a bit of an over simplification for the sake of brevity. Some of these countries have had constantly changing government population policies. With so many factors involved, and so many changing government policies it looks pretty hard to predict global population growth in the future with any accuracy. And the countries in your list tend to have autocratic governments run by elites that will do what they think is best regardless of what the population want. So there’s not much ordinary people can do there to influence any of this.
Stopping population growth and accepting a shrinking global population seems a good thing to me overall, but whether this actually happens and at what rate it happens looks impossible to predict, especially when you look at the aforementioned swings in population policy by governments who may or may not be responsive to what voters want.
All things considered the whole population issue seems a bit of a distraction from the climate change problem to me. Its really hard to predict a firm trend and all we can say its likely population will peak near the end of this century and may stabilise or fall after that. I do promote smaller population on websites but I feel .there’s not much I can do to influence our own government, because they stay well away from activist population policies.. I don’t like telling friends how many kids they should have. These things are mine fields. So its a mystery to me how Zebra would see us influencing governments to dramatically reduce rates of population growth especially in countries with aging populations.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/publication/iran_is_reversing_its_population_policy.pdf
https://www.prb.org/resources/did-south-koreas-population-policy-work-too-well/
https://www.nknews.org/2022/01/north-korea-wants-women-to-bear-children-for-the-motherland-they-arent/#:~:text=Much%20like%20in%20the%20South,natalist%20approach%20since%20around%201993.
https://npc.gov.np/images/category/Demographic_Dividend_Policy_Brief_Apr_2017_final.pdf
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12264931/
https://dep.num.edu.mn/econ/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/8-13.pdf
Impossible to say, IMHO; there are just too many implied counterfactuals in the premise. The whole world would have been different.
However, in principle a drastic increase could have been possible, even if one suspects it would have been unlikely to be quite so drastic as it was.
Nigel–I think you may be overweighting the particular countries I mentioned a bit; they were from my perspective pretty randomly chosen, except that I wanted to show that the demographic transition clearly is not dependent upon apex levels of economic development. To me, the crucial part is that about half of the nations were at or below a TFR of 2.
You’re right of course that governmental policy is important, but I think it’s often not determinative (as your link about N. Korea hints.)
No, look again–it’s not true that “Africa’s birthrate is around 7 to 8 children per woman.”
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/total-fertility-rate/country-comparison
Per the CIA, no African nation reaches 7 per woman, let alone 8, and only Niger comes close, at 6.82. (This is also the only nation to exceed 6.)
Here’s the breakdown by TFR ranges:
5-5.99: 9 nations
4-4.99: 15 nations
3-3.99: 14 nations
2-2.99: 12 nations
1-1.99: 3 nations (all small island nations)
It’s a rough and ready form of analysis, but I’d think the TRF for the continent would be about half what you’re thinking.
Oh, OK, I’ll check:
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AFR/africa/fertility-rate
Just around 4.2, and it’s been declining consistently since peaking in 1968, at 6.706. The UN’s ‘hope’ of decline hardly looks “forlorn”–not that I’m saying TFRs of 4 are where we need to be. The same suite of projections has African population nearing 4 billion (!!) by the end of the century. That’s certainly food for thought–if not, sadly, for hungry mouths.
“It found?” I didn’t know the knowledge was lost. And, wow! they found the answer in 2022?!
Amazing, Batman! Sigh…
1. The planet is largely finite. As in, all but a few items in the periodic table are entirely finite.
2. Using up finite stuff means you eventually run out of finite stuff.
3. Technology cannot make something out of nothing; it needs stuff.
4. Ergo, tech cannot solve this problem.
5. There are thus two broad choices: A. Don’t use up all the finite stuff. Live within the means of the planet’s stuff. B. Build out recycling as a priority – fund it above all else WRT tech-based activities. It makes some tech-based plans rational Make it mandatory. Invest in R&D to decrease the 30% we *cannot* recycle or the much of the rest of the recycling will grind to a halt.
We have known all this for a very long time. I have been saying it here for well over 10 years. But, gee, thanks Intercept. What would we do without you to… bring up the rear?
1) The vital fertilizer phosphate is finite stuff. Published reserves vs yearly production suggest we might not run out until 300 years. However, researcher Dana Cordell argues that only 20% of mined phosphate makes it to the plants and Peak Phosphate (demand exceeds supply) will occur around 2035.
https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/handle/10453/36078
2) Major producer China imposed export quotes this year:
https://www.reuters.com/article/china-fertilizers-quotas/china-issues-phosphate-quotas-to-rein-in-fertiliser-exports-analysts-idUSKBN2OQ0KY
3) I don’t deny that climate change is a major threat — but mitigation will have to occur within the context of multiple major threats and I don’t see a Kumbaya roadmap for that.
Look harder. There is a road map. But stuff the “kumbaya” nonsense. Only fools say such stupid things. This is all about math. Thermodynamics. Risk. Complexity. Etc. Kumbaya has nothing to do with it.
JCM 27 NOV 2022 has “Greatly suppressed … 17.9 Wm-2?”. No because the temperature unit is Kelvin, not W/m**2. Cease this hiding of your light under a bushel all the time. Simply work out the conductive & radiative transfers from whatever millimetres or microns within the solids at land surface you find are appropriate and the same for whatever skin thickness of the ocean, both up to whatever millimetres or metres above surface you find appropriate and determine within a few millimetres what elevation range your asserted change from 416.1 W/m**2 to 398.2 W/m**2 (so your asserted 17.9 W/m**2 difference) occurs over at the relatively-very-sharp gradient as alluded to by the reference you cited from a book and that then is your result. Present that for review.
———–
“I would argue this diffusion is a pretty powerful process”. I would argue that I’m Brad Pittlike but I don’t because the reception when I tried it a few times before wasn’t positive. Exact same thing when I told the volleyball team I was “pretty powerful” and it turned out that my definition didn’t much match theirs, so now I do what I do and not what I would do. So simply do the analysis and present for review in your next comment. You could use your cited 15K difference between stratified rubber-air at the surface and (presumably) 98 molecules or whatever you find correct inside the surface of your citation or do that analysis yourself to produce a different annually-integrally-averaged, regionally-integrally-averaged temperature difference between air at the surface and solid or liquid matter at your reasoned molecule count below the surface. With an Earth-realistic pair of 289K air at the surface and 304K at your appropriate molecules inside the surface and blackbody approximation it’s simply 88.8 W/m**2 “discontinuity” with 395.5 W/m**2 from the IR-active gas molecules at the surface parcel and 484.3 W/m**2 from the surface. Then simply do the analysis that adjusts your rubber-air calculation you made for air that has the thermal conductivity of air and the 2nd, convection, adjustment for air that’s as fluid as air instead of as fluid as rubber and thus results, with a bit of luck, in your asserted 17.9 W/m**2 difference in radiant energy, or perhaps some different quantity, instead of the example 88.8 W/m**2. Simples. I suspect that your book citation is only for the (~25% of Earth) non-ice solids surfaces and not for water surfaces >10 m deep nor for ice surfaces so you’ll need to do those separately because I’m suspecting that the average absorption of solar radiation below the surface molecule goes a tad deeper for the water surfaces >10 m deep and for ice surfaces than for the non-ice solids’ surfaces so perhaps the cited 15 degrees is a tad less for the former, but that’s details you’ll need to check. When your analysis is done I for one would be fascinated to see your correct analysis of correct annually-integrally-averaged, regionally-integrally-averaged data that proves 17.9 W/m**2 difference in radiant energy between a surface parcel of air and a few microns within the surface because that coincidence would even trump the other weird little coincidence that happened in our exchange in the last couple weeks that I detail below. Your asserted coincidence that the radiative energy transfer between a couple of metres or so of IR-active gases at the surface and within the surface film matches over 3-4 decimal digits the radiative energy transfer between a gas parcel of a couple of metres or so at the surface and a gas parcel above where temperature averages 8.6 degrees colder than the at-surface parcel would be a stunning coincidence to ponder. Go for it. Present that for review.
———–
A few years back I heard a talk on video from a bloke (lawyer I think) for an “Institute”, presumably for fee, about the huge energy available from electrical potential difference between Earth’s ionosphere & surface. Concluded with him saying he’d leave the power calculation to those expert in that. So a 1 hour talk consisting of him informing he had nothing to inform about his talk topic. Sweet sweet gig. Your “operating at all scales, from cm eddies … kinetic energy … some ambiguity in energy budgets … air parcel velocity; the winds… Mass flux … imperfect eddy covariance schemes at small scales in surface budgets … great degree … of energy” returns my mind nostalgically to that earlier, more youthful, less decrepit, time.
