New year, new open thread on climate topics. Note that summaries and updates to include 2023 data will be posted on the surface temperature graphics page and model-observations comparison page over the next couple of weeks as the data becomes available.
Re: Kalisz Dec 31
As usual for a denier – you cherry-pick the information you like and reject, or misrepresent, information you don’t. The latest three examples:
1. a) TK called on Makarieva to justify his claim that his hare-brained evaporation schemes won’t increase air humidity, because the scheme will massively shorten the residence time of water vapour in the atmosphere.
b) I replied that TK’s own source not only does not prove it, but actually explicitly CONTRADICTS IT, as put by …TK himself:
(TK): “Makarieva asserts that the average air humidity depends mostly on the average surface temperature, not on the residence time of water vapour in the atmosphere.”
c) TK replies that the Makarieva paper that he have brought up to support his scheme …does not apply to his scheme:
TK: “ Her works are just about influence of surface water availability on water vapour residence time in the atmosphere / water cycle intensity / latent heat flux”
PIotr: so is … your “work” -since you ALSO want to change “surface water availability” (for evaporation).
So what you are saying is that the residence time didn’t change for a goose, but would change for a gander?
2. TK: I think that it was you who explained to Zebra that isothermal increase of water cycle intensity due to increase of surface water availability is different from the case analyzed by Schmidt.
It’s an “all or nothing” fallacy. From the fact that warmer air has more room for extra humidity, it does not follow that without warming, doubling of evaporation would not increase humidity AT ALL, as you have claimed.
3. “ Originally, you highly appreciated the results of Barton Paul, because they by mistake supported your assertion that water vapour greenhouse effect must overturn the cooling effect of latent heat flux ”
Wrong and wrong. I never argued water vapour warming effect must overturn the cooling effect of latent heat flux – it is enough if it significantly weakens the latent heat warming – say, if it cancels half of your latent heating – you would have to DOUBLE the already insanely-high volumes of human-caused evaporation your crazy scheme requires, doubling along the way the costs and the resulting ecological damage.
Second, I have cautioned BPL many times against being sealioned by you into doing calculations of your scheme, because I predicted that you would use BPL like a drunkard uses a street lamp – not for enlightenment, but for support: e.g.:
Piotr to BPL, Dec. 2:
” Let’s see with which part of your answer [the RC deniers] will choose to run with:
a) that doubling evaporation from all continents is technically, financially and environmentally unfeasible, that even if it were feasible, it would only be a temporary stop gap, and it would address only one of the symptoms,
(global warming, but not ocean acidification) and [discourage from addressing] the cause – GHG emissions
OR
b) that they were right and you, and by extension all the climate scientists, are wrong.
A day later we have had our answer (spoiler warning: it was not “a)”)
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/12/unforced-variations-dec-2023/#comment-816695
In Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-817620
Dear Piotr,
Thank you very much for your feedback.
I admit that the explanations I provide may be sometimes complicated or unclear. Nevertheless, I strive to be consistent. I would like to say that the alleged inconsistencies objected by you often do not exist at all, and often arise rather from your own deliberate bending what others said / wrote.
This observation seems to apply to at least one of your “last three examples” quite well:
Example 1
Anybody who read Makarieva’s article can confirm that it deals with the role of latent heat flux in regulation of the Earth average surface temperature. The authors teach that increased global water cycle intensity equals to increased global latent heat flux, and that the increase thereof results in a decrease of the average surface temperature. Oppositely, a decrease in the global water cycle intensity (and a commensurate decrease in the global latent heat flux) will result in an increase of the average surface temperature.
Furthermore, If you try to ask Ms. Makarieva the same question (If the average absolute air humidity on Earth depends rather on the average surface temperature, or on the actual water cycle intensity) as me, you will most likely obtain the same answer as me (that it depends on the average surface temperature).
If you accept this approach of Makarieva et al as a fact, you do not need to wonder anymore why they do not discuss the alleged increase in water vapour greenhouse effect that would have resulted from the average absolute air humidity increase assumed by Barton Paul in his analysis. They do not do so because they think that this assumption is incorrect.
Examples 2 and 3
Please take my sentences merely as a hint that others might also claim inconsistencies in your arguments.
An attempt for a conclusion
I do not see the previous approach to discussion, based on focusing on particular formulations, as productive and would rather desist from further fighting in the style “You have said / I have never said”.
Instead, I would like to propose focusing rather on identifying the substance and dealing therewith.
To be more specific, if I return back to the Example 1, I just came to a different question we (if you would agree thereto) might ask Makarieva (and ourselves as well):
“Basically, you can influence water availability for evaporation on the land (and thus the latent heat flux above it) only.
Provided that an increased latent heat flux above land would force the entire Earth surface to cool, this cooling might perhaps cause a certain decrease in evaporation from the ocean.
Is it possible that the assumed latent heat flux change above land will in fact not change the global latent heat flux, because it will be exactly compensated by an opposite change of the latent heat flux above ocean?”
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz
“Furthermore, If you try to ask Ms. Makarieva the same question (If the average absolute air humidity on Earth depends rather on the average surface temperature, or on the actual water cycle intensity) as me, you will most likely obtain the same answer as me (that it depends on the average surface temperature).”
The following three scientific papers say irrigation causes an increase in humidity. And by implication the greenhouse effect:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342373203_Effect_of_irrigation_on_humid_heat_extremes
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212094718300938
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2022GL100427#:~:text=The%20greater%20the%20amount%20of,relative%20humidity%20and%20soil%20moisture.
However IMO the main objection to developing big irrigation schemes as a mechanism to cool the planet is it really isn’t practical as previously mentioned in detail. Small schemes at local scale might make sense if resources are available and crops also benefit.
in Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-817710
Dear Nigel,
Thank you for the references!
The third article indeed reports an increase in absolute humidity and water vapour greenhouse effect in response to irrigation. This result, however, was obtained using a specific computational model and the authors admit that applicability of these results in the real world may be uncertain.
The second article evaluates observations. There is indeed an absolute humidity increase near the surface (I assume 2 m from the surface which corresponds the arrangement of meteorological equipment?) in irrigated areas. There remains, however, uncertain if this increase applies to the entire atmospheric column (and thus indeed measurably increases the greenhouse effect), or remains restricted to a quite thin surface layer.
The first article seems to deal rather with the relative than with the absolute humidity, and thus may not be relevant for assessment of the influence of irrigation on greenhouse effect of the water vapour at all.
Also the references cited in the articles give different assessments of the irrigation influence on the absolute air humidity and water vapour greenhouse effect.
I therefore think that this is still an open topics. Similarly as for the role of latent heat flux and water cycle intensity in climate regulation, I would highly appreciate if the moderators of this website put more attention also to the relationship between water cycle intensity, absolute air humidity and water vapour greenhouse effect. Honestly, it is quite difficult for me to decipher what is the message of articles like Ghausi et al recently cited by JCM. It would be great if the moderators could sometimes comment on such articles that seem to bring progress to understanding how the Earth climate works.
Greetings
Tom
TK: “ Third article: results in the real world may be uncertain.” And you assume that the uncertainty is your friend (i.e. that it would work for you, and not against you), because …. ?
TK: Second article: uncertain if this increase applies to the entire atmospheric column (and thus indeed measurably increases the greenhouse effect), or remains restricted to a quite thin surface layer
AGAIN you use uncertainty in your favour? And what physical mechanism do you envision in which increase humidity at lower levels DOES NOT extend to higher levels, if the higher levels get their humidity from …. the lower levels? Again the famous Tomas Kalisz’s – Atmospheric-Layer Bypassing Chimney?
TK: “ First article: seems to deal with the relative than with the absolute humidity, and thus may not be relevant PROVE it – i.e. proving that in this paper the absolute humidity was DECOUPLED from relative humidity, because only then you can call it “not relevant”.
To sum up – of the 3 papers given you by Nigel – so far you disproved NONE. Conversely, your scheme is based on your BASELESS “opinions” and “feelings” – baseless, because you have not supported them
a) with even ONE paper (Makarieva’s paper you brought up as supporting you, turned to CONTRADICT you)
b) NOR with any plausible physical mechanism that would allow rising water vapour to …
BY-PASS kilometers(?) undersaturated atmospheric layers.
And that’s on top of the astronomic costs, continental-scale alteration of weather, continental-scale environmental damages (destruction of agriculture and all life over tens of mln of km2 – by the salt left over after evaporating the monumental amounts of seawater year after year.
And, as the first paper suggests – on top of that – also killing quite a few people – by making some areas unsurvivable to humans (humid heat in hot climates is more dangerous to humans and animals than higher heat with lower humidity).
As I said – of all the geoengineering schemes – yours must be the single most expensive, most difficult, causing the largest environmental damage, and most lethal to humans one.
Be better.
Tomas Kalisz, sure the studies are not definitive proof that irrigation increases humidity. But the weight of evidence suggests irrigation most probably increases the absolute humidity, so this puts your ideas in doubt. I’m also not hearing a sensible reason why it wouldn’t increase humidity.
And wouldn’t an increase in average relative humidity over time also have an increased greenhouse effect?
You also mentioned that even if humidity was higher that water vapour would rain out more quickly so we would not see an enhanced greenhouse effect (?). But you are purely speculating and dont provide even a suggested mechanism.
In Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-817837
Dear Nigel,
Thank you for your reply. As regards your question why relative air humidity cannot be relevant for assessment of the water vapour greenhouse effect, the reply in a first approaching is simple: It is because this effect depends from absolute value of the water vapour concentration in air, whereas cold polar air with quite high relative air humidity has a negligible absolute humidity and warm air over Sahara with average relative humidity about 25 % does in fact contain much more water than “relatively significant wetter” polar air.
Nevertheless, I still think that you, actually, asked a very good question. It is because all considerations based on a single global average might be tricky. The average absolute global air humidity doesn’t say anything about water fraction occurring as condensate (in clouds), which has completely different greenhouse properties than water vapour and , contrary to water vapour, has an influence not only on the greenhouse effect but also an opposite influence through affecting Earth albedo. Moreover, the circumstance that, contrary to concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapour concentration strongly changes both with altitude and geographically, makes the value of any average for assessment of its global greenhouse effect quite questionable. This is a direction in which see the main limitation of the Barton Paul’s thought experiment.
As regards the speculation that an intensified water cycle doesn’t necessarily need to increase the water vapour greenhouse effect, it can be, in view of the above mentioned complexity, hardly supported by any other means than by quite detailed and sophisticated modelling, I am afraid.
On the very uncertain level of global averages, one can, of course, assume that if the intensified latent heat flux just compensated an increase in another “forcing” (e.g. diminishing sulfate aerosol or increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration) and the global average surface temperature remained stable, all the additional evaporated water must condense and the average global air humidity must remain unchanged.
That’s all.
Greetings
Tom
Tomas Kalisz: Thank you very much for your feedback.
Too bad I can’t return the compliment: several screens of logical garbage – explaining the obvious or the irrelevant, as if they were proving you right, dismissing the falsifiable arguments of the opponents with empty claims: ” others might also claim inconsistencies in your arguments“, and misrepresenting your source, as if it was vindicating, instead of countering, your claims:
TK: “ Makarieva et al [think that] Barton Paul is incorrect in his alleged increase water vapour greenhouse effect from increase in the average absolute air humidity.
The opposite, my dear Kalisz the opposite – the ONLY way to massively increase the global evaporation WITHOUT increasing average humidity would be to dramatically SHORTEN the residence time of water vapour in atmosphere.
Yet your OWN SOURCE, Makarieva,.explained to you that it is NOT THE CASE, To quote YOU:
“ Makarieva asserts that the average air humidity depends mostly on the average surface temperature, not on the residence time of water vapour in the atmosphere.” (TK, December post)
See? If as Makarieva says, air humidity does NOT depend on the residence time, then you CAN’T counter the increased humidity from the increased evaporation by reduction of … something – that does not have effect on … humidity.
TK: “ an increased latent heat flux above land would force the entire Earth surface to cool, this cooling might perhaps cause a certain decrease in evaporation from the ocean
1. So on your planet – the water vapour from land CAN’T move over the ocean, BUT the cooling from the latent heat over land – CAN ???
2. Since you are proposing your evaporation scheme as an ALTERNATIVE to the reduction of GHG emissions – then any reduction of water vapour from cooling WOULD ALSO EXIST in the GHG reduction alternative. Therefore, you CAN’T count it as an advantage for your scheme over the GHG reduction alternative.