———–
When I did the calculation adjustment following your comment about the need to scale up the atmospheric window flux by it’s 10.1% portion of surface flux per NASA energy budget ratio for my 1 degree anomaly example and found it matched, it negated, coincidentally 106% of the 0.54 W/m**2 disparity in flux increase between an infrared-active parcel at the surface and one at -11.2 degrees above the surface I instantly recalled Costa & Shine June 2012 which I read January 2020. Costa & Shine assert an atmospheric window flux of 20 +/- 4 w/m**2 and in their paper quote Kevin Trenberth 1997 (KT97) as “KT97 estimate this component to be 40 W / m**2 compared to the total outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) of 235 W / m**2; however, KT97 make clear that their estimate is ‘‘somewhat ad hoc’’ rather than the product of detailed calculations”. The combination of Costa & Shine ‘‘somewhat ad hoc’’ for the KT97 40 W / m**2 calculation and the very odd coincidence that a disparity in your incorrect SE – OL = 1.00000 * (BR – UE) equality due to Kelvin**4 proportionality would be 106% negated (almost perfectly equal) by the change in the atmospheric window 9-13 microns portion makes me wonder whether ‘‘somewhat ad hoc’’ means that’s how the 40 W / m**2 was somehow derived in 1997. Derived by making your equality be assumed close enough for purpose back then. I’ll likely be looking into that over winter if there’s information somewhere I can find. I note that Global Physical Climatology Dennis L. Hartmann 1997 uses 40 W / m**2 but Global Physical Climatology Dennis L. Hartmann 2nd Edition Dennis L Hartmann 2015-12-03 uses 20 W / m**2 so my falsification of your incorrect equality by the Kelvin**4 proportionality spread would have worked with Global Physical Climatology Dennis L. Hartmann 2nd Edition Dennis L Hartmann 2015-12-03 because only 53% of your 0.54 w/m**2 error would have been offset (for just 1 degree anomaly) rather than 106% being offset.
Hartmann 2nd ed hasn’t changed much at all to do with section 4.5 The Atmospheric Boundary Layer.
“the downward longwave from the atmosphere and the emission from the surface are both relatively large and tend to offset each other” p. 107.
In the same section he’s speaking of emissivity issues causing ‘inaccuracies’ in surface flux at 5% and temperature at 4th root about 1%.
So longwave flux issues at 5% represent about 20 W m-2 …. 4th root, what, 2K or so?
Nothing changed in those numbers between 1994 and 2016.
It all seems pretty loosey goosey down at the surface – is that the problem?
Beyond that I’m not much interested in the intellectual bullying tactics.
Did anyone notice it was World Soils Day earlier this week?
The boys left the residues intact for the 3rd year running – soils might be a little cool and moist in the spring so we’ll cut some strips.
In the past I’ve been offered $20 a ton to sell the straw and chaff for biofuel stocks but IMO it’s best left in the soils. The herd will swing by to chomp it up a bit.
The township staff left pamphlets around for the Global Protocol for Community Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory and we all had a little chuckle about that. They want us at their public meeting. I think it was sent down from the regional council (townies). They don’t seem to have any idea what we’re doing out here.
thanks
UAH TLT has been posted for November with an anomaly of +0.17ºC, a bit of a drop from the Jul-Oct anomalies (which averaged +0.30ºC) and more akin to the Mar-Jun anomalies (which averaged +0.16ºC).The year-so-far Jan to Nov anomalies spanning +0.00ºC to +0.36ºC.
November 2022 sits as the 6th warmest November on the UAH TLT record, behind Nov 2019 (+0.42ºC), 2020 (+0.40ºC), 2016 (+0.34ºC), 2027 (+0.22ºC) & 2015 (+0.21ºC) and ahead of Oct 2009 (+0.14ºC), 1990 & 2018 (both +0.12ºC), 2014 (+0.10ºC) and 2021 & 2002 (both +0.08ºC).
Nov 2022 sits =86th 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 still looking a possible outcome for the full calendar year (requiring a Dec anomaly above +0.27ºC).
…….. Jan-Nov Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.41ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 1st
2020 .. +0.38ºC … … … +0.36ºC … … … 2nd
1998 .. +0.37ºC … … … +0.35ºC … … … 3rd
2019 .. +0.29ºC … … … +0.30ºC … … … 4th
2017 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 5th
2010 .. +0.21ºC … … … +0.19ºC … … … 6th
2022 .. +0.19ºC
2021 .. +0.13ºC … … … +0.13ºC … … … 8th
2015 .. +0.12ºC … … … +0.14ºC … … … 7th
2002 .. +0.08ºC … … … +0.08ºC … … … 10th
2018 .. +0.08ºC … … … +0.09ºC … … … 9th
ERA5 SAT reanalysis has posted for November with a global SAT anomaly of +0.16ºC, the lowest anomaly of the year-to-date and a big drop from the October anomaly which at +0.41ºC is the highest anomaly of the year-to-date.
Nov 2022 is the 9th warmest Nov in the ERA5 record behind Novembers 2020 (+0.54ºC), 2016, 2019, 2015, 2021 (+0.35ºC), 2017, 2018 & 2012 and ahead of Novembers 2013 (+0.38ºC), 2009, 2010 & 2005 (+0.13ºC). Nov 2022 ranks 113th in the all-month ERA5 rankings.
The first 11 months of 2022 continue to average in 5th place but now it would take a Dec anomaly greater than +0.78ºC to climb into 4th place (so higher than the top Dec anomaly of+0.54ºC set in 2019), and a similarly extreme drop below -0.06ºC (a Dec anomaly not seen since Dec 2010) to be displaced by 2021 from 5th place into 6th.
…….. Jan-Nov Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2020 .. +0.49ºC … … … +0.47ºC … … … 1st
2016 .. +0.45ºC … … … +0.44ºC … … … 2nd
2019 .. +0.39ºC … … … +0.40ºC … … … 3rd
2017 .. +0.34ºC … … … +0.34ºC … … … 4th
2022 .. +0.30ºC
2021 .. +0.27ºC … … … +0.27ºC … … … 5th
2018 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 6th
2015 .. +0.23ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 7th
2010 .. +0.15ºC … … … +0.13ºC … … … 8th
2014 .. +0.10ºC … … … +0.11ºC … … … 9th
2005 .. +0.09ºC … … … +0.09ºC … … … 10th
I gave my climate change extremes: current trends and projections talk this afternoon, focusing on heat, rainfall, tropical cyclones and European windstorms. Biased towards Europe but attempted to include the globe where I could find some good clear figures from papers to present (referenced of course). Thanks to everyone who posted links, I used some of them and included a bit of trend analysis from data I sourced (HadUKP, HadCET UKMO MIDAS data and tropical cyclone stats back to 1980). It was tricky putting this together as I could only give a broad brush overview of each extreme to get the primary message across based on observations and model projections, and there is so much more that could have been included but made sure I kept it to 45 minutes. I got a fair bit of positive feedback. One comment I got which I found hard to counter was relating to despair, that it is too late, governments are all talk and little action (i.e. COP), there is little individuals can do. I tried to make the point that giving up never solved anything and although we are locked in to some impacts, maybe we can avoid the worst case scenarios by acting now. However, it is difficult to visualise that happening any time soon since we have not managed to stop emissions rising, never mind knocking them right down. I tried to be objective and not project a we’re-all-doomed message but nevertheless I find it difficult to counter attitudes of despair (there is a touch of that in myself). Any ideas?
“that giving up never solved anything”
exactly. You tell them to quit their whining and get on with it. Damaging hearts and minds never solved anything. Get out of cyberspace, back into the world, and restore your environments. Join the people doing the real work. The academics will engage in their reductionism, the industrialists will industrialize, the politicians will pontificate. Everyone talking glibly about The Science. Meanwhile, the real world is out there. Our attitude is a choice.
https://vimeo.com/391991020
Thank you for sharing. Here are some ideas:
1. Despair, but fight, individually and with others, relentlessly, strategically and effectively.
2. Don’t despair, because we do not have time for it, we are busy taking action, bringing solutions to the problem, creating new solutions, thinking of others who cannot afford to despair and have not caused the climate emergency, but suffer its consequences more than the first world, the main cause. Others means also all the other species, as we need to save the entire biosphere.
3. Don’t despair because, as adults, we are responsible for our children’s future and well being. It is our duty to solve the climate emergency for them and to act upon the demands that they so well articulate, including when they through soup as some artifact to wake us up from our stupor and obsession with our wants, instead of life and the Earth’s life-supporting systems.
4. All aggregate actions/consequences are the result of cumulative individual actions, so of course individuals can do everything. What matters is which individuals, what they do and how they do it. Find the individuals who share the same values, have the best methods for winning, have the best influence on decision-making or, even better, are in decision-making positions. If you don’t find the latter, get yourself in a decision-making position.
5. Find, adopt and share as impactful as possible the success stories.
6. Act on the bottom line, as too many think and act as if our invented economy is more important than immutable nature. For example: stop using fossil fuels for anything, divest and ask your money holders to divest from fossil fuels, use, find, create sustainable biophilic alternatives.
https://divestmentdatabase.org/
@Adam Lea says: – “there is little individuals can do.”
ms: — The worst of all solutions to bettering the planet would be antidepressants for all
.
I have already given you what I think are the best (because they are the fastest and cheapest) solutions.
Claiming that there is nothing the individual can do…is a lame excuse & response from people who have given up moving before the hot dance has even begun.
Adam, Much respect for taking on this burden. I think that all of us that understand the gravity of the climate crisis oscillate between hope and despair. Hope and despair are close emotional cousins, as we find both in their purest form as the probability of success vanishes.
The thing is that despair is not adaptive or helpful or pleasant for that matter.. It is pretty much certain that we’re going to have some severe consequences. However, it is just as certain that consequences will be much worse if we do nothing. And the more we do–provided we ensure our actions are effective–the more people we’ll save and the more damage we’ll prevent.
And the other thing to hold onto is that whenever humans have had to confront a great crisis, we’ve managed to make improvements. After the Black Death, there was the Renaissance. After WWI, came some degree of social safety nets. And after WWII, came both civil and women’s rights as well as the UN. Decreased consumption, especially in rich countries (who are the problem, after all) needn’t necessarily correspond to lowered quality of life. The things that that bring the most pleasure in life are not material. And if we can preserve mass communication and connectivity, there is no reason we cannot preserve a scientific, global culture. Crisis always presents opportunities.
Hear, hear!
JCM 7 DEC 2022 “Hartmann 2nd ed … emissivity issues causing ‘inaccuracies’ in surface flux at 5% …. about 20 W m-2”. No because the 20 W m-2 would need to be the global proportioning and non-ice land is ~26% of Earth so from my detailed mathturbation at you 7 NOV 2022 8:02 PM it’s about 342 w/m**2 * 5% * 26% = 4.4 w/m**2 but it’s only as large as that if the 5% that it “can cause” is a calculated average error range from the 26% of Earth and I hugely doubt that. It’s poorly phrased so I’m not sure though. The young English non climate scientist with the Oxford climate science PhD has a video on that for some Kenyan scrub land at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZQTVvJaJLA A giraffe ate the climate scientist’s equipment though so it might not have a result.
In the video 3 or 4 seconds was devoted to mentioning the local land stewards who were trying to explain what’s going on with their landscape, amid Dr Dowling’s ranting about funding gaps around the 13:30 mark.
Hopefully their message is being heard, and I commend Dowling for pointing out their efforts to engage. They are on to something with their interest to talk about ecology; a process massively disrupted since recent colonial times, and a process far more impactful to the system beyond mere emissivity. My impression is there is a lot of dancing around the issue.
It sounds like the brief field work excursions are quite a novelty to those two, with lots of fun stories and photos to take home.
RSS have posted their TLT anomaly for November (their browser tool has yet to update) showing the big drop from October as seen in UAH TLT & EAR5 SAT. RSS put the Nov anomaly at +0.545ºC being down on Oct’s +0.73ºC. Previous RSS TLT 2022 anomalies sit in the range +0.50ºC to +0.77ºC.
November 2022 is the 8th warmest November on the RSS TLT record, behind Nov 2020 (+0.83ºC), 2015, 2019, 2016, 2017, 2019 & 2021 and above 2014, 2009, 2005 & Nov 2010 (+0.47ºC). It is the 106th highest anomaly in the RSS TLT all-month record.
The average of the first 11 months of 2022 sits in 7th place but the full year could still feasibly drop to 8th (Dec anomaly below +0.59ºC) or climb to 5th (Dec anomaly above +0.66ºC) with 2021, 2015 & 2010 having very similar annual anomalies.
…….. Jan-Nov Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.85ºC … … … +0.82ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +0.84ºC … … … +0.82ºC … … … 1st
2019 .. +0.75ºC … … … +0.76ºC … … … 3rd
2017 .. +0.69ºC … … … +0.69ºC … … … 4th
2010 .. +0.64ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 7th
2021 .. +0.62ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 5th
2022 .. +0.62ºC
1998 .. +0.60ºC … … … +0.58ºC … … … 8th
2015 .. +0.60ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 6th
2018 .. +0.55ºC … … … +0.55ºC … … … 9th
2005 .. +0.48ºC … … … +0.47ºC … … … 11th
2014 .. +0.48ºC … … … +0.49ºC … … … 10th
2013 .. +0.43ºC … … … +0.43ºC … … … 12th
“One of climate change’s great mysteries is finally being solved….We’ve found evidence of the amplifying impact of clouds on global warming,” said Paulo Ceppi, a climate scientist at Imperial College London.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/12/12/climate-change-clouds-equilibrium-sensitivity/
This is really very interesting Hr Nigelj, Thank You!
I have askede it ever from the beginning,: “But, what about the clouds?”
That really ought to come better into focus.
@nigelj
ms: — How exciting – I think Paulo Ceppi found an old hat. Years ago it was already clear that the value for the warming cloud radiative feedback is ~ 0.42W/m² per °Kelvin due to fewer, higher and due to increased optical depth of clouds. Clouds also tend to form further north toward the poles on the NH. (IPCC AR6 WG1)
Please let me briefly comment on 2 sentences from your link:
1.) “…even small changes in clouds as the world warms can have large effects on future temperature change.”
ms: — It is completely beyond me why hardly anyone would come up with the idea of producing clouds because of this fact.
2.) “We concluded that as the ocean warms, the low-level clouds over the oceans tend to dissipate,”
ms: — Warmer oceans should actually allow larger amounts of water to evaporate and form clouds. The sentence seems to me without logic.
ms: It is completely beyond me why hardly anyone would come up with the idea of producing clouds because of this fact.
BPL: Yes, it does seem to be completely beyond you. We’ve explained to you why this wouldn’t work many, many times. Only you just refuse to accept it. So I guess it will always be beyond you.
@bpl says: ” We’ve explained to you…”
ms: — when/how/where ??? I only see a herd of thick-skinned sheep standing in the desert at 50°C and staring thirsty at the bright, blue, cloudless sky… many months ago we were further… that was when I explained to you how to pee on a tree… even if you’re standing in the middle of the forest and can’t see the trees for the forest………………….!!! – 1t of cloud is created from 1t pee water – !!!
Even the IPCC has now noted that irrigation has a cooling effect on the planet’s radiation budget. (even if it took 30 years to realize it) – it’s all just a question of the dimensions of irrigation, evaporation and formation of cloud mass (x1000km³)…
Now another 30 years until Levenson will understand that the loss of evaporative landscapes is mainly caused by humans and that everything here also depends on the dimensions.
What do you say to “Marine Cloud Brightening” as a geoengineering strategy that has been discussed as a serious possibility for over 10 years ?
“…..Now another 30 years until Levenson will understand that the loss of evaporative landscapes is mainly caused by humans and that everything here also depends on the D…”
The regulation of rivers, saving waqter in bassins and pumping up even of groundwater for that is done in order to make evaporative landscapes.
It evaporates and cools that way like never before.
The very Hollywood cool their luxurious Villas and Lawns and bodies by evapotranspiration of extreemly scarce groundwater and relicts of the Colorado river.
The very Schürlers seem to be quite blind to the “dimensions”.
This New York Times site is interesting to show just how much of the earth is cloud covered.
“One Year of Clouds Covering the Earth
At any moment, about 60 percent of the earth is covered by clouds,(According to a NASA web page 70% of the earth is covered by clouds) which have a huge influence on the climate. An animated map showing a year of cloud cover suggests the outlines of continents because land and ocean features influence cloud patterns.”
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/01/science/earth/0501-clouds.html
“It is completely beyond me whyhardly anyone would come up with the idea of producing clouds…”
Maybe that idea is old as stoneage and very well tried out allready. Think of smoke signals and of smoking the landscapes. Further of military smoke grenades, what they cost and how little they work.
But what reaqlly works is the climate and its elements and components and causes.
Now for instance we can see the “polar vortex” and its sudden coldfronts both in the east and in the west. There is suddenly 34cm of snow in Moskva where it is normally quite steady continental and dry. They have snow record since 1941 at chistmas when they also really needed it. The whole city is suddenly clogged for traffic..
And a few days ago, polar chill coldfront falling southeast over warm northatlantic water and causing 2 very intense storms onto Helgeland and Troms. With sudden meters of snow on land and very dangerous “icing” on fisher and freighter boats at sea.. Who get out of balance and capsise in 2 hours.
It is the work of Claussius Clappeyron and the summer Sun and Big Bang the polar night and http://www.Midgardsormen , alltogether, when he suddenly changes meanderings.
That is really what is beond your learnings and horizons. The late autumn and fameous new year storms
Just saw the recent paper by Hansen et.al. “Global Warming in the Pipeline”. Any chance we could get a review from Gavin or others? https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04474
mproved knowledge of glacial-to-interglacial global temperature change implies that fast-feedback equilibrium climate sensitivity is at least ~4°C for doubled CO2 (2xCO2), with likely range 3.5-5.5°C. Greenhouse gas (GHG) climate forcing is 4.1 W/m2 larger in 2021 than in 1750, equivalent to 2xCO2 forcing. Global warming in the pipeline is greater than prior estimates. Eventual global warming due to today’s GHG forcing alone — after slow feedbacks operate — is about 10°C.
Does it matter that a person presents analysis after analysis for well over a decade that proves to be accurate, yet nobody listens, and, in fact, constantly insults and denigrates that person because they aren’t a scientist and have the audacity to tell scientists and other laypersons they are getting it wrong?
Why, yes, yes it does. Because we lost a decade when the risk analysis says…. we didn’t have a decade to give.
so…. maybe listen. Cuz I said sensitivity HAD to be at the high end all the way back in 2007, I believe. Simple logic made it clear it could never have been any different.
I promised. I guaranteed. I was right.
The rest of you were wrong. It matters.
Listen to the arguments, not your egos, biases, etc. Understand there are ways of knowing, analyzing etc., that YOU may not understand. That does not make them invalid.
Learn to listen.
K: so…. maybe listen. Cuz I said sensitivity HAD to be at the high end all the way back in 2007, I believe. Simple logic made it clear it could never have been any different. . . . I promised. I guaranteed. I was right. . . . The rest of you were wrong. It matters.
BPL: The rest of us weren’t listening and didn’t care. I don’t remember anybody in particular bringing this up, and I still don’t care. Climate sensitivity is high enough to cause a great deal of damage; that’s all that matters. That it will be more damage than expected doesn’t really change what we have to do. It’s like trying to scare people with the idea that after their house blows up with them in it, another bomb will flatten the rest of the neighborhood. They won’t care at that point.
Why you feel this need to be right all the time, to be vindicated, to be the smartest guy in the room, escapes me. But it’s another thing I just don’t care about. You can scream “I was right!” all you want, but again, nobody cares. I’m sure you were right that 2 + 2 = 4 and that the Revolution was in 1776, too, but nobody was disputing those, either.