3. Again, as said before, but you ignored: the GHG reduction would achieve the cooling at the fraction of the costs, and the fraction of the ecological destruction, and without altering regional weather patterns you scheme would cause.
4. CO2 reduction would also reduce ocean acidification – your scheme, by taking resources away from CO2 reduction – would make the ocean MORE acidified, affecting both the life in the ocean AND reducing ocean’s capacity to take up human CO2, which left in the atmosphere would cause additional warming, making your cooling scheme even LESS EFFECTIVE.
With brilliant strategies like yours, my dear Pyrrhus, who needs an unmitigated disaster?
in Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-817720
Dear Piotr,
I would like to respectfully correct you in one detail, and ask a few questions:
I fully agree that the ONLY way to massively increase the global evaporation WITHOUT increasing average humidity would be to dramatically SHORTEN the residence time of water vapour in atmosphere. Please note that also Makarieva et al suppose exactly that as the consequence of increased water availability for evaporation, whereas Barton Paul in his thought experiment supposed an opposite: The intensification of water cycle is according to him accompanied by a commensurate absolute air humidity increase, and the residence time of water vapour remains unchanged.
The circumstance that average absolute air humidity on Earth seems to depend on the average surface temperature only (and not on the residence time of water vapour in Earth atmosphere which varies in a much broader range than the absolute humidity) does not contradict to the possibility of water cycle intensification by merely shortening the residence time and keeping the same average absolute humidity. If you still think that there is a logical discrepance, could you please explain why?
In Makarieva’s article, there is no assumption that water vapour cannot be transported horizontally. Also in Barton Paul’s thought experiment, no such limitation was introduced.
It appeared, however, from your previous posts that you assume that this transport can increase the average absolute air humidity and that its omission (assumed by you in Barton Paul’s scheme) devaluates his results. I therefore several times asked you why do you think so. You have not answered this question yet. Could you clarify?
Best regards
Tomáš
TK: “ Please note that also Makarieva et al suppose exactly that [additional water vapour would be removed by shortened residence time]
Huh??? Makarieva stated the OPPOSITE, as I have ALREADY explained to you in the post to which you are supposedly answering:
====Piotr, Jan 5: ======
“Your OWN SOURCE, Makarieva,.explained to you that it is NOT THE CASE:
Makarieva asserts that the average air humidity depends mostly on the average surface temperature, not on the residence time of water vapour in the atmosphere” (TK, December post)
See? If, as Makarieva says, air humidity does NOT depend on the residence time, then you CAN’T counter the increased humidity by reduction of … something that does not have effect on … humidity. ”
======== end of quote =============
Since you failed to comprehend the above, let’s try symbolic notation: If Makarieva says:
“ A depends on B and NOT on C” then you can’t claim Makarieva supported your claim that increase in A will be prevented by reducing C.”
And another of your chestnuts:
TK Jan. 5: “ an increased latent heat flux above land would force the entire Earth surface to cool, this cooling might perhaps cause a certain decrease in evaporation from the ocean”
Piotr Jan.5 “So on your planet – the water vapour from land CAN NOT move over the ocean, but the cooling from the latent heat over land – CAN ???”
TK Jan. 6: “ In Makarieva’s article, there is no assumption that water vapour cannot be transported horizontally
🤦…
Nobody said this assumption was Makarieva’s, the whole point was that it is YOURS – YOU imposed it on BPL, when YOU claimed that BPL erred by allowing an increase in water vapour over entire Earth, instead as YOU demanded – only over the land. Which is EQUIVALENT to assumption that water evaporated over land does not affect air over ocean (while the temperature … somehow does… ;-))
in Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-817794
Dear Piotr,
Thank you very much for your clarification. You wrote:
–
Piotr Jan.5 “So on your planet – the water vapour from land CAN NOT move over the ocean, but the cooling from the latent heat over land – CAN ???”
TK Jan. 6: “ In Makarieva’s article, there is no assumption that water vapour cannot be transported horizontally
🤦…
Nobody said this assumption was Makarieva’s, the whole point was that it is YOURS – YOU imposed it on BPL, when YOU claimed that BPL erred by allowing an increase in water vapour over entire Earth, instead as YOU demanded – only over the land. Which is EQUIVALENT to assumption that water evaporated over land does not affect air over ocean (while the temperature … somehow does… ;-))
–
Let me now review and explain in detail what actually happened before.
If you check the respective posts in the record of the discussion which is available on my public orgpage
https://orgpad.com/s/7zfynb_y5o7 ,
you will find out that I objected only against Barton Paul’s assumption that global average absolute air humidity shall double (or, after his first correction, rise 1.29 times) because it was obviously inconsistent with the original setup of his thought experiment.
If you read all these texts carefully, you will see that your assertion (that I required that water vapour coming from land stays above land) is incorrect.
In fact, I objected that if Barton Paul assumed that doubling of water cycle intensity above land must be accompanied by doubling average absolute air hunidity above land, the corresponding global absolute air humidity increase would be about 12 % only – not 100 % or 29 %.
My feeling that you assume that water transport between land and ocean should somehow change the mass balance of atmospheric water (that in my opinion stays unchanged irrespective of any vapour transport between land and sea, until the water vapour condenses and precipitates back to the surface) arose from your objections with respect to Barton Paul’s final correction that you raised in your post of December 2, 2023, 5:47 PM
( https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/12/unforced-variations-dec-2023/#comment-816642 ).
You wrote:
–
BPL, your giving the RC deniers even “the qualitative right” – may have been overstepping, e.g.:
– if I am not mistaken, you agreed with them that the water evaporated over continents would stay in place and not move over the oceans. Since air masses are not stationary – this is not justified and consequently underestimates the warming due to increased avg. humidity, shortening your 30 years
–
Although Barton Paul let your objections uncommented, I am afraid that you were indeed mistaken.
On December 5, 2023, 6:01 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/12/unforced-variations-dec-2023/#comment-816767
I therefore asked:
“Why do you think that horizontal distribution of the additional water vapour should in any respect influence the average global water vapour concentration which was taken as the basis for calculation of the respective greenhouse effect?”
and offered a possible explanation why you might have been mistaken:
“I think that it is quite obvious that any water vapour enrichment above ocean would have been compensated by a proportionate water vapour depletion above land in this case. For this reason, I do not see any deficiency in Barton Paul’s calculation of the global mean value.”
As you have not reacted, I addressed the unresolved question on December 11, 2023, 6:44 AM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/12/unforced-variations-dec-2023/#comment-817019
once again:
–
Dear Piotr,
On December 2, you wrote in your reply to Barton Paul
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/12/unforced-variations-dec-2023/#comment-816642 :
“if I am not mistaken, you agreed with them that the water evaporated over continents would stay in place and not move over the oceans. Since air masses are not stationary – this is not justified and consequently underestimates the warming due to increased avg. humidity, shortening your 30 years”
It was my understanding that you assume that if water evaporated above continents moves over the oceans, it may cause an increase in the average global air humidity.
It appears that you have a suspicion that for this reason, Barton Paul’s correction of his calculation of the average air humidity is in fact erroneous and that the calculated increase 12.6 % is in fact underestimated. As I have not grasped the reasons for your assumption, I asked you for a more detailed explanation.
You do not have, of course, any obligation to answer my questions. I think, however, that for example Barton Paul himself could be also curious about reasons for your doubts.
Greetings
Tomáš
–
I am not aware that you have ever addressed any of these repeating questions.
In the light of the summary provided above, I really do not understand why do you now assert that I imposed on Barton Paul an assumption that he has in fact neither expressed nor used and that in fact seems to exist in your brain only.
Please be so kind and before you reply to a post (including the present one), review the previous discussion carefully once again, to become sure that you recognized correctly the core message of your discussion partner.
I hope that doing so, you prevent further unproductive fighting with your own thoughts and assumptions.
Greetings
Tomáš Kalisz
Tomas Kalisz: doubling [evaporation] above land would increase global absolute air humidity increase would be about 12 % only
How have you come up with that 12% ?
in Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-817883
Hallo Piotr,
Barton Paul assumed in the first part of his thought experiment (pubished 20230908, 6:58 AM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814201 )
that in preindustrial age, latent heat fluxes above land and sea were 38 and 108.6 W/m2, respectively:
“Sellers (1965, p. 5) estimates fland = 29.2% while fsea = 70.8%. MS estimates Hland = 38 W m-2, which necessitates Hsea = 108.6 W m-2.”
He then assumed increasing Hland to 76 W/m2 and retaining the same Hsea value. The corresponding global average is 99.08 W/m2. This is 12.6 % increase against the assumed original global average 88 W/m2 (and not a 100 % or 29.2 % increase).
This is what also Barton Paul himself admitted in his post (of December 2, 2023 8:35 AM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/12/unforced-variations-dec-2023/#comment-816604 ):
” TK has noticed that, in my rush to correct my earlier analysis, I made a similar mistake again.
I have total global latent heat flux density increasing from 88 watts per square meter to 99. This is an increase of 12.5%, not 29.2%. ”
Greetings
Tomáš
P.S.
For your convenience, I highlighted the cited sentences yellow in the respective posts copy-pasted in the orgpage tracking this discussion
https://orgpad.com/s/7zfynb_y5o7
TK “ increasing [latent heat] Hland to 76 W/m2 and retaining the same Hsea value. The corresponding global average is 99.08 W/m2. This is 12.6 % increase”
1. I asked you about your claim of “12% increase in global absolute air humidity and you give me the calculation for 12.6% increase in …latent heat ???
Wasn’t your entire argument based on the decoupling of humidity from the latent heat – that you can double latent heat WITHOUT increasing humidity, but now you use them … interchangeably ????
2. IF they were interchangeable, i.e. if 12% increase in latent heat means 12 % increase in humidity, then your “retaining the same Hsea value” means reatining the same humidity_sea value”, which is tantamount to the assumption of NO horizontal transport of the air masses with surplus humidity from land onto the ocean. Which lectured me the assumption you have claimed you have never made:
“retaining the same Hsea value” – i.e. you assume that what happens over land does not affect what happens over ocean. Ergo no air mass movement between land and ocean => no transfer of surplus water vapour from land to the ocean
TK Jan 12″ “ increasing [latent heat over land] Hland to 76 W/m2 and retaining the same Hsea value. The corresponding global average is 99.08 W/m2. This is 12.6 % increase”
Huh???
1. I asked you about your “12% increase in global absolute air humidity , yet you answer about “ 12.6% increase in …latent heat” ??? Wasn’t the decoupling of humidity from the latent heat your main argument here? You claimed you can double latent heat flux with negligible increase in humidity, but now you use these two terms … interchangeably ????
2. IF they were indeed interchangeable, then “ unchanged [latent heat] sea [flux]” would IMPLY unchanged humidity over sea. This means NO horizontal transport of air masses, with their extra humidity, from land onto the ocean, contradicting your claim:
TK:” your assertion, that I required that water vapour coming from land staying above land, is incorrect”
3. And IF there was no movement of air masses from land to sea (point 2), how could
increased latent heat flux above land force the entire Earth surface to cool?
And …wouldn’t the decrease in evaporation from the ocean from cooling ” … REDUCE latent heat flux from the ocean, in contradiction to “retaining the same Hsea value“” in p. 1 ?
To sum up, of your 3 points above – there are internal contradictions in each of them
and on top of that, there are contradiction between these points.
But don’t let it stop _you_ from lecturing _me_ that:
others might also claim inconsistencies in your arguments. (TK JAN. 5).
in response to Pitors “Huh???”
Piotr is well off base here and will surely be picked off. Tomas is trying to operate within the unphysical framework scenario of BPL. Either Piotr is confused, unwittingly misleading, or experiencing difficulty reasoning due to extreme bias.
JCM Jan 12: c Piotr is well off base here and will surely be picked off.
Care to do the honors? You shouldn’t count on Kalisz to do your picking – the guy didn’t know the difference between a flux and a reservoir, and have been trying to falsify my arguments
for many months now – so far unable to even understand them, much less falsify them.
JCM: Tomas is trying to operate within the unphysical framework scenario of BPL.
In the post you presumably refer to https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-817944, I wrote:
P. Jan.12: of [TK’s] 3 points above – there are internal contradictions in each of them, and on top of that, there are contradiction between these points“.
You can’t wave off the internal contradictions between various TK’s arguments by … blaming BPL. Particularly, that:
-it is your TK who insists on using that “ unphysical framework scenario“,
-it is your TK who calls upon the numbers from this “unphysical framework” as a validation of his idiotic humans-doubling-natural-evaporation-instead-of-mitigating -GHGs_emissions scheme; and
-it is your TK who rejected my advice that he moves off that “ unphysical framework ” and into the “physical models”.
in Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-817941
and
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-817944
Hallo Piotr,
Thank you for your questions. I only somewhat wonder why you have not addressed them to Barton Paul in September 2023 when he published his though experiment.