Barton, As a friend, I would ask if a comment like this is really the best use of your time and talents. If Killian was right, then fine. If not, it doesn’t matter–he’s just one more voice in an already growing choir of people who do see climate change as a serious threat. The value of the climate sensitivity is of interest for understanding the climate, but to a non-climate-scientist, it is really just asking “How fucked are we?”
I realize that the sniping back and forth can be annoying. However, we do not advance our cause if we let the disputes become personal–especially among those of us who recognize the magnitude of the threat. The solution I see is to try to not let our circle of realists become a circular firing squad. And yes, I realize that I can improve in this regard myself.
Ray Ladbury. The worst offender at making disputes personal is Killian and by a very wide margin. Literally DOZENS of people have pointed all that out. It would be nice if you held Killian accountable just for once, instead of criticising the rest of us.
Shush. Didn’t even read your stupid response bc you only ever respond to me with childish shit.
You’re a bad person: Your ego, biases, and bigotry are more important to you than solutions.
Quiet.
Killian, you’re gas lighting BPL .And he was largely quite right with what he said.
A few years ago, when we were at about 1.1C warming and the atmospheric concentration was 40% up on what it was in 1750, another 40% increase on top would have lead to double the concentration of pre-industrial. As a 40% increase should lead to the same amount of warming as the last 40%, the transient sensitivity alone already had to be at least 2.2C, but another couple of decades would have been needed to see where that first or second 40% would lead. But the notion that the lower bound was 1.5C (less if your were a contrarian scientist) seemed absurd. to me. An even higher value doesn’t surprise me.
Killian says: “I promised. I guaranteed. I was right.
The rest of you were wrong. It matters”
Sounds like something Donald Trump would have said.
RE: Hansen’s: Improved knowledge of glacial-to-interglacial global temperature change implies that fast-feedback equilibrium climate sensitivity is at least ~4°C for doubled CO2 (2xCO2), with likely range 3.5-5.5°C. Greenhouse gas (GHG) climate forcing is 4.1 W/m2 larger in 2021 than in 1750, equivalent to 2xCO2 forcing. Global warming in the pipeline is greater than prior estimates. Eventual global warming due to today’s GHG forcing alone — after slow feedbacks operate — is about 10°C.
1) At over 500ppm,equivalent concentration at present, the planet will blast through 1.5 C rise in just a few years. (4C for (2 x CO2) for fast-feedback implies that all other forcing gases should be considered)
2) Since concentrations are rising, with emissions at historically high rates, radiative forcing and attendant Earth Energy Imbalance are rising.
3) Slow feedbacks may not be very slow, since “western man” continues to force the climate exceptionally. In addition, paleoclimatology indicates a planet primed for instability when forcing is so substantial..
4) At 4.1 W/m2 radiative forcing and EEI rising just this century (two decades) from about 0.5 W/m2 to about 1.2 W/m2 we seem to have a large way to go for equilibrium. Which will be catastrophic.
5) Western Man seems to have made a mission-critical error by defining uranium and fossil carbon as “Forms of Energy” (they are forms of matter).
@Solar Jim says: –
“2) Since concentrations are rising, with emissions at historically high rates, radiative forcing and attendant Earth Energy Imbalance are rising.
4) At 4.1 W/m2 radiative forcing and EEI rising just this century (two decades) from about 0.5 W/m2 to about 1.2 W/m2 we seem to have a large way to go for equilibrium. Which will be catastrophic.”
ms: — From ~ 0.4 to 1.16W/m² in 20 years. The net increase in EEI by 0.76W/m² is caused by a decreasing albedo (shortwave out @ TOA) of 1.4W/m² while longwave out @ TOA increased by 0.56W/m².
These are NOT necessarily the symptoms that indicate an increase in CO2 concentration. (due to more climate gas, longwave out @ TOA should actually decrease and NOT increase)
I am sure that the loss of clouds and sea ice were the main causes of the increase in EEI.
In addition to the rise in temperatures caused by CO2, there is a 2nd important human-caused forcing. It is also the loss of evaporative landscapes that increasingly prevents cloud formation and is partly responsible for high temperatures, droughts and heavy rain at the land surface.
The value for the EEI has also fluctuated greatly over the years. Interestingly, it always tends towards zero (neither warming nor cooling) when the global average humidity in the atmosphere is at its highest.
https://pub.mdpi-res.com/atmosphere/atmosphere-12-01297/article_deploy/html/images/atmosphere-12-01297-g004.png?1634310863
https://climate.metoffice.cloud/dashfigs/humidity_RH.png
The misjudgment of the IPCC and many other climate researchers of H2O is one of the biggest mistakes that mankind has ever committed.
Thanks, Kent, you saved my needing to ask.
Recent commentary says that the paper shows that the long term warming from the current GHG forcing is 10C. I’m not sure what long term is (centuries?) but does this have implications for the supposed budgets of 1.5C and 2C (presumably both are now zero) and for the recent understanding that stopping all emissions today would lead to near zero future warming?
qMike Roberts says: – ” stopping all emissions today would lead to near zero future warming? ”
ms: — If you look at the CERES data for the last 2 decades (2000-2020),
You can browse a selection of figures here:
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/atmos12101297
then it should actually be clear that with the increasing and accelerating
earth energy imbalance (EEI) your dreams of zero emissions and stopped temperature rise are superfluous, also because they do not correspond to reality.
From ~ 0.4 to 1.16W/m² in 20 years. The increase in EEI by 0.76W/m² is caused by a decreasing albedo (shortwave out @ TOA) of 1.4W/m² while longwave out @ TOA increased by 0.56W/m².
These are not necessarily the symptoms that indicate an increase in CO2 concentration. (due to more climate gas, longwave out @ TOA should actually decrease and not increase)
I am sure that the loss of clouds and sea ice were the main causes of the increase in EEI.
In addition to the rise in temperatures caused by CO2, there is a 2nd important human-caused forcing. It is also the loss of evaporative landscapes that increasingly prevents cloud formation and is partly responsible for high temperatures, droughts and heavy rain at the land surface.
The value for the EEI has also fluctuated greatly over the years. Interestingly, it always tends towards zero (neither warming nor cooling) when the global average humidity in the atmosphere
is at its highest. — https://climateprotectionhardware.wordpress.com/
macius shurly, I have no dreams of zero emissions, I was simply referring to research that showed warming would effectively end if emissions went to zero. I’m absolutely certain that won’t happen but the research was an interesting modification of the perceived wisdom that even stopping all emissions would still be followed by further warming for quite some time.
@ Mike Roberts says: – ” warming would effectively end if emissions went to zero ”
ms: — It is not only CO2 or CH4 that decides whether the earth warms up or cools down, but the EEI already described above. The value for the EEI was zero for the last time in 2010, after it had been 1.2W/m² in 2008, it fell to zero within 2 years and then rose again to 1.4W/m² by 2012.
You can see the reason for this in this graphic: https://climate.metoffice.cloud/humidity.html
Mike Roberts,
Other than the abstract, I’ve not yet read Hansen et al (2022) ‘Global warming in the pipeline’ but it does indeed say in the abstract “Eventual global warming due to today’s GHG forcing alone — after slow feedbacks operate — is about 10°C.”
But I have read Meinshausen et al (2020) ‘The shared socio-economic pathway (SSP) greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions to 2500’ which in its Table 5 shows the GHG concentrations under various scenarios out to AD2500.
Hopefully the ‘pathway’ we humans will be following will be something close to SSP1-1.9. And under such a ‘pathway’, Meinshausen et al (2020) shows the future concentrations of the big GHG players as follows: ☻ N2O shows little change and it is an increase from today’s 335ppb to 357ppb in AD2500, ☻ CH4 shows a big reduction from today’s 1,900ppb, dropping through natural drawdown under a period of greatly reduced emissions to 870ppb in AD2500, and ☻ CO2 dropping from today.s 418ppm down to 335ppm in AD2500, this both due to natural drawdown and also net negative emissions achieved through the period 2050-2180. These net negative emissions would see every molecule of our future CO2 emissions along with all those since 2007 captured from the atmosphere and stored away presumably in saline aquifers.
So Meinshausen et al (2020) is showing we do not need to suffer a world with “eventual global warming due to today’s GHG forcing.” although it is showing we need to act and act quickly and strongly. Some of the GHG concentrations shown for ‘pathways’ which do not require quick strong mitigation actions will not be good for our futures.
That’s some hope, MA Rodger. The pathway will change as effects of climate change begin to affect close to a majority of people but I doubt SSP1-19 is what we’ll start on. What happens in 2500 may well be the result of far fewer humans on the planet at that point and our current civilisation something for future archaeologists to discover.
Mike Roberts,
I think it is more correct to say the humanity will not stick to the SSP1-1.9 pathway, rather than “pathway will change”. And indeed, that can be seen already. The concept of “net zero” by 2050 seems to be acknowledged and the net negative beyond goes undiscussed. But most important is the need to restrict cumulative CO2 emissions by the time “net zero” is achieved and that goes with the halving of net emissions by 2030.
And the simplest scientific message has been for many years that CO2 emissions must peak by 2020. (Of course, there is the more exacting atmospheric concentrations and on that score we are running below the SSP1-1.9 projections, these available on a spreadsheet linked by Meinshausen et al showing 2021 – SSP1-1.9 global 417.0ppm while NOAA global is 214.7ppm, but that is likely more to do with ENSO and Covid than it is to do with AGW mitigation.)