Nevertheless, as you ask me, I will try to answer instead of him.
In a steady state, global latent heat flux is commensurate to average annual global precipitation.
In his thought experiment, Barton Paul additionally assumed that the latent heat flux is commensurate to average global absolute air humidity (and vice versa). I tried to explain that under this assumption, doubling the assumed latent heat flux above land and retaining the latent heat flux above sea, as contemplated by Barton, would result in 12.6 % latent heat flux increase that would have been equivalent to the same absolute humidity increase.
If you consider that Barton evaluated the greenhouse effect of the assumed absolute air humidity increase through its global average, I do not think there is any reason why this average should be anyhow influenced by water transport. In other words, he has not made any requirement with respect to horizontal transport of evaporated water, because it should not anyhow influence the result of his calculation.
As regards your question if the assumptions made by Barton Paul are justified, I would like to refer to my recent reply of January 10 to similar questions asked by Nigel:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-817875
I do not know whether or not a change in water availability for evaporation on land will change the latent heat flux from the sea, because I do not know how much it depends on the average Earth surface temperature. Perhaps this discussion finally attracts attention of a climatologist who will be able to provide a qualified answer.
Have I sufficiently clarified your questions now?
Greetings
Tomáš
I completely support the decision to move off BPL’s detrimental framework recommendations. They are fundamentally misguided, reflecting flawed, non-physical, mathematically unsound, and selectively biased conceptual logics.
They reacted defensively when informed of these issues in the past. The otherwise self-congratulatory tone of the commentariat in response highlights a genuine blindness, a lack of introspective ability, and a thought process parallel to, but not intersecting with, a scientific approach.
Others have suggested the requirement for more detailed process based analysis, for which I subsequently provided 3 recent independent analyses created by professional climate academics, including:
a process based approach and detailed course notes using Brian Rose “climlab” module
https://brian-rose.github.io/ClimateLaboratoryBook/courseware/water-water-everywhere.html#energy-budget-anomalies-at-toa-and-surface
Lague’s published CESM process based experiment
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/acdbe1
And Kleidon group analytical thermodynamic constraints method e.g.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2220400120?af=R
For instance, the oceanic pattern effect response in Lague’s CESM Figure 3 panels a, c is neat, which depict responses such as the apparent increasing intensity of south Asian monsoon setup, which has been mentioned in the past by a commenter as a possible consequence of continental drying. Also in Pacific patterns, which I have tried to collect insight from Pukite independently of the CESM experiment. Figure 7 also depicts the experimental change to cloud fraction under continental ET suppression touched on by Benestad. Kleidon group methods are fascinating for a host of other reasons, unrelated to GCMs.
These materials have been provided with the aim of gathering recent and independent scholarly references regarding the physical global climate impacts from continental aridification. My impression is that global climate is the primary interest here and I have adjusted my approach accordingly.
T. Kalisz: Hallo Piotr, Thank you for your questions.
Since you evaded these questions, your thanks are empty,
I only somewhat wonder why you have not addressed them to Barton Pau in September
Two reasons:
1. because I have challenged YOU by showing CONTRADICTIONS within YOUR claims, which means that they will remain contradictions regardless whether BPL is right or wrong.
2. because since you used BPL results to claim that he validated your scheme – it is too late now for you to distance yourself from his results. You can’t eat the cake and still have it.
TK: “Have I sufficiently clarified your questions now? ”
Are you kidding? You haven’t answered ANY of my questions. Here they are in case if you forgot:
===== Piotr, previous post ================
1. I asked you about your “12% increase in global absolute air humidity” , yet you answer about “ 12.6% increase in …latent heat flux”, Wasn’t the decoupling of humidity from the latent heat flux: doubling latent heat flux without increase in humidity, your main argument here?
2. If evaporation on land does not change humidity over the ocean, this implies NO horizontal transport of air masses, with their extra humidity, from land onto the ocean, thus contradicting your claim:
TK:” your assertion, that I required that water vapour coming from land staying above land, is incorrect”
3. And IF there was no movement of air masses from land to sea (point 2), how could
increased latent heat flux above land force the entire Earth surface to cool?
And …wouldn’t the decrease in evaporation from the ocean from cooling ” … REDUCE latent heat flux from the ocean, thus contradicting “retaining the same Hsea value“” (see p. 1 )?
To sum up, of your 3 points above – there are internal contradictions in each of them
and on top of that, there are contradiction between these points.
===
JCM: I completely support the decision to move off BPL’s detrimental framework recommendations. They are fundamentally misguided, reflecting flawed, non-physical, mathematically unsound, and selectively biased conceptual logics.
BPL: Did I make recommendations? My real point was that decreasing global temperature significantly by land use changes is next to impossible.. There were lots of simplifications and unrealistic assumptions in my model, but that was kind of the point. Let’s see you do better.
Regarding the notion of a “real point,” it’s worth noting that BPL has not offered any substantial insights—neither concerning the nature of the world nor in terms of coherent mathematics. The so-called assumptions put forth by BPL are in fact dimensional errors, and any points gleaned therefrom must be rejected as a matter of basic standards in science.
If the Earth’s energy balance has indeed been impaired by around 3 or 4 watts per square m, a common-sense approach involves acknowledging the factors contributing to such disequilibrium and exploring potential remedies. I’m not interested in participating in an ego-driven conflict, particularly one that BPL is likely to dominate due to their demonstrated lack of awareness, and inability to adhere to basic standards. Without standards, ethics, and a logical constraint framework there is nothing.
I find such interactions tedious and characterized by pettiness, reminiscent of my experiences in academia. Months and years often pass, consumed by entrenched positions and discussions lacking substance. There is no virtue in emulating academia’s contemporary example of scientific discourse. Do not idolize or strive for that.
In an honest attempt to meaningfully advance knowledge within the group’s interests, I have provided references related to synoptic scale processes. Many more examples exist for other scales of analysis which are equally relevant for understanding the factors of temperature and hydrological extremes, and the associated noble effort of protecting people and property. Surely we can all agree we are aligned in that.
in Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-818027
Dear Piotr,
Thank you once again for your kind reply. I would like to answer your questions, the reason , why I am not able to do so is the circumstance that I still fail to grasp a consistent concept behind them.
Originally, it appeared that you admit, in accordance with Barton Paul’s thought experiment, that a change in global latent heat flux caused by an artificial change of water availability for evaporation from land may have a significant global cooling or warming effect and that you agree to Barton Paul’s original conclusion that this effect will be overturned by greenhouse effect of water vapour that has an opposite sign and even higher magnitude.
It appears that later, when Barton Paul admitted his mistake resulting in overestimation of the magnitude of the greenhouse effect in his thought experiment, you turned from admiring his approach to criticizing it. If so, could you clarify what is your present point of view?
As I mentioned elsewhere, I am not able to grasp the point in works of Kleidon’s group cited by JCM.
It is my feeling that they basically say that global water cycle intensity is given by global radiative energy budget and that a change in water availability on land will not change the global convective flux substantially, because it will be widely (or perhaps completely) compensated by an opposite change in convective flux from the ocean. Do you understand their teaching the same way? From your last questions, I had a feeling that you tend to agree to this view now.
If so, then we can stop the discussion, because must admit that I am not able to anyhow dispute with their teaching. It is my feeling that taking the above mentioned thermodynamically constrained optimal value of the global convective flux as a physical constraint, they rather discuss secondary effects related to water availability like cloud formation that may also have an influence on the global energy balance. Such effects, however, were from the very start beyond my focus due to much higher complexity level in comparison with simple evaluation of the latent heat flux magnitude.
Have I finally grasped your point?
Greetings
Tomáš
My unifying view is that ocean dynamics are the key to understanding variability. And since large scale ocean dynamics always take the form of standing wave dipoles, tripoles, etc, then the source of this is due to mechanical forcing, i.e. inertial disturbances just as with the solid Earth. Likely some of that due to inertial moment changes from differential heating but the bulk from external forcing directly or indirectly (i.e. wind) from orbital factors. Clouds are a response not a forcing. Sunspots are secondary factors. I don’t follow at all what JCM is saying and he/she may not follow my take, but that’s the way it goes.
JCM: Regarding the notion of a “real point,” it’s worth noting that BPL has not offered any substantial insights—neither concerning the nature of the world nor in terms of coherent mathematics. The so-called assumptions put forth by BPL are in fact dimensional errors, and any points gleaned therefrom must be rejected as a matter of basic standards in science.
BPL: Specifics, please. Accusations are easy, demonstrations less so.
JCM: If the Earth’s energy balance has indeed been impaired by around 3 or 4 watts per square m, a common-sense approach involves acknowledging the factors contributing to such disequilibrium and exploring potential remedies. I’m not interested in participating in an ego-driven conflict
BPL: Get that, guys? He’s not interested in participating in an ago-driven conflict.
“Know thyself.”
Tomáš Kalisz 15 JAN “ I would like to answer your questions, the reason , why I am not able to do so is the circumstance that I still fail to grasp a consistent concept behind them“.
My questions pointed to the internal contradictions of your claims: you can’t say BOTH: “A” and “not A”. Therefore, saying that you are not able to explain this contradiction until you learn … more about “A” is a cop-out. Particularly if you want to learn more about A
from the “teachings” of the …. resident climate change denier JCM.
Until you address your past internal contradictions, as summed up in 3 points in
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-818027
I see no reason in engaging you on NEW questions, based on what a third party may have claimed or not.
in response to: “Is it possible that the assumed latent heat flux change above land will in fact not change the global latent heat flux, because it will be exactly compensated by an opposite change of the latent heat flux above ocean?”
when contemplating the thermodynamic flux partitioning, consider that ocean surface is always operating at (free) equilibrium partitioning, that is a temperature limited maximum rate of evaporation.
For landscapes, or moisture limited regions, the limiting factor is moisture availability and the so rate of ET is lower than the potential equilibrium rate. This is compensated by sensible heat flux under thermodynamic constraints.
With a scenario of increasingly limited continental moisture and associated perturbed thermodynamic regime, it has been demonstrated repeatedly that globally temperatures rise owing to an increased proportion of sensible heat, expanding boundary layer, increased height of lifted condensation level, increased lower atmospheric heat storage, and reduced cloud fraction.
This results in compensating shift of oceanic free equilibrium partitioning to a new warmer steady state, and perhaps even overcompensation of evaporation. In warmer states the equilibrium partitioning of thermodynamic flux favors an increasing proportion of evaporation. This is because of the curving vapor pressure relation to temperature.
https://agu.confex.com/data/abstract/agu/fm23/2/9/Paper_1251192_abstract_1101116_0.png
In Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-817754
Hallo JCM,
Have I (perhaps, finally?) grasped correctly from your reply that Kleidon et al teach basically the same what I asked in my question – namely, that a change in the latent heat flux above land due changed water availability will be indeed compensated by an opposite change in the latent heat flux from the ocean?
Or am I still wrong and the global temperature change due to changed flux partitioning above land results in changed global average air humidity but not in a compensation of the changed latent heat flux?
Greetings
Tomáš
Hi Tomas,
“that Kleidon et al teach basically the same what I asked in my question – namely, that a change in the latent heat flux above land due changed water availability will be indeed compensated by an opposite change in the latent heat flux from the ocean?”
no I don’t think that is specifically mentioned in the latest Kleidon group works. They seem quite careful in the way they address these issues, perhaps to avoid being mischaracterized. While I do not speak for their motives, it seems obvious to me how they tactfully avoid spoon-feeding the implications. They are laser focused on analytical solutions which is a novel gift.
However, others are much more forthright, such as in the work which I have linked-to indirectly before. Here is the direct link to “Reduced terrestrial evaporation increases atmospheric water vapor by generating cloud feedbacks” by Lague and co. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/acdbe1#references
this is practically the same conclusion reached by Kleidon group, except arrived at in a completely different way. in fact, Kleidon doesn’t even appear in the references. The consequence of aridification is ultimately the dominant radiative forcing by low cloud.
Lague indicate an almost imperceptible change to global latent flux, actually slightly negative, in their extreme desertification experiment (Figure 4). The oceanic latent flux increases in the warmer climate but not quite enough to compensate the reduction from land.