Fun in the recent Northern California snow:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R-u__Cd3WM
It even snowed in the Bay Area:
https://abc7news.com/bay-area-snow-california-storm-winter-driving/12562281/
Are they really going to start taxing sunlight?
https://thebalkan.press/2022/12/09/the-controversial-tax-on-sunlight-might-affect-much-of-romania-starting-in-2026/
Are we not doing enough to reduce emissions? How about this – is this good?
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/climate-change-lockdowns-yup-they-are-actually-going-there
Mr Kia.
I figured it would be worth it to find out how someone would misrepresent a congestion-management scheme, so I spent two minutes with your “climate change lockdowns” doggie whistle link.
First, this Oxford Mail’s article is kind of harsh (and falsely claims “road blocks”), but seems to conflate the congestion filter plan with a separate goal there to have each neighborhood have business services like pharmacies within that place’s “15-minute” radius. So a goal to have more local businesses instead of fewer that require transportation to get to. Walkable living – the horror!
Link here:
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/23073992.traffic-filters-will-divide-city-15-minute-neighbourhoods/
Note that there’s an embedded link in the above article to a second that has the link tag “READ MORE: Council staff abused after conspiracists circulate fake news about traffic filters”
There are no fixed barriers, people can travel where they wish, though certain paths with a private car might result in congestion fines. While I have no idea if it will work, I do believe the statement from the Oxford City Council is a bit more (actually, a lot more) believable than your link.
“Oxford City Council statement on Oxfordshire County Council’s approval of six trial traffic filters.
Councillor Louise Upton, Cabinet Member for Health and Transport, Oxford City Council, said:
“The City Council has long supported the need for measures to tackle congestion such as the proposed trial traffic filters that are designed to reduce traffic levels and congestion, to improve bus services across the city and make cycling and walking safer and more pleasant.
“There is an absolute need to reduce traffic in our city. We know that Oxford’s medieval roads cannot handle the current traffic levels, and there is no space to build new roads. The current congestion is so bad that it is making buses unviable, we cannot allow more bus routes to be cut. 30% of Oxford households don’t own a car, and depend on buses. We need to change the way we travel, rethink our own journeys, and support those who do need to travel by public transport, car and bike.”
That from here:
https://www.oxford.gov.uk/news/article/2324/statement_on_the_approval_of_six_trial_traffic_filters_in_oxford
But again, “lockdowns” has become another dog whistle phrase in the conspiracy-minded types. And naturally, it’s led the conspiracy-minded to act out, making it necessary for statements like the following
“Joint statement from Oxfordshire County Council and Oxford City Council on Oxford’s traffic filters
Published: Wednesday, 7th December 2022
“Staff and councillors at both councils have been subjected to abuse due to inaccurate information, being circulated online, about traffic filters.
We take the wellbeing of our colleagues seriously and are taking appropriate steps to provide staff and councillors with support. We are working with Thames Valley Police to report the most extreme abuse. ”
That’s from this link, which also includes a Q&A to correct the distortions created by people who spread conspiracies.
https://www.oxford.gov.uk/news/article/2332/joint_statement_from_oxfordshire_county_council_and_oxford_city_council_on_oxford_s_traffic_filters
ZeroHedge is hardly a reliable source. The scheme won’t work like that.
All sources of “news” must be scrutinized and looked on with skepticism, same with pronouncements from scientists, doctors, or anyone else. Just one example of another “news” source many would incorrectly consider reliable:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zerWCVpXTr8
That program is not a news source.
Stop posting Junk Science b.s. Your “Ignorance is Bliss” routine is stupid trolling and highlights your disdain for intelligent discussion here. I have no idea why the moderators of this site continue to allow your behavior on this forum because you’re just an annoying jerk.
Realclimate-people, could you please review #
“Global warming in the pipeline”, by James Hansen et al., lying on arxiv.org: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2212/2212.04474.pdf ?
Thx for considering.
Seconded. Came to see if it made the site yet.
One man’s opinion on why you should not despair over climate change in a 4 minute video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDt6DY5zWFQ
Over the years I have learnt to dismiss anything that uses the term “leftist”. Anthropogenic climate change and the large scale consequences has been researched and presented through science, whereas using terms like “leftist” is attempting to turn it political and trying to oppose it by appealing to the tribal mentality in people.
I thought Ben did a good job of stating his opinion about why we should not despair over climate change. As he stated, he agrees with the IPCC reports, but says CC is a problem, not an emergency. The lady asking the question did a good job as well – I suspect she would have liked to challenge him but he was on such a roll that it was hard to get a word in edgewise. :)
“Leftist” is merely the term used to describe the emotional, irrational, non-scientific (think “men can get pregnant, kids can change gender”) globalist/collectivist side of the political spectrum here in the USA. I think in Europe, they have different meanings for conservative and liberal (or leftist), etc, so I think it is different there.
The GISTEMP anomaly for November is +0.73ºC the lowest monthly anomaly of the year-to-date, previous months sitting in the range +0.83ºC to+1.05ºC. Nov 2022 sits as the =12th warmest November on the GISTEMP record, and is the lowest Nov anomaly since 2014. The GISTEMP Nov anomalies run 2020 (+1.11ºC), 2015, 2019, 2021, 2016, 2017, 2013, 2018, 2009, 2012 (+0.78ºC), with 2005, 2006, 2022, 2001 & 2004 pretty-much equal, ahead of Nov 2008 & then 2014 (+0.66ºC) ranked 18th warmest Nov.
Nov 2022 is the =129th highest all-monthly anomaly in GISTEMP.
2022 remains ranked in 5th position for the year-to-date although the likelihood of snatching 4th place for the full year would require a pretty hot December (equaling Dec 2019, the 2nd hottest Dec on record) and with the Dec 2022 anomaly likely also to be low like Nov, the likelihood is that the full 2022 anomaly will drop below 2015’s, thus becoming the 6th warmest year on record (this requiring the Dec 2022 anomaly to be below +83ºC).
…….. Jan-Nov Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2020 .. +1.04ºC … … … +1.02ºC … … … 1st
2016 .. +1.03ºC … … … +1.01ºC … … … 2nd
2019 .. +0.96ºC … … … +0.98ºC … … … 3rd
2017 .. +0.92ºC … … … +0.92ºC … … … 4th
2022 .. +0.90ºC
2015 .. +0.87ºC … … … +0.90ºC … … … 5th
2021 .. +0.84ºC … … … +0.84ºC … … … 7th
2018 .. +0.84ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 6th
2010 .. +0.75ºC … … … +0.72ºC … … … 9th
2014 .. +0.74ºC … … … +0.74ºC … … … 8th
2007 .. +0.68ºC … … … +0.66ºC … … … 12th
2005 .. +0.67ºC … … … +0.67ºC … … … 10th
2013 .. +0.67ºC … … … +0.67ºC … … … 11th
MA Rodger says on 18 DEC 2022 AT 8:52 AM that; “The GISTEMP anomaly for November is +0.73ºC the lowest monthly anomaly of the year-to-date, previous months sitting in the range +0.83ºC to+1.05ºC. Nov 2022 sits as the =12th warmest November on the GISTEMP record, and is the lowest Nov anomaly since 2014. The GISTEMP Nov anomalies run 2020 (+1.11ºC), 2015, 2019, 2021, 2016, 2017, 2013, 2018, 2009, 2012 (+0.78ºC), with 2005, 2006, 2022, 2001 & 2004 pretty-much equal, ahead of Nov 2008 & then 2014 (+0.66ºC) ranked 18th warmest Nov”.
I’m sure that the truth makes no impression on MA Rodger due to him only believing what he wants to believe about his favorite hoax that CO₂ drives the Earth’s temperature.
U.S. BREAKS HUNDREDS OF LOW TEMPERATURE RECORDS, SNOW BENCHMARKS ALSO TOPPLED; CENTRAL EUROPE LOGS LOWEST NOVEMBER TEMPS IN DECADES; SNOW WARNINGS ISSUED IN SWEDEN; + COLD INDIA
NOVEMBER 21, 2022 CAP ALLON11 COMMENTS
Hundreds rescued from snow, says New York governor, as a snowfall event eclipsing the Blizzard of 1977 batters the region. https://electroverse.co/?s=November
John Swallow,
Are you intentionally acting like a moronic troll?
Or do you live in such a deluded fantasy world that you think by linking to swivel-eyed nonsense at Electroverse (which has elsewhere featured among the denial-mongers and a place you have linked-to before in an RC comment) that you are contributing to scientific discussion here?
Gosh, cold.
Also, warm:
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/news/article/potentially-damaging-winds-smack-ontario-amid-historic-warmth#:~:text=Toronto%20appears%20to%20have%20recorded,1950%20and%20tied%20in%201961.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/record-warmth-making-november-remember-temperatures-fuel-severe-storms-rcna55648
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-63585912
https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/delhi-records-warmest-november-in-6-years-3566790
https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/12/06/last-month-was-nzs-warmest-november-on-record-niwa/
I could go on.
Thank you for the weather report, but I had already noticed that it is December.
Despair:
I don’t think it is fair to respond in an antagonistic way to people who spout despair about the climate crisis because in some ways they do have a point. On a purely individual scale anything one does is a drop in the ocean unless you have a lot of power and/or influence (which most people don’t). To truly address the climate crisis needs the majority of the global population pulling in the right direction, and whilst I can make positive changes to my life, I cannot force anyone else to do the same.
I make efforts to reduce my own carbon footprint and consumption, not because it makes a difference in the grand scheme of things, but because I believe it is the right thing to do and doing so means I can advocate likewise without being vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy. My sphere of influence, for what it is, does not extend beyond my loved ones and there is no way I have the personality and knowledge/skill to be able to influence a population on a regional, county or national scale, only a tiny percentage of humanity has that ability which is why Albert Einsteins, Bill Gates’ and Nelson Mandellas are extremely rare.
A simple example of individual actions being insufficient is my own case of going car free several years ago and using a bicycle as a primary mode of transport, which was tough given my workplace was a 19 mile round trip with hills, and going car free means increased vulnerability and reduced mobility. My few years being car free made not an iota of difference to the air quality in my district or the levels of motor traffic which have continued to increase year on year. My car free period ended shortly after nearly being killed by a careless driver, an experience which does not help in the advocacy of more sustainable and more energy efficient human powered transport.
At a recent duplicate bridge session, the subject of holidays came up and my bridge partner, having travelled to Iceland earlier this year and Australia last month, is now off to Marrakech, whilst someone else is planning to go to New Zealand (I live in the UK). Given the carbon footprint of these wealthy pensioners jetting off to far flung destinations several times a year, is it really logical for me to claim I am achieving anything by setting my thermostat to 15C and wearing an extra layer or two indoors in order to reduce the carbon footprint of my gas consumption for central heating (the UK has just come out of a longer than normal cold spell this month)?
I apologise for my occasional momentary flare-ups of despair but this is why.
Ultimately the whole neo-liberal capitalism systems need to be overhauled, maybe linking wealth to eco-footprint so maximising eco-footprint leads to increased wealth and happiness, but how do we get from here to there? I don’t have the power to do it myself.
I have tried voting in local/national elections for green political parties but with the first-past-the-post system in the UK that actually makes it more likely one of the primary big parties will (re)gain power (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9rGX91rq5I), and many citizens know this so they undergo tactical voting to lessen the chance of the party they most dislike gaining power, rather than voting for the party that aligns closest with their world view. I cannot see how the UK’s Green party can ever be more than a blip on the political spectrum, and without an overhall of the neo-liberal capitalist system, I cannot see how whichever of the big political parties in power is going to do anything other than prioritise economic growth, which at least partly contributes to environmental destruction globally.
At the risk of taking a beating on here these are my thoughts laid out. If they can be logically countered I would be glad to hear any counterarguments.
I hear you Adam, you’ve summed it up in a nutshell using all those anecdotes.
The future? More of the same.
Quote: “Ultimately the whole neo-liberal capitalism systems need to be overhauled, maybe linking wealth to eco-footprint so maximising eco-footprint leads to increased wealth and happiness, but how do we get from here to there?”
This comment shows there is some truth to the old saying about climate change: Where the weather is always your fault and the only solution is more communism.
On voting “the party that aligns closest to your world view”, it works exactly the same here in the USA where 99% of the time either a D or an R wins. If you vote for a conservative 3rd party, you make it more likely the liberal candidate will win; and if you vote for the liberal third party you make it more likely the conservative will win. Some have come up with schemes like ranked choice voting which means that many times the winner has nothing at all to do with the will of the voters:
https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/ranked-choice-voting-bad-choice
It is absolutely rich and laughable that you actually reference the immensely anti-science Heritage Foundation on a science web site. Read the room, sport. lol
Yeah, like the status quo consistently has a whole lot to do with the will of the voters, either. IMO, Heritage is arguing against something they don’t think will be in their interest, not conducting an impartial investigation–or even a good-faith argument, for that matter.
Congratulations on having not learned one damn thing for the entire time you spent here. If you don’t already know about the Heritage Foundation there’s no hope for you.
I have much the same thoughts. I also try to reduce my footprint, knowing it will have no impact globally, because I think it’s the right thing to do. That it reduces the force of hypocrisy come-backs is a bonus. I know I could do more but it’s hard in our current economic and social system, plus implicit peer pressure makes it even more difficult. I’ve even given up voting Green, as a matter of course, because our green party also advocates economic growth (as do the so-called Sustainable Development Goals that often seem to justify unsustainable policies). The push for economic growth negates any actions governments might take (though there haven’t been significant actions on this for 30 years).
MR: there haven’t been significant actions on this for 30 years
BPL: The Inflation Reduction Act.
I can’t help but wonder if Mike Roberts will be happy when he is able to avail himself to the natural gas from Norway that will keep him from freezing to death for many years into the future?
How They Built The World’s Longest Underwater Pipeline
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-LbbNP58nk&t=7s
“How They Built The World’s Longest Underwater Pipeline”
It WILL burst at some point because they always do. Just like Keystone did, and the damage it WILL do is absolutely not worth it. Period.
I wonder how long Chuck Hughes has been using the oil that has been delivered by the Trans Alaska Pipeline?
Chuck Hughes needs to get up to speed on this issue of pipelines and realize the trans-Alaska pipeline
crosses three mountain ranges and more than 30 major rivers and streams. “In 1978, sabotage at Steele Creek caused about 670,000 gallons – 16,000 barrels – to leak.”
“In 2001, a Livengood man shot the pipeline with a high-caliber rifle, causing 258,000 gallons – 6,143 barrels – to spew from the line before Alyeska could secure a clamp over the hole.”
This is a splendid record for close to 40 years of operation
The Green Party couldn’t get anyone elected to a school board. Voting 3rd party takes away votes from potential Democratic candidates who could and would actually implement environmentally friendly policies. Right now we have an out of control GOP hellbent on subverting Democracy and overthrowing the government. If we lose our Democracy you can forget about Climate Change because at that point we’re all screwed. We’re still in the middle of an ongoing coup and Trump is poised to try again unless he gets stopped by the DoJ. Even then the next Republican president would grant Trump a pardon so strap yourself in and VOTE BLUE. Anything else is political suicide.
Adam, I tried to address your earlier comment above but it was mixed in with responding to others. The specific question was, what is it despair about?
I have been expressing my projection for the future for some time here. It is that it is unrealistic to expect sufficient change to occur in the next 30 years to prevent considerable disruption and suffering. I expect serious reductions in FF use to occur, with luck, over the next 150 years. That’s why I consistently emphasize making serious efforts towards speeding up the demographic transition along with the energy transition. I accept that the next 2-3 generations will have a rough time, but I think it is possible for their progeny to move towards a sustainable, science/technology enhanced culture.
The point is, you are exactly correct… neither you nor any of us here is going to change the world. The best we can do is to understand the world, and help others understand it. So, again, what is there to despair about? If we help one young person see the options for the future more clearly, that’s success. If we personally produce less CO2 than we might have, that’s success. I don’t despair that I am not an all-powerful individual; in fact, the most difficult obstacles to achieving our goals are the people who want to be.
“what is there to despair about?”
We don’t have 150 years to reduce our FF usage, we have a few decades if we are lucky. We haven’t even managed to stop increasing our emissions over the last 50 years despite frequent warnings about climate change and its potential consequences over that period, never mind stabilise and start reducing them, so why should I believe anything significant will happen over the next 50 years? That is what there is to despair about, the absence of a vision to get from where we are now to where we need to be in order to live sustainably in less than a few decades when we haven’t yet stopped going in the wrong direction, and if you hear many of the general public talk, you’ll realise it means little to them going by their lifestyle choices.
Show me a roadmap and methodology of transitioning from the current unsustainable and damaging neo-liberal capitalism to a sustainable and egalitarian way of living on a global scale that can be done within half a century and my feelings of despair will dissipate.
Adam, I despair of being able to fly by flapping my arms. And I assume I am not alone in that.
The point is, we are supposed to be the objective-science-people, but, as I have pointed out many times, there is much denial of reality here in many areas, including human behavioral characteristics, and economics, and material technological progress.
So I say “you can’t do it in 50 years”, and you say “but that’s what I want!”. Meh.
Supposedly, we here are all up on the concept of chaotic systems, and the large consequences of small changes. So, folks, how many votes did Al Gore “lose” by? What small decisions of various actors resulted in that outcome? How different might things be now, eh?
For me, it is pointless to indulge in ideal fantasies… call it Kumbaya or Nirvana Fallacy or whatever. Stuff happens, and the best you can do is “nudge” things to go in the direction you want, and hope that the system responds the way you prefer.
There’s no roadmap, dude.
@Zebra says: – ” … what is it despair about ?… expressing my projection for the future …to move towards a sustainable, science/technology enhanced culture… I accept that the next 2-3 generations will have a rough time… neither you nor any of us here is going to change the world… If we help one young person see the options for the future more clearly, that’s success… I am not an all-powerful individual.
ms: — did you know that a person with < 100m² of well-reflecting paintwork in the right region and in the right place can compensate for his CO2 footprint of 10t/y ?
New color systems and films reflect short and long-wave light so well that they even have cooling properties at night. Their nano-surfaces modulate the outgoing IR wavelengths onto the range of the atmospheric window.
It is not about getting global warming under control with only one measure, but ultimately about putting the 1001 different conceivable approaches into operation and using all possibilities. Especially if they do not cause any additional costs and can be implemented quickly.
Neither a 10-year vegan diet, zero emissions by 2050 nor 800,000 km² improved albedo, etc. are, according to our realistic assessment, a stand-alone option. Nevertheless, there are millions of people who have long since implemented these options in their lives and culture in order to live (or survive) better.
If you are not an all-powered individual, you should leave false prophecy alone and give no advice to other people and generations about what to expect – because you apparently lack the overview of time, space and state of mind.