In considering column water vapor, one of the most straightforward teachings in climate is that vapor scales with surface temperature. This is generally assumed to be about 7% per K. However, in the case of Lague they find only a 40% increase for an 8K change, or so. That is about 5%/K. I think this is related to the fact that 30% of the surface is total desert in their experiment, while the rest is moisture unlimited ocean, and so the scaling of water vapor increase is diminished by 0.3, or from 7% to 5%. There are no other dependencies involved in that.
cheers
In Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-817857
Hallo JCM,
Many thanks for the recent references. I believe that this stuff may be indeed interesting for the participants in this discussion.
As regards me, I will need lot of time to absorb it. At least as regards the publications from the Kleidon’s group, these may be on a too high level for me. I am afraid that I will never become able to follow their line of evidence / apply their teaching practically myself. That is why I hope that there once appears a scientist who will be both willing and able to translate their teachings to interested laymen like me.
A remark regarding BPL’s thought experiment: I appreciate his effort, although the physical model he used may be inappropriate. As regards mathematics he used, it was so simple that I was able to follow. Personally, I have not noted any mathematical error therein.
Greetings
Tomáš
In response to DOUBLINGS, and other “insane” and “crazy” notions
rest assured this framework suggestion was introduced by neither Tomas nor I.
This notion of DOUBLING has been implanted and is now unknowingly propagated in a way which is misleading. Is it possible its proponent is unwittingly advancing falsehoods?
at a really quite high level, by various avenues discussed here throughout months, 10% increments in continental ET via soil moisture longevity should be considered in full units of K.
That is 1 day out of 10 missing moisture represented by one unit of K increase. There is nothing insane or conspiratorial about that.
This, in addition to the associated increased hydrological and temperature extremes.
What, then, of a doubling of ET or and the required soil moisture longevity? Personally I find it obviously inconceivable and unphysical. Not least because it is exceeding equilibrium surface partitioning which relies on the premise of unlimited moisture. I have given this remark since the beginning. What is a 100% increase vs a 10% change of continental ET? it’s nonsense!
For those whose values are solely aligned with trace gas emissions and the defense of existing models, rather than climate stabilization and the diversification of useful knowledge, it’s essential to consider that a direct and unnatural pillaging of watershed hydrology can only serve to increase climate sensitivity to radiative forcing, not diminish it. I hope therefore we can proceed constructively.
JCM says
6 Jan 2024 at 12:54 AM
Perhaps what you seek is not, and never has been, available here? It could help to revisit the original psychological ‘hook’ that suggested to yourself it might be. And then let it go. It’s a big world.
in response to letting it go:
yes the world is large and I offer expert demonstration of microclimate optimization and soil remediation as my profession. This provides direct, practical, and meaningful benefits to my community and contracts abroad, not least through hydrological stabilization. By this I gain great professional satisfaction. From this experience outside, and verified through quantitative observation, I’ve concluded the cumulative hydrological disruption is vast and substantial. I seek to promote my values and to better understand the issues through the perspective of global change here. I have discovered there are quite large gaps in both information and knowledge available here on a real climate academic discussion website, and so it seems like the study of direct hydrological disruption on larger scale climates and change is only in its infancy. This has spurred a sort of passion to engage more on this issue out of personal interest and curiosity. I have been surprised to learn how well micro surface hydroclimate expertise transfers and integrates with other scales of analysis. The various challenges and refutations to the ideas have been quite weak so far, which is somewhat disappointing. I suspect its hindered in part by extreme bias and emotional undertones. This phenomenon is also interesting, however.
This reply is not to JCM, but to the entire thread on large-scale irrigation schemes, etc.
Whew! That is quite a pissing match and insult-fest y’all have going! I’m so happy to see how “settled” climate science really is.
:)
TLDR, but FYI, large scale irrigation is already a thing, right? From the limited info on Al Gore’s internet, it appears that 20% of cultivated land is already being irrigated. If that isn’t “large scale”, what is the definition of large scale?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrigation
https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/water-in-agriculture
I’m wondering what difference it makes when 71% of the planet is covered by oceans.
:)
in response to irrigation
speaking for myself, I would like to clarify that the repeated suggestion of irrigation schemes by others and subsequently fighting against that represents a strawman I think, and does not address the ongoing issue of extensive degradation, drainage, a drying of terrestrial systems.
For example, knowing and showing the disappearing of billions of hectares of wetland, and the missing hundreds of tons per hectare soil organic matter on billions more ha, is not an argument for irrigation. This is in addition to many other stressors such as widespread introduction of chemical biocides in 1980s and the requirement of late season crop desiccation for market acceptance.
Distorting the issue and fighting against that is misleading. The fundamental issue I present is extensive erosion of landscapes. That is, aridification, desertification, degradation, whathaveyou. There are many possible label words. I have recommended to go outside and use your senses to understand this, but I tend to get flack for that on these pages. I have also recommended easier routes such as google Earth, to realize the residual state of terrestrial systems and the plainly visible erosion.
I should repeat that in my view irrigation is a very ineffective means of addressing watershed impairment and I have no interest in fighting against or defending that. I do recognize, however, that others may be in disagreement and I understand some confusion might have arisen due to grouping people and fighting against groups.
in response to “I’m wondering what difference it makes when 71% of the planet is covered by oceans
smile.”
Yes this argument was used quite often – however, I wonder if you or anyone can explain by what mechanism the 71% of planet covered by ocean is to exploit to overcome quite widespread continental erosion and UN recognized issue of desertification without a temperature rise.
I have shown elsewhere that ocean already operates at a maximum rate of evaporation for its temperature based on psychrometric constant and the slope of the vapor pressure saturation curve. I can repeat the computation if desired, but it arrives at a value matching Trenberth style ocean values, with an equilibrium evaporation fraction about 90% at current SST. That is 90% LE, and 10% sensible heat in turbulent partitioning.
If ocean can indeed accommodate quite large initial climate changes from continental desertification and that you think it’s obvious that it’s so I’m interested to know why that is in detail. I suppose there could be pattern or patchiness effects or other such responses which seem obvious to others that I have not yet understood.
thanks
My New Year’s prediction is that the usual suspects will persevere in comparing temperature extremes in Beijing & the Persian Gulf :
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/12/pret-porter.html
The human enterprise is in overshoot, depleting essential ecosystems faster than
they can regenerate and polluting the ecosphere beyond nature’s assimilative
capacity. Overshoot is a meta-crisis that is the cause of most symptoms of
ecosystems destruction, including climate change, landscape degradation and
biodiversity loss.
The proximate driver of overshoot is excessive energy use and material
throughput serving the non-stop exponential growth paradigm underpinning the
global economy. Both rising incomes (material consumption) and population growth
contribute to expanding the growing human eco-footprint into overshoot, but
increasing throughput due to population growth is the larger factor at the margin.
The egregious and widening inequality is a separate socio-political problem but
persists at global scales demanding it also be addressed equitably and morally
based upon already agreed human rights values. Carbon emissions and
overshoot of planetary boundaries are unlikely to decrease as long as energy
consumption, world GDP, and population continue to increase.
Mainstream approaches to alleviating various symptoms of overshoot merely
reinforce the status quo. This is counter-productive, as overshoot is ultimately
a terminal condition. The continuity of human civilisation will require a
cooperative, planned, ethical, evidence based contraction of both the material
economy and human populations over generational timescales.
A systems view of the meta-crisis is essential. Beginning with a personal to
civilisational transformation of the fundamental values, beliefs, assumptions
and attitudes underpinning neoliberal/capitalist industrial society. This
implies that a global civilization paradigm shift is urgently required.
Agree?
Disagree?
Please discuss:-
Particularly the relevance to Climate Change / Science issues, or implications thereof.
Regards
Ned Kelly
” The human enterprise is in overshoot, depleting essential ecosystems faster than they can regenerate and polluting the ecosphere beyond nature’s assimilative capacity….The proximate driver of overshoot is excessive energy use and material throughput serving…. Both rising incomes (material consumption) and population growth contribute to expanding the growing human eco-footprint into overshoot, but increasing throughput due to population growth is the larger factor at the margin.”
Agreed. I found the source of the quote:
https://mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/the-human-eco-predicament-overshoot-and-the-population-conundrum/
“Carbon emissions and overshoot of planetary boundaries are unlikely to decrease as long as energy consumption, world GDP, and population continue to increase.”
IMO carbon emissions could decrease even with more growth in consumption, population etc. . Consider that energy substitution etc, etc would clearly achieve this in theory and we have the technology. It’s really about whether we have the motivation to change the energy system and devote enough money / resources to that, and thus make some sacrifices to other areas of things. It would obviously help make things easier if energy consumption, gdp and population fell. as well.
IMO overshoot of planetary boundaries is incredibly unlikely to decrease as long as energy consumption, world GDP, and population continue to increase. I can’t see how overshoot would decrease. Because we are putting more and more pressure on a finite planet.
“Mainstream approaches to alleviating various symptoms of overshoot merely reinforce the status quo. This is counter-productive, as overshoot is ultimately a terminal condition.”
The limits to growth modelling first done in the 1970s predicted that if population and economic growth trends continue to accelerate following a business as usual trajectory we would see a rather sudden, huge and painful decline in population and industrial capacity before year 2100 as limits are reached. Refer:
https://theconversation.com/what-the-controversial-1972-limits-to-growth-report-got-right-our-choices-today-shape-future-conditions-for-life-on-earth-184920
This sounds convincing in principle, however in the real world since 1970 the population growth trend has slowed, and gdp growth has slowed in developing countries and recoverable reserves of metals have been higher than they anticipated. This suggests we may be facing a gradual and moderate decline in population growth and industrial output per capita rather than a huge abrupt collapse. I hope so anyway.
“The continuity of human civilisation will require a cooperative, planned, ethical, evidence based contraction of both the material economy and human populations over generational timescales”
Agree in principle. However it seems unlikely that governments or individuals would choose a planned low growth or zero growth or contracting economy, given the addiction to consumption and risk of unemployment. I suspect low growth and reduced levels of consumption will be mainly forced on us by circumstances of resource scarcity and demographics, rather than be a planned thing. However people might support stronger environmental laws and that would slow growth as a side effect.
Population growth has already slowed in many places due to government planning generally encouraging low fertility. Family size has also fallen naturally in some places without government planning as such. We appear to be heading to a shrinking global population given preferences for small families. I believe 2 billion people sounds ideal. However some governments are now worrying due to a shortage of young people, but their efforts to then push up family size haven’t worked very well.
Japan has had a shrinking population recently and a very low economic growth economy for decades ( due to a financial collapse) and still have good standard of living. People adapt. But if the economy shrunk permanently it could be painful and chaotic.
“A systems view of the meta-crisis is essential. Beginning with a personal tocivilisational transformation of the fundamental values, beliefs, assumptions and attitudes underpinning neoliberal/capitalist industrial society. This implies that a global civilization paradigm shift is urgently required.”
IMO we need change, but human values are deeply ingrained and capitalism and free markets is the preferred system right now. I think dramatic change of whatever sort will take a while so our efforts to mitigate the climate problem have to be done within the current socio-economic system of free market capitalism and a mixture of competitive and cooperative instincts / values.
Its also proving hard to come up with a genuinely viable alternative to capitalism. I have been critical of capitalism many times, but attempts at collective ownership have generally not worked. There are of course things we can do to make capitalism operate better and more fairly and reduce its environmental impacts. Either way, we need practical and humane changes, and changes that may gain traction with people, rather than dogma and perfection seeking.
“……excessive energy use……. but increasing throughput due to population growth is the larger factor at the margin.”
“….The continuity of human civilisation will require a
cooperative, planned, ethical, evidence based contraction of both the material
economy and human populations over generational timescales.”
There is a plan to reduce population but it will not take generations. Here’s a dramatization:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URk7Y74XdbI
And that evil capitalism and American exceptionalism? It’s toast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fDWZjvNUC8
Buckle up. Hone your hoeing and plowing skills, and use of a club. It’s a comin’.
:)
Hi,
Would someone please be so kind as to show me, or point me to the page, with the html codes for “quotations” or any other tricky ones. Thank you.
blockquote, escape characters, and all the rest
https://www.w3schools.com/html/html_quotation_elements.asp
The comment section here seems to use a subset of standard HTML encodings that includes the most common tags.
It sticks in my mind that someone here figured out how to incorporate LATEX, but I’m not going there…
Search “html”, maybe “html tutorial.”
Energy Destinies – Part 8: Hurtling towards a pitch-dark future?