As an artist, you are (I am) an all-powered individual until someone comes along who, using the proven knowledge and imagination, suggests and finds an easier way.
This is especially true when it comes to climate – when someone tells you how easy it actually is to lower sea levels, earth temperatures and CO2 concentrations – without an uncertain waiting period of 300 years to achieve it – if ever.
As a consolation – you're not the only untalented artist here who lacks imagination.
Adam, you are right to despair by any objective criteria. None of the vital signs of the planet are trending on any scenario that justifies a modicum of optimism.
I envy you for being able to influence your family, I am failing at it and that should make me despair. But I do not, I just persevere in asking, begging, shaming, criticizing, showing by example, communicating science and expertise, doing everything I can to bring, my family and everybody I can reach, to a biophilic behavior. Apropos of shaming, next time you play bridge mention flygskam and have your biophobic partners check it out. As I said before, I disagree that individuals, irrespective of their level of public influence, have no power to make change, including the radical change needed to save the biosphere. Please do not take it as a critique, but as a form of encouragement, solidarity and support.
In that spirit, let’s continue to exchange ideas and experiences that solve our multiple, self-inflicted crises.
Here are some more anti-despair suggestions:
1. Watch/help/learn from the children who are taking legal action against their government:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/
2. Same legal action but against any entity that is committing ecocide, “Ecocide” means unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.
https://www.stopecocide.earth/
3. What economic and value system should capitalism be replaced with, as it definitely has to be, as all attempts to reform it have failed? There are a lot of young thinkers and practitioners in this field, which gives me confidence that we will find the sustainable and fair substitute or substitutes before the point of no return.
https://degrowth.org/
https://timotheeparrique.com/sufficiency-means-degrowth/
SL-A: What economic and value system should capitalism be replaced with, as it definitely has to be, as all attempts to reform it have failed?
BPL: They haven’t all failed. Reformed capitalism works very well in Scandinavia and many other countries. It can work here, too, if given a chance. Meanwhile, “experimental” new economic systems have historically turned into human rights disasters.
Experimental economic systems have also often had shortages of even the basic goods needed to survive.
I Googled site:realclimate.org for climatehealers and pulled up no results.
You guys need to read their calculations for animal agriculture over the holidays.
Ten years of a plant based diet for humanity could save Earth.
Their calculations are succinct, comprehensive, and robust:
https://climatehealers.org/the-science/animal-agriculture-position-paper/
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h0moUGx85F-Wmp3Gh0ksxzzBH70UFL8mdtsSgvpqZ8w
DM: “Ten years of a plant based diet for humanity could save Earth.”
BPL: No, it could not. Not unless we replaced burning fossil fuels with other power sources and stopped cutting down forests in excess.
@David Marks
THANKS – Contributions from the perspective of ecologists are always refreshing and revealing when climate science is all too neurotic, based solely on CO2 emissions, on the causes, effects and consequences of global warming.
You are right to also criticize the IPCC when it comes to precisely and holistically researching and quantitatively describing the anthropogenic influence on the earth’s climate and communicating these findings to the rest of the world just as precisely and holistically.
The fact that long before 1750 (~ > 8000 years) man has been extensively clearing by fire and has released carbon stores through constant, expansive land use changes (also for meat production) and at the same time reduced CO2 sequestration is just as undisputed as the annual ~36Gt CO2 -Greenhouse effect by burning FF. The proportional quantification in W/m² cannot succeed as long as ALL man-made climate drivers (whether warming or cooling) are on the laboratory bench.
CO2 & CH4 are described in your posted links as the two strongest man-made greenhouse gases – which I hereby dispute. Their calculations are not robust because they are not complete. The strongest and most important climate gas H2O is missing. It is gross ignorance to assume that humans did NOT affect water cycles over land before 1750 or after 1750.
Not only slash-and-burn agriculture and fodder, but also by channeling rivers, destroying and sealing soils, exploiting aquifers, etc., humanity has caused a loss of evaporative landscapes, the extent of which is difficult to measure or estimate.
However, there is one reliable factor – the relative humidity of the atmosphere over land. Comparative studies between e.g. (rain) forests, agricultural land and cities also provide reliable, quantitative results that can be extrapolated over the global land area.
Over land areas, the generally increasing evaporation caused by higher temperatures will decrease due to the human activities mentioned above.
I calculated a ~10% lack of absolute water content and evaporation over land accumulated by land use change and closed stomata of vegetation of ~ 6800 km³/y within the last 50-75 years alone.
This can explain a warming effect of +3.5W/m² over the land surface – but also the quickly spreading global desertification.
The graph below shows the cooling effect (black numbers) on today land climate with additional irrigation of ~1350 km³ (20% = 0.7W/m²)
https://climateprotectionhardware.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/1geb9l.jpg?w=775&zoom=2
However, 1350 km³/y of water correspond to ~4.5 – 9 Gt CO2 during transpiration in the photosynthesis of plants when binding carbon (~ 1m³/1-2Kg carbon or 3.6-7.2Kg CO2).
! That’s up to 25% of the annual human CO2-emissions. !
ms: climate science is all too neurotic, based solely on CO2 emissions,
BPL: Except that it isn’t, which you’d know if you’d ever cracked a climate science textbook in your ignorant life.
@bpl
– Arrogant stupidity hasn’t gotten anyone any further…read a book yourself…preferably about large and small water cycles, clouds, evaporation and land use change. The role of H2O as a greenhouse gas and alleged feedback from CO2 is just a one-sided, reduced perspective.
Interesting plain language view of the state of the science relating to the current very cold weather in the USA:
“Scientists say Arctic warming could be to blame for blasts of extreme cold”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/12/23/climate-change-impact-cold-weather/
[Response: #Notallscientists – gavin]
The temperatures in Germany tomorrow will be unreal, lol:
https://youtu.be/diYPx_SjWGQ?t=296
Up to +21° Celsius, this is bizarr in the midst of winter, spooky, unreal yet very real.
With the end of the year upon us, the 2022 Arctic sea ice can be seen as not particularly melty when compared to recent years but things are a bit more interesting down in the Antarctic.
♥ The headline Arctic September SIE average (NSIDC data) show 2022 as =11th with SIE at 4.87M sq km and slightly meltier than 2021 but trailing the top-ten 2012 (3,57M sq km), 2020, 2007, 2019. 2016, 2011, 2015, 2008, 2018 & 2017.
♥ The slightly wobblier minimum daily numbers (this & all the reast below JAXA data) show pretty-much the same with 2022 again 11th meltiest.
♥ Less wobbly than both these measures is the average annual SIE and 2022 stubbornly sits again in 11th spot, but now below 9th spot 2021 with 2022 the iciest year since 2014. The top ten years rank 2020, 2016. 2019. 2018, 2017, 2012, 2011, 2007, 2021 & 2015.
♥ And 2022 didn’t manage to claim one single day-of-the-year with the lowest SIE for that day, the nine years that do tabulated thus, (with 2014 the most recent year that also doesn’t feature):-
2016 … 119
2012 ….. 65
2018 ….. 59
2020 ….. 56
2019 ….. 28
2017 ….. 24
2015 ……. 8
2010 ……. 4
2021 ……. 3
So up in the Arctic, 2022 was not particularly melty when compared to recent years.
.
But Antartica holds a bit more interest.
♥ 2022 managed to lowest annual minimum on record, not by much, the top meltiest 5 years running:- 2022 (2,13M sq km), 2017 (2.15), 2018 (2.21), 1997 (2.25) & 2011 (2.32).
♥ 2022 holds the second lowest average annual Antarctic SIE, behind 2017 and ahead of 2019, 2002, 2018 & 2016. After the not-so-melty 2020 & 2021, the Antarctic SIE is again dipping well below the long-term average.
♥ And in terms of the number of meltiest days for that day-of-the-year, 2022 again comes in 2nd behind 2017. 2022 ends the year setting such meltiest-days and these with the second highest anomaly on record, the only higher being through Nov/Dec 2016. The meltiest days table runs:-
2017 … 107
2022 ….. 78
2019 ….. 66
2016 ….. 65
1986 ….. 20
2018 ….. 11
2002 ….. 11
2001 ……. 7
So the Antarctic ice may be pointing to an interesting 2023.
Some graphs of Arctic & Antarctic SIE anomalies (so stripped of the annual cycle) are posted here – Graphs 1 & 3a & 3b)
Regarding James Hansens study mentioned previously on this page, where he found climate sensitivity was high:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04474
Just came across some commentary that mentioned Hansens study isn’t yet peer reviewed and Michael Mann has challenged the study as below:
“Michael Mann has tweeted against the conclusions in this paper (see these whole threads):”
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1603437412272726017
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1603446912073764865
And Mann referenced this study:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40269214_Earth_system_sensitivity_inferred_from_Pliocene_modelling_and_data
I’m just an interested lay person. When you look at warming projections in the IPCC reports out to the year 2300 based on assumptions of medium sensitivity and others on high sensitivity warming is significantly over 5 degrees C for both. So not good either way.
Guaranteed: Mann is wrong. At most, there may be some slight adjustment(s) to the paper by publication. Mann’s response is likely confirmation bias given his hyper-rosey views on the future. Given what Mann advocates WRT acting on climate, his judgment may not be what it once was – and his specialty is historical data, is it not?
I’d take Hansen over Mann any day of the week: A greater body of work, excellent history of accuracy.
Further, Mann relies on outdated studies – 13 years! – like you, to disprove *more recent* scholarship? This is silly behavior from both of you.