Our current civilisation was founded on both the past and the future. It was built on stored energy from sunlight. All of it will soon be consumed and cannot be replaced in the span of our species.
Published: 31st July 2023
By Satyajit Das
Abundant and cheap power is one of the foundations of modern civilisation and economies. Current changes in energy markets are perhaps the most significant for a long time. It has implications for society in the broadest sense. Energy Destinies is a multi-part series examining the role of energy, demand and supply dynamics, the shift to renewables, the transition, its relationship to emissions and possible pathwaysParts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 looked at patterns of demand and supply over time, renewable sources, energy storage, economics of renewables, the energy transition and the inter-action between energy policy and emissions. The last two parts outline the energy endgame. Part 7 examined the framework that will shape events. The final part 8 looks at possible trajectories.
The world simultaneously faces two problems — dwindling fossil fuels and emissions. These can be addressed by reducing demand as well as increasing or managing supplies including the shift to lower emission renewable sources.
Demand modification
Energy demand is function of a number of factors: population, energy consumption per capita, and energy density relative to GDP. A critical externality is the emissions per capital or unit of GDP.
Unfortunately, there is little impetus to manage many of these variables. Political constraints around forced population control and expectation of perpetual improvements in living standards mean curtailing demand is not on the policy agenda.
Fossil fuel driven internal combustion engines have a thermal efficiency of around 40-50 percent for a petrol engine and slightly higher for a diesel.
Land, sea and air transport combined have an average efficiencies of around 20 percent.
Power generation is similarly inefficient. US coal- and gas-fired power plants achieve average thermal efficiency of 32 percent and 44 percent respectively. ……………………….. ?
Energy pathway – Stage 1 deals The emphasis was on obtaining agreement without understanding of energy markets, physics and economics.
Energy Pathway – Stage 2: Disillusion and desperation the lack of progress on slowing emissions and climate change are exposed.
Energy Pathway – Stage 3: Disorder and divides Stage 2 drifts into disorder as the ability to meet expectations of energy supplies and prices fracture. The forces identified in the previous stage intensify.
Energy Pathway – Stage 4: Decline In the final stage, energy demand must fit available supply, from whatever sources are available, as radical conservation is dictated by circumstances.
The dynamics of Stage 4 depend on the speed of implementation and success of earlier actions to secure energy sources, such as nuclear power plants or fossil fuel supplies. To the extent that countries have failed to secure adequate energy supplies, emergency measures to balance supply and demand may entail restrictions on usage or out-right power shutdowns.
If the per capita energy rations are lower than current levels and the cost significantly higher, then living standards and lifestyles will need to adjust.
Whether our national and international political systems are capable of managing such stresses remains unknown.
Endgame
Just as the ready availability of cheap energy underpinned the rapid growth and improved living standards of the last two centuries, reduced supplies and higher costs will force a retrenchment.
At the same time, since the 1970s, modern economies have relied on ever larger amounts of debt. Such borrowings accelerate current consumption and spending against the promise of repayment. As debt levels have risen, more and more future income must be committed to paying it back. Higher levels of debt helped fund demands on available real resources, which are, in some cases, reaching the limits of supply.
The simultaneous pressures from the world’s energy and debt trajectories now shape the future. There is a subtle difference between the resource and financial economy. The former may decline gradually as supplies are used up. In contrast, the financial economy which inherently deals in current values of future cash flows discounted for timing may feel the pressures much earlier.
Author Jared Diamond, writing in 1999, argued that the worst mistake humans made was switching to agriculture. The addiction to fossil fuels and profligate energy consumption may prove equally catastrophic. It benefited a cohort of lucky sperm who were able to enjoy its bounty but leaves behind a toxic and uncertain legacy.
Former malapropism-prone Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdim’s prognosis may be fateful:
“We will live so well that our children and grandchildren will envy us!”
All ages ultimately die by their own hand.
© 2023 Satyajit Das All Rights Reserved
https://www.newindianexpress.com/web-only/2023/jul/31/energy-destinies-part-8-hurtling-towards-a-pitch-dark-future-2600494.html
A very good series which gets to the nettle of energy issues – particularly good for the layman, you may like to share after reading.
my fellow space travelers! Just a few news items to start out the year right:
Private cars to be phased out in Los Angeles:
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/155/479/158/playable/538d1c73ccf2df64.mp4
New and improved transportation for those attending climate conferences:
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=568,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/154/926/206/original/d6bf95a30bb560a7.png
Carbon reduction is coming soon:
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=568,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/155/498/375/original/4cd16d860b27ebff.jpeg
New EV battery factory in Kansas to be powered by COAL-FIRED power plant:
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/coal/ev-battery-factory-in-kansas-to-be-powered-by-coal-at-least-temporarily/
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Something for zebra – because it’s in your wheel house –
I believe I’m only beginning to start understanding the P problem.
Overpopulation: From 8 billion to 3 | Phoebe Barnard on Planet Critical
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC2mEaIZ9sA
Quote-
“we don’t have the luxury of saying first we’ll treat hyper consumption and then
we’ll treat population or um you know it’s okay to bicker and turn on each other
even this past week i’ve had a bunch of colleagues in conservation biology
saying they weren’t going to read a paper by some of my colleagues scientists
warning on population by really respected sociologists ecologists, and you
know eileen christ paul ehrlich bill ripple bill reese – and they weren’t even
going to read it because it was about the p word.
really people? are we going to go down with a bang and a whimper both of
them at once in civilization because we are tiptoeing around issues that we’ve
got to figure out?”
Phoebe Barnard is a biologist, global change scientist, and policy analyst with decades of experience confronting some of the most pressing problems of our time, bridging the gap between academia and government. She’s also CEO of the Stable Planet Alliance, a coalition of scientific, legal, social, health, media, policy, leadership, faith, culture, and grassroots organizations tackling the overpopulation and hyper-consumption problem.
Phoebe joins me to discuss overpopulation—its effects, our trajectory, and the difficult decisions we face as a species. She argues we must reduce our population to 3 billion in the next century if planet earth is to survive, and us along with it, warning that population reduction policies may be forced on citizens in the future if we do not choose for ourselves now.
We discuss the morality and politics of overpopulation, addressing the West’s all-too-recent history of eugenics and ethnic cleansing. We then explore population reduction as an intergenerational right: There may be less of us in the future, but those future people may be better off for it.
Discover Phoebe’s work: https://www.phoebebarnard.com/
For the resilience and stability of our climate and planet, we must stabilize and reduce our sprawling human impact – by accelerating the move away from a rampant growth economy which drives ecological overshoot – and by investing in empowering, rights-based solutions for women and children.
Stable Planet Alliance: https://www.stableplanetalliance.org/
Thought-provoking paper — “The Weather-Climate Schism”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/aop/BAMS-D-23-0124.1/BAMS-D-23-0124.1.xml?tab_body=pdf
I’ve further noticed that atmospheric science and ocean science are considered distinct disciplines, even though ocean-atmosphere feedback seems to be the most important consideration in natural climate variation models. Few times I’ve been to an AGU conference, discussions were limited because the person I was talking to either studied atmosphere or ocean but not both. It’s like say you’re a research chemist, you would be severely limited if you got a degree in only liquid chemistry.
Paul Pukite (@whut) says
2 Jan 2024 at 2:13 PM
It’s an ambitious dream to mend that schism. Can’t see it happening. Your ocean/atmosphere conundrum is also a curiosity. The IPCC was setup to help facilitate/bring all the sciences together on the common goal of solving the ‘urgent’ dilemma of a warming planet.
I’d love to see a climate scientist ‘in the house’ anywhere who knows the first thing about market economics, supply and demand, or the global energy industry? Except that if ya burn stuff it makes CO2. They know that but maybe that’s all they know.
Thx for your reply in the Dec thread. Appreciated. But too complex for my slowing mind. Good luck!
Ned said:
Likely some validity to this. Climate scientists are trained in their discipline and that’s what they are paid to do. I personally spend much more time on energy analysis than climate, but don’t discuss it that much here because this is in fact a climate science forum. One of the analysis approaches that I came up with is the Oil Shock Model, which is being used to estimate crude oil depletion. Can ask ChatGPT4 about the model:
https://chat.openai.com/share/661df0d5-5637-4f28-b0dc-f84f2a7db7b0
ChatGPT does a good job in explaining it but then misattributes the origin, claiming M. King Hubbert devised the analysis ! Can eventually get that straightened out, and easy enough to find a published citation.
So agree that the energy/climate schism is also real and important. However, I don’t think that RC is the best place to talk about it as the discussion gets too fractured. I would recommend instead the PeakOilBarrel blog, which my co-author maintains. Amazing the amount of detail going on there in tracking the end of the oil age. It’s essentially all about the numbers and digging out production and consumption information from databases.
Thanks have already checked out peakoilbarrel, and agree with you. Saved the Chatgpt ty.
How to win and influence people? :-)
Had some afterthoughts on some discussions I was having and thought I’d share them here as well. FWIW MA Roger! :-)
Please be aware I gave up following this topic in detail regularly 4-5 years ago. Why?
Because I believe climate scientists are the worst communicators in all of human history.
I believe 99% of the media’s, business, political and people’s confusion surrounding climate change science, and what best to do about it, is directly their fault and responsibility, and no one else.
They deserve all the approbations and insults they have copped from ‘activist deniers’, and their work output is overwhelmingly not fit for purpose and unreliable. Their proposed solutions, plans and projections are ludicrous.
However, looking past the dross, the essential science is clearly sound.
But the details, the models GCMs output, the x6 IPCC reports ‘overall’ and the projections surrounding Net Zero 2050 and the interim, on energy use, economic and civilization realities, massive renewable energy and DAC as “magic” solutions, and everything to do with these kinds of things are not worth a dime in my view.
It is no wonder then to me that such a large number of genuine serious people today default to not trust them, do not believe them anymore, and/or reject everything any of them now say or publish.
That is totally understandable to me after decades of observation. The cause is 100% that of the climate scientists themselves as a defined group. It is their collective failure alone. Any exceptions prove the rule.
No personal offense intended whatsoever. That’s my objective opinion. FWIW.
Hmm, why is my spidey sense telling me there’s some communication trolling in the offing.
Been there, done that, got the tacky T-shirt.
“That’s my objective opinion. FWIW.”
An oxymoron? Or just a moron?
Definition of ‘objective’
“Objective means not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering or representing facts.”
Ned Kelly: JAn 2. “ I believe climate scientists are the worst communicators in all of human history.
They deserve all the approbations and insults they have copped, their work output is overwhelmingly not fit for purpose and unreliable. Their proposed solutions, plans and projections are ludicrous”
Pontificated the same Ned Kelly, who lectured i>others on Hitchens’ razor:
“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence .”
and didn’t think this could possibly apply also to … him.
Oh the irony! Complaining about communication, NK uses approbation as a negative. ;)
definition: “Approbation is a formal word for approval or praise”
There are many good climate communicators, including the authors of RealClimate (our hosts). As I understand it, their choice has been to provide scientific information rather than opinion. There are plenty of other outlets for the full range of opinion and policy argumentation. However, RC’s commentariat does seem prone to getting into the weeds, complete with insults and endless arguments.
However, it is becoming more obvious by the day that political slogans must be limited to less than 5 words, preferably 2 or 3 (MAGA for example). These bear little or no relationship to reality, but they are effective. Hence “crooked Hillary” has become “crooked Biden”. Seems far too many people can’t be bothered to think any further than that. The gulf between intelligent thoughtful understanding and simplistic lies is simply ‘proof’ of a worldwide conspiracy.
There are real enemies in town. Let’s do better.
Susan Anderson
You’re right, although I suspect NK probably meant to say opprobrium.
I think NK blaming scientists entirely for confusion about climate change is not credible. At most scientists might have contributed slightly. Even a complete moron must have got the basics on the climate issue by now. Any confusion is largely because people are morons or simply don’t want to understand.
“Hence “crooked Hillary” has become “crooked Biden”.
Exactly. It’s such awful dishonest rhetoric. But this style of thing is very convincing to certain people according to psychological research. It appeals to emotion, and is concise enough to register with people who have short attention spans.
Its hard to counter without getting into long explanations of why people aren’t crooked that lack the punchy impact of the original allegation. But the alternative is to get down in the gutter with the same sort of rhetoric “”Crooked Trump”. Then it becomes one huge mud throwing contest.
So we seem to have to make a logical facts based defence, and hope that wins out in the end.
My suggestion is that we develop simple slogans of our own and refrain from the careful expositions and clear honest essays which only speak to the choir.
Hence:
https://open.spotify.com/track/24vNBapkbdACdaId1Dvr9V?si=4b82c1155fc048c1
Susan, I suspect that the problems we have getting the message across stem less from the effectiveness of our slogans and more from the unpalatable nature of the message itself. I would think that it would be hard to come up with a more cogent and compelling slogan than:
Save the planet for your children!
But the problem with slogans is that they aren’t truth. They can be turned around and used against you. The opposition can carry the same banner–claiming that “the greens” want to deprive your children of energy and wealth. They can look at the truth that human population is at levels the planet cannot sustain and claim that means we want to round everyone up and put them in camps.
And their message–though it is a lie–is easily reducible to a slogan. They tell people that:
Everything’s fine!
And people do not question it because the reassurance it gives is what they want to hear.
In the end, the only weapon we have that cannot be wielded against us by liars is the truth–in all its messy, So, maybe the slogan we need is
When you get tired of being lied to, turn to science.
Or maybe what is missing is a promise of the world we seek to build–something that says all the sacrifice we are asking is worth it:
A sustainable world–where you don’t have to worry that the bread you eat today is being stolen form tomorrows children.
Too long I know, but I don’t know how to make a promise that might be believed in fewer words.
Ray Ladbury says
13 Jan 2024 at 4:07 PM
“When you get tired of being lied to, turn to science.”
a noble effort. a waste of time. sorry
The problem is Ray, Science does not have a solution to the problems nor their causes.
Even worse Science cannot provide such solutions in the first place. It’s incapable of doing that.
People, climate scientists especially need to stop asking science and themselves to do the impossible, Come back down to earth. Embrace their limitations. Drop the false expectations, be realistic.
They don’t have solutions (or plans) to offer anyone.
It’s a Meta-Crisis – far larger than and more complex than “climate science” , or any science.
Science can offer “advice” and “data” but it cannot offer solutions, actions or make decisions.
It, and scientists are not fit for purpose in this situation. It’s way beyond a scientific question.
NK: Science does not have a solution to the problems nor their causes.
BPL: Switch away from fossil fuel use, stop deforestation, and eventually, take carbon dioxide out of the air.
Barton Paul Levenson says
15 Jan 2024 at 6:55 AM
NK: Science does not have a solution to the problems nor their causes.
BPL: Switch away from fossil fuel use, stop deforestation, and eventually, take carbon dioxide out of the air.
NK: None of those are solutions. They are Goals and Ambitions. Theories. Wise up!
https://youtu.be/_P8PLHvZygo?si=b8PZpjr4J-Y4Dyqk&t=3822
People need to stop listening to Climate Scientists, the IPCC, COP meeting Treaties, Net Zero fantasies, and all the Politicians and national Governments who are doing the work of the pathological Capitalist Elites.
re Susan Anderson @ https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-817930
Polluting is Mooching!; end Entitlements for Fossil Fuels!
—-
The Party of ‘Life’
wants you to die
so what sense does it make
to (f/m)uck up the sky?
(inspired by U.S. GOP-right-wing attitudes on abortion vs. Covid, …, environment-climate, … etc., …, and … frankly, abortion (abortion saves lives))
—-
Jesus was Woke!
—-
Have idealistic principles, but act (and vote) strategically. (I will vote Biden 2024 not because he’s never done wrong but because the alternative will be much worse, likely *evil*)
—-
A Farewell to Joe Manchin:
He’s a coal-hearted snake
Look into his funds
Oh-oh
He’s as dirty as they come
Polluters would not pay**
Under his rules
Oh-oh
Entitled mooching tools
**True? well, I remember hearing once that he was open to a carbon tax, but I’m not sure… AFAIK … https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/574175-manchin-raises-red-flag-on-carbon-tax/
—-
This is your world
This is your world on GOP
Any questions?
Don’t vote GOP!
(Father: Where did you learn this stuff?! Son: I learned it from watching Fox News!)
Susan: “Oh the irony! Complaining about communication, NK uses approbation as a negative. ;)” Ouch! Heh. I’ve gotten ‘approbation’ and ‘opprobrium’ mixed up once or twice. Now I avoid both, in favor of ‘approval’ and ‘disapproval’!
Susan: “There are real enemies in town.” To be sure, although I don’t know any who frequent RC. We know Ned Kelly isn’t a real enemy, specifically because he mis-uses a couple of polysyllabic words, and signals thereby he’s not a professional disinformer. When confronting potential enemies, such linguistic cues can help us determine who to focus our energy on. Maybe we can do better, but that kind of knowledge is useful unto itself. Thanks for calling it to our attention.
Hmm… stochastic propaganda?
I wouldn’t necessarily expect good grammar from a paid disinformer, but I more or less agree about NK. Given his general demeanor and the way he thrashes around trying to find different ways to push people’s buttons, I’d say he has positioned himself as your basic troll playing at fantasy bushranger — while maybe making a few interesting, OT points along the way.
Myself, I’m not necessarily adverse to a good pithy, slogan, but the problem is they tend to wind up as thought terminating mantras. And anyway, the standard response to almost everything these days, is a schoolyard “I know you are, but what am I,” appropriation of your message, and projecting on a massive scale.
Newspeak, there isn’t anything that can’t be weaponized and used to flood the zone.
Keep calling it out.
MalAdapted: “ We know Ned Kelly isn’t a real enemy, specifically because he mis-uses a couple of polysyllabic words, and signals thereby he’s not a professional disinformer.”
Agree on Ned not being professional, but aren’t such misuses of words also a trait of the current (i.e. still imperfect) generative AI? Particularly given the sheer volume of the words “Ned” generates… Mind you, if this were a graphic forum, we could have asked “Ned” to
draw hand – 6 fingers – a dead giveaway!
And while you can’t assign a motivation to a tool – the tool can be used by “the real enemy” – to drown the important topics (in an analogue of the denial-of-service attack).
So instead of engaging Neds – as prophylactics I’d suggest copying and pasting the Hitchens razor:
“what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.“
Me: “Thanks for calling it to our attention.” Oh the irony! The correct syntax is of course “Thanks for calling our attention to it.” Now you have my strictly amateur bonafides 8^D. Who’d pay for such clumsy writing?
Adding, there are many many exceptions. Just not enough, sadly.
But there is also thing thing known as ‘destiny’. Maybe the world was never meant to solve this ‘problem.’
Ned Kelly
You have tossed a big grenade there. I do find that some climate scientists get lost in details and technical jargon when communicating with the public. The issue is scientists probably don’t get extensive training in public speaking, and are trained mostly to communicate with other scientists. The denialist campaign is also very noisy.
However IMO scientists do discuss the basics of the climate issue adequately, and I cant see that packaging the basics differently would make a HUGE difference to peoples understanding of the climate issue or motivate a stronger response. The problem is obviously that many of the public don’t want to hear the message because it means making changes to their lifestyles, incurring some costs, etc, etc .
What’s your better alternative to renewables? The options are not great. Massive reductions in energy use risk causing massive pain, chaos, and unemployment. If anyone has any doubts about this look at the history of the 1930’s. The cure becomes worse than the disease. The probability of people adopting such a strategy is therefore effectively zero.
Geoengineering is high risk and would need to last thousands of years.
At least renewables are technically capable of reducing emissions and have reasonable, public support. They might themselves cause a reduction in available energy but nothing massive like 90%. We will run out of oil anyway so change to a new energy source is inevitable.
I share some of your frustrations, but there is a famous quote that seems to apply “The perfect is the enemy of the good” (Voltaire).
I’ll skip the other comments
nigelj says
4 Jan 2024 at 2:35 PM
Hi mate: Re “What’s your better alternative to renewables?”
That’s not on the subject of my post you’re replying to; but at least it isn’t paranoid or abusive. :-)
My sincere answer is: Climate change is only a subset of the Meta Crisis. Are “renewables” in Wind and Solar the priority they are made out to be? I’m unconvinced. So far they have made no difference to either energy use or emissions or global temps growth – and do not yet appear to be capable of achieving better results in the 1, 2, 3 decades ahead. Issues like backup supply and raw materials have no definitive answers. “Theories” and “Assumptions” are all we have at present. Given the dire risks involved should this strategy fail, the implications are literally frightening for the entire world.
A second part of this answer is that the IPCC recommendations for Net Zero and what’s been adopted are not fit for purpose, and imo intrinsically flawed as a “solution” or a “goal”. The assumptions of DAC of CO2 drawdown in the forward projections are dishonest and unethical. But why argue the point? Seems a waste of time. But put these two things together with RE, the precipice on which humans sit is extreme.
RE “At least renewables are [ Theoretically ] technically capable of reducing emissions ”
Say no more. I do not believe Jacobson work you admire is scientifically valid nor fit for purpose. It is instead deeply flawed. (and Zeke Hausfather ideas in that area, fwiw) But again, why argue the point?
I don’t think my comments re climate science communications and their (IPCC, supporters, whoever) inability to capture the public’s imagination or the world’s [bought and sold] politicians isn’t that controversial either. It’s always been an issue – I’m not alone – even some IPCC climate scientists agree going back decades to now. :-)
There’s too much water under the bridge now. If the world needed to come together to solve this part of the meta-crisis then it’s all too late now. They’ve lost far too many hearts and minds today. I have never seen the anti-climate science rhetoric so extensively widespread, angry, vehemently against and lacking in trust today than in all of the last 30 years.
To say that is incredibly sad (for me and others to see it like this), is an understatement. The warnings were given and repeatedly denied and rejected out of hand.
Ned Kelly.
My question was what is your better alternative to renewables?
You responded: “My sincere answer is: Climate change is only a subset of the Meta Crisis. Are “renewables” in Wind and Solar the priority they are made out to be? I’m unconvinced…”
The chances of solving the meta crisis in the next couple of decades or so look like zero, because that problem is HUGE and incredibly difficult to solve. So the chances of solving the climate problem by first solving the meta crisis look like they are effectively zero.
Although renewables are not perfect, IMO they have a much greater than zero chance of stopping dangerous levels of warming. Renewables are growing and there is good evidence they may have already helped stop worst possible climate outcomes.
Your comments elsewhere seem to indicate you think we are running so low on oil and coal supplies that global warming won’t reach dangerous levels (?). You have posted numerous comments about how we have hit peak oil for example. I would agree we have almost certainly hit peak oil but there’s at least 50 years of oil left assuming no new discoveries. This is enough to help cause plenty of warming and there is at least 100 years of coal left as well. Refer:
https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/energy/the-end-of-oil
But I think your perspective is a good reminder of the challenges we face and on multiple fronts.
“I have never seen the anti-climate science rhetoric so extensively widespread, angry, vehemently against and lacking in trust today than in all of the last 30 years.”
Very true but remember the core denialism and anti science rhetoric is coming from a relatively small group of people with crank science views, very strong vested interests in the status quo and ideological obsessions, and the internet just spreads it and amplifies it. Polling by Pew research shows the majority of people accept the science which says we are warming the climate.
The latest COP meeting lead to agreement we must transition away from fossil fuels. Even the arab oil exporting states seem to now acknowledge the inevitable. Of course it might be greenwashing, but something deeper looks like it has changed.
nigelj says
6 Jan 2024 at 4:02 PM
Very true but remember the core denialism and anti science rhetoric is coming from a relatively small group of people with crank science views, very strong vested interests in the status quo and ideological obsessions, and the internet just spreads it and amplifies it. Polling by Pew research shows the majority of people accept the science which says we are warming the climate.
My experience, and my observations, and the material I have been looking at says “the core denialism and anti science rhetoric is coming from” a majority of the general public in the West. It is no longer a “small group” of activists but almost everyone who speaks up.
Here, and places like it, are where the Minority Live in their echo chambers.
I don’t believe Pew research either …. if they say “the majority of people accept the science” then they are asking the wrong people and or distorting the polling and the process.
Everything about agw/cc has been distorted via such orgs and the “mainstream” news media. And social media is a joke.
Ned Kelly.
The Pew research is conventional radom sample polling that looks at large populations or entire countries. I can’t see anything obviously wrong with that methodology. It concludes that the majority of people accept the climate science even in the USA (although its lower there than elsewhere.
But I agree strong anti science sentiment seems to be out there right now. Perhaps some repondents say they accept the climate science when they dont really, just out of not wanting to be seen as anti science to the polling agency. The numbers might be significant.
Its similar to how the election of trump was a surprise given what polling was suggesting. It was suggested that some people in the USA said they supported Hilary Clinton when it appears they really supported Donald Trump, but didnt want to admit that to polling agency.