Killian
“Further, Mann relies on outdated studies – 13 years! – like you, to disprove *more recent* scholarship? ”
The study Mann quoted is not necessarily out of date. Just because research is old does not mean its necessarily out of date in the sense of being poor quality or superseded. Last time I checked Einsteins, Newtons ‘ Arrhenius’s, and Darwins basic theories are still valid. Killian has not been able to falsify the study I quoted to show that its outdated.
And just because research is new doesnt mean its right. We have just seen examples of new research discussed on this website, with separate research papers by Connolloy, Scarfetta and Kininmonth that have been heavily criticised. We only know if a new paper like Hansens is valid by the reaction of other scientists, like Mann. And Mann does make some good points on Hansens paper..
One of the reasons I started to believe we had a serious climate problem was Hansens testimony but hes unlikely to be right about absolutely everything. I think we have a serious climate problem and I lean towards doomerism about the future myself, but knowing this I pull back a little bit and like to maintain some semblance of objectivity.
K: Mann relies on outdated studies – 13 years! – like you, to disprove *more recent* scholarship? This is silly behavior from both of you.
BPL: Because, as everybody knows, scientific findings come with a “use by” date on them, like “THIS STUDY NOT VALID AFTER 12/23/02.”
Killian
“Mann’s response is likely confirmation bias given his hyper-rosey views on the future. ”
Mann doesnt have a hyper rosy view of the future. In his own words:
“The rule of thumb that I like to use is that if we continue to go down the road of what we might call business as usual, where you know, that we don’t successfully implement global agreements to dramatically reduce carbon emissions, and we blow past 1.5. And then we blow past two degrees Celsius. By the middle of this century, we’re looking at a planet where the sorts of events that we think of as almost unprecedented and extreme become commonplace. What we might think of today, as you know, an extreme summer heat wave, we will just call a summer day by the middle of this century, if we go down this road. And of course, we will see more inundation, we’ll see retreat from our coastlines and Florida along the east coast of the US, the low countries of Europe, low lying island nations coastlines around the world. If we don’t act, by the middle of this century, the impacts that we start to see, you know, reasonably resemble some of our sort of worst predictions. If you will, even some of the dystopian futures that have been presented by Hollywood. You know, that’s one possible future, but it doesn’t have to be our future….”
https://www.postcarbon.org/great-unraveling/great-unraveling-climate/
“Given what Mann advocates WRT acting on climate, his judgment may not be what it once was”
Manns judgement is just fine. My understanding is Michael Mann advocates the standard formula most authorities recommend: renewable energy, electrified transport, reduced agricultural emissions, a mix of negative emissions technologies and moderate reductions in consumption of energy. Its not perfect and we are struggling with it but a transition to renewable energy is underway. Other alternatives of simplification (simple living) and massive and rapid reductions in energy use, while theoretically of interest, just arent practical, and have gained almost zero traction in places like America. So Manns judgement seems just fine to me.
And James Hansen seems to support the same sort of largely technology based response to climate change, including nuclear power. So if Killian is arguing that such technological mitigations respones are wrong and means someone has bad judgement ,he would have to include James Hansen in the same category.
“I’d take Hansen over Mann any day of the week: A greater body of work, excellent history of accuracy.”
While Hansen has a generally good record, new research always has to stand on its merits. Not on someones past history. A paper by a complete new comer might be ground breaking.
“– and his (manns) specialty is historical data, is it not?”
Manns comments should stand on their merits. Thats how science is done. He has a science degree. Killian pontificates on numerous subjects he did not major in and demands to be taken seriously.
———————-
K: Guaranteed: Mann is wrong.
BPL: Guaranteed: Killian is wrong.
Linguistics, Genosse, and that one is able to read and to understand litteratures from worldwide.
in order to judge wheter they are right or wrong and to state ones judgements decisions on that.
That is quite an art.
To my opinion, one should not declare and sell oneself as english teacher for foreighners,
and as philologists and try and teach on systematics also, before that is absolved and understood.
the Mann with the Scytch… I repeat….
…… it is not a hockeystick you see, it is a classical agricultural re- cycling permaculture scytch!……..
Which is what is so scaring to many. Mann with the Scytsch,……. and Michael…..
Do I have to remind people of anything more?
Drunken Sailors cannot read and understand even that .
Fifteen Sailors on dead mans chest
Hey ho a bottle of Rhum
Satan got them all at last
Hey ho a bottle of Rhum…
Femten gaster på død manns kiste
Hei hå ei flaske med rom
Fanden tok dem alle til siste
Hei hå ei flaske med rom..
SANN!
UAH has posted the December anomaly* for its trend defying TLT record with an anomaly of +0.05ºC, this a bit of a drop on the +0.17ºC November anomaly** and the third chilliest of the monthly anomalies of 2022 which sit in the range +0.0ºC to +0.36ºC and average +0.17ºC.
December 2022 is the =13th warmest December on the UAH TLT record and the =154th highest of all monthly anomalies. [*Anomaly base = 1991-2020]
This puts the full year 2022 the UAH TLT into place as 7th warmest yer on record and above 2021 in 9th.
1st … … 2016 … … +0.39ºC
2nd … … 2020 … … +0.36ºC
3rd … … 1998 … … +0.35ºC
4th … … 2019 … … +0.30ºC
5th … … 2017 … … +0.26ºC
6th … … 2010 … … +0.19ºC
7th … … 2022 … … +0.17ºC
8th … … 2015 … … +0.14ºC
9th … … 2021 … … +0.13ºC
10th . … 2018 … … +0.09ºC
** While the TLT December anomaly may have dropped further below the November value, the initial indications from prelimenary reanalyses are that the SAT anomaly has partially bounced back up from the November drop (CDAS being reported with a +0.09ºC incease on the November anomaly).
And RSS has also posted its December TLT anomaly, at +0.42ºC, the lowest monthly anomaly of 2022, down on November’s +0.55ºC which was in turn down on October’s +0.73ºC. December 2022 was the 11th warmest December on the RSS TLT record and the =169th highest monthly anomaly for all months.
The annual average anomaly for 2022 of +0.60ºC thus drops below El Niño year 2010 and 2022 becomes 8th warmest year on the RSS TLT record.
1st … … 2020 ,,, ,,, +0.82ºC
2nd … … 2016 ,,, ,,, +0.82ºC
3rd … … 2019 ,,, ,,, +0.76ºC
4th … … 2017 ,,, ,,, +0.69ºC
5th … … 2021 ,,, ,,, +0.62ºC
6th … … 2015 ,,, ,,, +0.62ºC
7th … … 2010 ,,, ,,, +0.62ºC
8th … … 2022 ,,, ,,, +0.60ºC
9th … … 1998 ,,, ,,, +0.58ºC
10th .. … 2018 ,,, ,,, +0.55ºC
The Simple Story of Civilization
Story Timeline
In order to make comprehensible the vast tract of human time on this planet—itself 5,000 times shorter than the age of the universe—I will compare the 2.5–3 million year presence of humans (genus Homo) on Earth to a 75 year human lifespan: a span that we can grasp intuitively.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/12/the-simple-story/
Post-Script: Recent Influences
As my posting history reveals, I have been on a journey of expanded thinking about the nature of our predicament, moving beyond the initial phase of quantitative assessment of energy (during which I was still in the mindset of a tech-driven solution space), into deeper questions of what we’re all about and why we do the things we do. In the summer of 2022, after several recommendations over the years, I finally sat down to read Ishmael, a novel by Daniel Quinn. I was simultaneously impressed by how familiar the logic already was to me and by the degree to which it sharpened my ability to separate successful approaches from (ultimately) unsuccessful ones. I followed this up by the two other installments in the series (The Story of B and My Ishmael) and Quinn’s non-fiction framing work, Beyond Civilization. I have valued them all, and view them as helping to crystalize the path I was already walking down. I wouldn’t call myself a faithful adherent—accepting all arguments/premises—but a largely-resonant admirer of the worth of these important works. Check your library and give it a try!
More recently, I read An Inconvenient Apocalypse by Wes Jackson and Robert Jensen. This work also deeply resonated as a careful, deliberate, sober, thoughtful, and insightful approach to how we deal with the predicament of civilization. It’s not a go-to resource for making the case that we’re in deep trouble, although it plucks some of those chords. Mostly, it reflects on our reactions and choices in this moment, and offers valuable food for thought for those who already sense that this deal is going sideways. My small-town library had a copy, to my surprise and delight.
Other voices are starting to broadcast what I think is an accurate message. I already posted last year praising David Attenborough’s powerful conclusion. In the last few weeks, articles in The Intercept (amazing!) and New York Times made the case for biodiversity and ecosystem health above secondary concerns like climate change and the usual technological “solutions” proffered in response. Although, I have to complain that the NYT article contained one of those paragraphs almost always accompanying warnings about an animal’s endangerment: what potential benefits those animals have to humans, including the ever-present dangling of a possible key to some medical cure. It drives me crazy that we are so transactional as to require direct benefit to us to justify another animal’s existence.
To echo a provocative sentiment others have used to great effect: What good is a Honduran white bat, you ask? Well, what good are you? How have humans, or you personally, (on balance, or in net terms) helped the planet’s wild species or overall ecosystem health? Are you more valuable, or less valuable to sustaining biodiversity than the bat, the newt, or even the mosquito? Yeah, that hard truth stings me, too.
Hits: 4119
links in the original to explore
Are we going to get a January thread before the end of the month?
[Response: oops. – gavin]