Its almost like another manifestation of the psychological side of the meta-crisis.
But its clear the main point is that anti science sentiment is prevalent right now, most unfortunately.. This link is a nice summary of possible causes for anyone interested:
https://www.earth.com/news/what-is-causing-a-rise-in-anti-science-beliefs/
Nigel:
But I agree strong anti science sentiment seems to be out there right now. Perhaps some repondents say they accept the climate science when they dont really, just out of not wanting to be seen as anti science to the polling agency. The numbers might be significant.
If the number of respondents not wanting to be seen as anti-science is significant, and especially if it’s growing, that would mean science denial is becoming less socially acceptable. IMO that would be a good thing! Since arguments from the evidence don’t seem to make a dent in denialist numbers, building a pro-decarbonization majority of US voters may depend on changing our social mores. As well, some current deniers will be persuaded by personal experience with newly extreme weather or high tides. Even if their logic is fallacious, I’ll be glad to have them reach the correct conclusions!
I disagree. Support for mainstream understanding of climate science, and for more action to combat climate change, is pretty robust.
https://www.undp.org/press-releases/worlds-largest-survey-public-opinion-climate-change-majority-people-call-wide-ranging-action
https://climatepublicopinion.stanford.edu/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1201071/climate-emergency-public-support-globally-by-country/
And yes, Pew, too:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/10/25/americans-continue-to-have-doubts-about-climate-scientists-understanding-of-climate-change/
As to nigel’s idea that respondents may lie to pollsters, akin to a putative ‘Trump effect,’ which he suggested could have affected poll results in ’16, I’d remind everybody that most of the national results actually fell within the relevant polls’ margins of error! The perception was that polling had failed; in reality, the result revealed that our culture doesn’t understand “margin of error” worth a flip.
Here’s a post-mortem on that issue: you won’t find deception listed as a problem. (They do discuss under-resourcing of state-level polling and underuse of appropriate demographic weighting, among other issues.)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2016-polls-president-trump-clinton-what-went-wrong/
Kevin’s ref Pew, too:
does not say what he thinks it says. It says what I was saying above.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/10/25/americans-continue-to-have-doubts-about-climate-scientists-understanding-of-climate-change/
I replied twice to a nigel query by RC ate both of those comments. and clarified my thinking fwiw about this: NIgelj: “Your comments elsewhere seem to indicate you think we are running so low on oil and coal supplies that global warming won’t reach dangerous levels (?).”
The short answer is *No* you are not correct.
Ned Kelly.
“Kevin’s ref Pew, too: does not say what he thinks it says. It says what I was saying above.”
I was not referring to the Pew research study posted by Kevin. Its largely referring to the USA. I was thinking of this global study by Pew Research:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/04/18/a-look-at-how-people-around-the-world-view-climate-change/
It reviews how people around the world view climate change. Some excerpts: “Majorities in most surveyed countries say global climate change is a major threat to their nation.”
“Concerns about climate change have risen significantly in many countries since 2013.”
It seems logical that they wouldn’t say this if they didn’t accept climate change science.
I will remind you that you said this: “My experience, and my observations, and the material I have been looking at says “the core denialism and anti science rhetoric is coming from” a majority of the general public in the West. ”
You haven’t provided a link to any polling or analytical study that backs up your claim. The Pew study I posted suggests the majority are not anti climate science.
The anti science crowd make a lot of noise on the internet which makes it look like its a majority of people.
“Your comments elsewhere seem to indicate you think we are running so low on oil and coal supplies that global warming won’t reach dangerous levels (?).”
“The short answer is *No* you are not correct.”
Then what is your view ? It’s frustrating and I cant take you seriously if you dont explain yourself clearly.
Nigel, really?
“You haven’t provided a link to any polling or analytical study that backs up your claim. ”
Correct.
i did say: “My experience, and my observations, and the material I have been looking at says “the core denialism and anti science rhetoric is coming from” a majority of the general public in the West. ”
What the point of saying or providing anything else than that?
I say there is no point.
Why?
Because I’m not stupid. It’s obviously not worth a moment of my time. :-)
Now, as per this item Nigelj:
“I was not referring to the Pew research study posted by Kevin.”
May I simply observe you come across as extremely pedantic.
My ONE post contained TWO items totally unrelated to each other ….. sigh …. please try and stop making the most simplest things _________! :-)
Question for Rasmus: I go for a cold dip in the Oslo fjord at Tjuvholmen most mornings early. It is getting to be quite popular. A few days ago, the water temp was about 1.0C. Then it suddenly jumped up to 7C, and now it is 8C. And the temperatures from other locations are also very warm. How can the temp jump that much in a short time at this time of the year?
https://www.yr.no/en/water-temperatures/NO-03/Norway/Oslo
Martin W Smith :How can the temp jump that much in a short time at this time of the year?
A few possibilities:
1. Bad thermometer
2. Too quick reading of the thermometer one kept in the car (before it warmed enough to be in equilibrium with the temp. of surrounding water)
3. An influx of very cold water from surrounding land
4. Windless period, allowing cooling of the thin surface, lower-salinity, layer by frigid air.
If you want to investigate further – use two thermometers, allow them enough time to equilibrate, measure the temp at the same location, away from storm drains and other sources of the cold fresh water, and measure it NOT at surface, but at some depth (depending on the thickness of the fresher surface water lens). Take note of the air temperature and the winds (=>mixing), in the preceding days.
Piotr provided a list of 4 possibilities.
I’ll go for number 3. An influx of very cold water from surrounding land.
I don’t think it could be 1 or 2, because there were several readings from other places around the fjord that were also suddenly 7 or 8 degrees warmer. It might have been number 4, but I don’t remember if there was a windless period before the cold temperatures. I think I remember the water temp dropping day by day as I expected it to drop.
Now we are having severe cold air temperatures in Oslo, and the water temp has dropped to 2C again. Very low wind.
MW Smith: but I don’t remember if there was a windless period before the cold temperatures”
Mind you – I wrote “windless” for the perspective of my city that has avg. windspeed 24 km/h
(as opposed to < 8 km/hr for Olso …) For my point 4 it suffices that the wind is not strong enough to cause mixing of the low salinity surface layer with the water below…
And my points 3 and 4 are connected – increased influx of water from land – not only is super cold, but also brings fresh water – with low S making the stratification stronger, thus requiring stronger wind to mix it with underlying warmer waters. And with the stratified water, almost all the atmospheric cooling is restricted to a thin surface layer, thus explaining quick cooling of it.
Furthermore, I suspect the very top of the water there may have low enough salinity to be brackish, meaning that in low temps the surface water cooled by frigid air, has lower density
and stays near the surface, thus exposing itself to further cooling and more dramatic temp. drop. In contrast – in the full salinity waters – the cooled surface water sinks and is replaced by the warmer water from beneath.
“Particularly, if they may not have even seen the post (Rasmus is only one of several moderators), and/or if the question is outside of their core interests (Rasmus: climatology, climate change).”
But Rasmus is here in Norway; I think he is in Oslo.
MW Smith: “But Rasmus is here in Norway; I think he is in Oslo
Martin, I don’t think this changes any of my 3 points:
– Rasmus is very busy with his day job,
– likely have not even seen your question (since it is in Unforced Variations, not a question to his editorial)
– living in Norway does not make one automatically an expert In oceanography of Norway If it did you wouldn’t need to ask Rasmus. And wasn’t Carbomontaneous from Norway too?
Martin, I saw this mentioned elsewhere,
1) the answer provided was it’s part of the northern heading currents of warmer waters rising around your location. I didn’t peer review, so search for it.
2) best ignore piotr on every subject.
3) Good luck getting an answer from Rasmus or anyone here
Happy new year :-)
NK: best ignore piotr on every subject.
BPL: Piotr knows his stuff and adds value with every post. I don’t know that I could say the same for you.
Ned Kelly: “Martin, I saw this mentioned elsewhere, The answer provided was it’s part of the northern heading currents of warmer waters rising around your location. I didn’t peer review, so search for it.”
So… you apply appeal to authority fallacy yet fail even to disclose the said … authority? And you put the onus of finding it on …. the reader??
NK: 2) best ignore piotr on every subject.
Because unlike Ned Kelly, I provided falsifiable and oceanographically-realistic mechanism, that unlike Ned Kelly’s answer, explains both the sudden warming and the sudden cooling of the waters there?
NK 3) Good luck getting an answer from Rasmus or anyone here
Because the moderators, while surprisingly good, given the huge time-demands of their day jobs, in answering the direct questions to their threads, probably do not have the
time to answer questions in the Unforced Variations open-thread?
Particularly, if they may not have even seen the post (Rasmus is only one of several moderators), and/or if the question is outside of their core interests (Rasmus: climatology, climate change).
The UAH TLT anomaly has been posted for December with not great surprises. At +0.83ºC, the December anomaly is a little down on the last three months (which ran +0.90ºC, +0.93ºC & +0.91ºC) but well above Jul & Aug (+0.64ºC & +0.69ºC). Note that with Feb/Mar 2016, the anomalies set at the height of the last serious El Niño (+0.70ºC & +0.64ºC), these last 6 months of 2023 make up the eight highest UAH TLT anomalies on record.
So that means all these Jul-Dec 2023 months are the warmest on record for their month with the last four Sept-Dec staggeringly “scorchyisimmmoooo!!!!!”. The first six months of 2023 were not “scorchyisimoo!!” (Jan-Jun for their month respectively ranked 21st, =11th, 7th, 8th, 4th & 2nd) but nothing-like chilly enough to prevent 2023 gaining top-spot-with-crossed-bananas for the full canendar year.
UAH Warmest Years
2023 … … … +0.51ºC
2016 … … … +0.39ºC
2020 … … … +0.36ºC
1998 … … … +0.35ºC
2019 … … … +0.30ºC
2017 … … … +0.26ºC
2010 … … … +0.19ºC
2022 … … … +0.17ºC
2015 … … … +0.14ºC
2021 … … … +0.13ºC
2018 … … … +0.09ºC
Down at the surface, the EFSReanalysis for December is showing potentially the top-all-month-highest anomaly while the UoMaine daily anomalies plotting ERA5 reanalysis numbers still with a handful of days to go but (adjusting for the strange anomaly base used by UoMaine) suggests ERA5 December a smidgeon down on Sept-Nov (+0.93ºC, +0.85ºC &+0.85ºC) with it currently running at +0.82ºC. A plot of the UoMaine numbers features in the updated ’15th Dec 2023′ graphic HERE.
The RSS TLT anomaly has also been posted for December, again with not great surprises.
At +1.15ºC, the December anomaly is a little down on the last three months (which ran +1.24ºC, +1..31ºC & +1.22ºC) but in RSS TLT Jul & Aug anomalies weren’t that much lower that this Dec anomaly (+1.03ºC & +1.12ºC). These six months sit in the top nine monthly RSS TLT anomalies (with Feb & March 2016 & Feb 2020 all El Niño-boosted to a greater or lesser extent).
As per UAH that means all these Jul-Dec 2023 months are the warmest on record for their month, with the last five Aug-Dec staggeringly “scorchyisimmmoooo!!!!!”. The first six months of 2023 were not “scorchyisimoo!!” but not quite as lowly ranked as seen in UAH (RSS Jan-Jun for their month respectively ranked 16th, 6th, 5th, 9th, 2nd & 3rd) so again nothing-like chilly enough to prevent 2023 gaining top-spot for the full canendar year although perhaps 2016 & 2020 aren’t distant enough to award 2023 the full-crossed-bananas. Mind it still looks pretty “scorchyisimmmoooo!!!!!” with the monthly anomalies plotted out year-on-year (as per GRAPH 2a HERE).
RSS TLT Warmest Years
2023 … … +0.90ºC
2020 … … +0.82ºC
2016 … … +0.82ºC
2019 … … +0.76ºC
2017 … … +0.69ºC
2021 … … +0.63ºC
2015 … … +0.62ºC
2010 … … +0.61ºC
2022 … … +0.61ºC
1998 … … +0.58ºC
2018 … … +0.55ºC
One of the consequences of 40 years of obfuscation and delay by fossil fuel interests and their allies is that we no longer have the luxury of a gradual, relatively painless transition. Addressing climate change is going to require an all-out assault on all fronts–reduced consumption, greater investment in technology targeted toward the energy sector and sustainability and rapid reduction in fossil fuel use. None of these actions by itself is going to be sufficient.
Reducing consumption–or switching consumption to less carbon-intensive commodities–cannot hope to meet our needs–particularly when we have 8 billion people on the planet we must feed, clothe, house and care for.. Rather the goal here is to buy time so that technology can be developed to implement a fully sustainable energy and industrial infrastructure.
When we think of technological advances helping us, we tend to think of renewable energy and EVs…perhaps also of storage technologies and smart grids. However, not all of the needed technology is “advanced”. Passive solar heating of water, heat pumps to heat our homes, regenerative agriculture to feed our billions also play a role.
The past 40 years have demonstrated that our political, educational and cultural institutions are inadequate to meet the needs of what is to come. With only modest expenditures, fossil fuel interests have hijacked nearly half the electorate. That has to change. If democracy is to survive, voters have to become smarter and institutions have to become more robust.
These are massive changes, and the dislocations that will occur will be painful–perhaps almost as painful as the losses we will incur as climate catastrophes become ever more common. Unfortunately, the slow kids in the class have made such pain inevitable. The climate has already changed and will continue to change for decades to come in ways that make such losses inevitable. And likewise our own delays mean that societal changes cannot be phased in painlessly.
If I have any optimism left, it is from the past generations who made sacrifices and suffered to combat tyranny and repression. Ultimately, they always emerged victorious even if the victories were not always permanent. They succeeded because they had a vision of a better world that could result from their suffering and struggle. We need to present a similarly compelling vision if we are to win.
Yes, we are asking people to consume less–but that does not mean we are necessarily asking them to live worse. So much of our consumption is wasteful–and so much of it fails to deliver what people crave most–meaningful time with those they care about security for those they love. It is my hope that the world that emerges on the other side of the coming trials will be better for the vast majority of people who make it there. It is my belief that it is possible. It is my commitment to try to envision and build this world.
Ray Ladbury said: “When we think of technological advances helping us, we tend to think of renewable energy and EVs…perhaps also of storage technologies and smart grids. However, not all of the needed technology is “advanced”. Passive solar heating of water, heat pumps to heat our homes, regenerative agriculture to feed our billions also play a role.”
Agree about passive solar water heating. Passive solar space heating is also useful. There are two main approaches (hugely simplified description):
1) Traditional passive solar homes aim to rely as much on solar energy as possible by using large windows to maximise heating during the day, and thermal mass inside to act as a heat sink to radiate heat at night, and high levels of insulation to reduce heat loss. You need something like a convection heater for cloudy days and very cold days. This is the low tech traditional version of passive heating.
2)Modern passive solar home. This system relies mainly on a heat pump for heating. These are very low cost to run. The house has VERY high levels of insulation including triple glazing to minimise heat loss and it has strictly controlled ventilation. Windows tend to be small and heat gain from the sun is really just a very secondary source of heating. This is the more advanced tech version of a passive home, but the technology is all tried and tested. You can of course compromise and have large windows / glazed doors in perhaps the main living room, for aesthetic reasons and natural light.
Both systems can hugely reduce consumption of electricity or gas and thus costs although the modern system is apparently better. Of course it does run into Jevons Paradox that other uses of energy might increase. But it will help future proof our housing, and housing is a fundamental need.
Passive solar houses are typically 10 – 15% more expensive than standard houses. But considering how insanely large houses have become in many places, a 10- 15% reduction in floor area would compensate and would be be nothing of consequence to guarantee very low electricity bills and great comfort. In New Zealand building codes have recently required much higher levels of insulation and I think at least double glazing, so these types of houses are being mandated by the law to some extent.
Regenerative agriculture to feed our billions.
The high use of industrial pesticides and fertilisers has considerable downsides, so we should go in the general direction of regenerative agriculture. However feeding the billions might be difficult given proper peer reviewed studies show regenerative agriculture has about 30% lower crop yields than industrial agriculture. Organic farming is much the same. Regenerative agriculture would therefore need to be phased in slowly and ways found to mitigate the productivity issue.
Relax.
The Bottom Line: Oil discoveries peaked 50 years ago and have
been declining ever since.
https://read.realityblind.world/view/975731937/
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/
I don’t see anything to relax about. Oil discoveries peaked 50 years ago, but here is enough oil left to help cause considerable global warming: At least 50 years of oil left at todays rates of consumption, assuming no new discoveries:
https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/energy/the-end-of-oil
Ned Kelly: The Bottom Line: Oil discoveries peaked 50 years ago and have been declining ever since.
Wikipedia: “Numerous predictions of the timing of peak oil have been made over the past century before being falsified by subsequent growth in the rate of petroleum extraction.[8][9][10][11][12][13] ”
Your “peaked 50yrs ago” probably coincides with M. King Hubbert” who “predicted U.S. extraction to peak between 1965 and 1971.[14][15] Hubbert’s original predictions for world peak oil production proved premature[15]”
the same goes for even more recent predictions
“Predictions of future oil production made in 2007 and 2009 stated either that the peak had already occurred,[19][20][21][22] that oil production was on the cusp of the peak, or that it would occur soon.[23][24] A decade later world oil production ROSE TO HIT A NEW HEIGHT in 2018” .
So much for your paternalistic dismissal of Ray’s post:
Ned Kelly: “Relax. The Bottom Line: Oil discoveries peaked 50 years ago and have been declining ever since”
.
Arrogance correlates with ignorance?
P.S. Does not bode well for the credibility of your source – Nate Hagens and his: https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/“.
It’s important to keep in mind what is actually predicted by the Peak Oil concept. It is not so much a statement of geology or physics but rather essentially a statement of economics. It doesn’t mean that oil has disappeared from the planet. It means, not “the end of oil” but the end of *cheap oil”. Sure production can continue but at ever increasing costs. In the final analysis the cost of continued extraction will prohibit further development and inevitable transition to other energy sources (renewable or otherwise).
Jonathan David Jan.7: Peak Oil concept. It is not so much a statement of geology or physics but rather essentially a statement of economics.
May be true, but I fail to see the relevance to the discussion at hand:
– N. Kelly’s claim that peak oil happened 50 years ago is factually wrong regardless whether we use “geologic” or “economic” concept,
– and regardless when it happens – the subsequent decline in oil use won’t be fast enough for us to “relax” and think that the invisible hand of geology or economics will solve the atm. CO2 problem for us, as implied in Ned Kelly’s patronizing response to Ray:
NK: “ Relax. The Bottom Line: Oil discoveries peaked 50 years ago and have been declining ever since”
Jonathan David: – “It’s important to keep in mind what is actually predicted by the Peak Oil concept. It is not so much a statement of geology or physics but rather essentially a statement of economics.”
Nope. It’s a statement about ENERGY.
US petroleum geologist Art Berman stated on 3 Sep 2020:
https://www.artberman.com/blog/stop-expecting-oil-and-the-economy-to-recover/
I quoted from a video promotion of Club of Rome member Ugo Bardi’s 2014 report:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/03/unforced-variations-march-2023/#comment-810221
Art Berman stated on 4 Jan 2024:
https://www.artberman.com/blog/beginning-of-the-end-for-the-permian/
Better hurry up then and transition…
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/12/unforced-variations-dec-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-817672
Yes Jonathon.
It’s even more important to read properly.
Poor poor Piotr! :-)
Piotr said:
Ned said that oil discoveries per year peaked 50 years ago. Those were the years of the super-giant Ghawar reservoir in SA and Mexico’s Canterell at the tail end.
Can look at a list of the big fields here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_fields
Note that only 2 fields on the list occurred after 2010.
Ned Kelly Jan. 8: “ Yes Jonathon. It’s even more important to read properly. Poor poor Piotr!
No, Ned, you may be suffering from premature elation: see my response to the same Jonathan in which I pointed out that his argument does NOT apply to your claim:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-817796
So you may want to save your tears for somebody more deserving of your compassion.
Piotr says
9 Jan 2024 at 1:18 PM
Poor Poor Piotr!
Paul Pukite “ Ned said that oil discoveries per year peaked 50 years ago.
Note that only 2 fields on the [of major fields] list occurred after 2010. ”
Nice try, Paul, but no cigar:
1. 2010 is NOT “50 years ago”.
2. The increase in oil production over last 50 years particularly in North America is driven by oil-shale and tar sands and in the past too small to be economical oil finds, all three
by definition not listed in your table of major (conventional) oil discoveries.
3. Third and most important – you are missing the context – Ray was concerned that we don’t move off the fossil fuel emissions fast enough, your Ned patronizingly dismissed his argument with:
NK: “ Relax.The Bottom Line: Oil discoveries peaked 50 years ago and have been declining ever since.”
The above does not make sense as a reply to Ray, if we read it, as you insist, literally: the decline in “oil discoveries” could stabilize the climate only if it causes the decline in CO2 emissions, and the decline so precipitous as to meet – the net zero-emission targets in the next few decades.
But the actual oil production in last 50 years shows no such pattern oil production keeps INCREASING in the last 50 years reaching the record in 2019, a dropped a bit in 2020-21 NOT because we started to run out of oil, but because of COVID. And in 2022 it regained its upward trend.
So no, we can’t “Relax” hoping that oil production, to borrow a phrase from Trump:
“ It’s going to disappear. One day — it’s like a miracle — it will disappear“.
He’s none too bright this one.
@ 10 Jan 2024 at 2:33 PM
Poor poor Piotr! :-)
Nah, we have these things called engineers. They come up with new, better, and cheaper ways to do things like get oil out of the ground. They’ve been doing the same in many fields since time began. :)
KIA : “Nah, we have these things called engineers. They come up with new, better, and cheaper ways to do things like get oil out of the ground. ”
Despite this claim, global oil prices have increased ever since the 1970s with no sign of this changing back to pre 1970s levels. Some of it was geopolitical in the 1970s but since the 1980s it looks like higher extraction costs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#/media/File:Oil_Prices_Since_1861.svg
This may be a sign oil production has peaked. Conventional oil production peaked in the USA in around 1970. Fracking has extended oil production a bit above this peak, but fracking is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Of course its hard to say exactly how much shale oil is left but it wont last forever and is incredibly unlikely to last more than the next 100 years at most.
KIA lives in a fantasy world where he thinks there is an infinite supply of oil that will go on forever at todays rates of use.
Ned Kelly: 8 JAN: Poor poor Piotr! :-)
Ned Kelly: 10 JAN: Poor Poor Piotr!
Ned Kelly: 12 JAN: He’s none too bright this one. Poor poor Piotr! :-)
Powerful stuff. Witty witty Ned Kelly!
Apparently, Mr. KIA is among the many imbecilic Americans who think that engineers will save us from science.
Piotr,
You are correct, of course. Peak Oil is not a magical solution. And, in any case, oil is only one part of the fossil fuel picture. Moreover, current technologies for production are even more damaging to the planet than traditional methods. However, if oil extraction and development slows it might buy us more time to develop alternative energy solutions long term. One can only hope for the best in a situation that looks pretty grim at times.
Piotr: “premature elation”? LOL! On Googling, it turns out not to be your coinage, but yours is the first use I’ve seen. Made my day!
Glad to be of service, Maladapted. ;-)
For the record, I haven’t seen anybody else use it, but it is too nice a double entendre to presume that I was the only one who thought of that…
NK: I have several recommendations for a few terrific cognitive therapy books that would address most of the problems Piotr and Barton keep bringing to the forum.
BPL: I have some recommendations for you, too:
1. Bite me.
2. See #1.
Ned Kelly: “I have several recommendations for a few terrific cognitive therapy books that would address most of the problems Piotr and Barton keep bringing to the forum
“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” (Hitchens)
NK: He’s none too bright this one. . . . Poor poor Piotr! :-)
BPL: From what I’ve seen so far, he’s considerably brighter than you are.
It’s a matter of standards and values Barton. You’re not in the same league, sorry. I know you can’t understand. So don’t waste your time.
Though reading comprehension can help a lot, Piotr has his limitations, and they persist such as dementia persists, or like CO2 in the atmosphere. :-)
Entertainingly Yours
NK: It’s a matter of standards and values Barton. You’re not in the same league, sorry. I know you can’t understand.
BPL: Buddy, you’re not in the same league as anybody here. And I don’t mean that in a good way.
I recommend reading a textbook on climate science, and working all the problems. I can recommend some if you’re interested.
I have several recommendations for a few terrific cognitive therapy books that would address most of the problems Piotr and Barton keep bringing to the forum.
Talk about being unqualified to judge others …. and totally out of their depth.
https://youtu.be/_P8PLHvZygo?si=b8PZpjr4J-Y4Dyqk&t=3822
NK: People need to stop listening to Climate Scientists, the IPCC, COP meeting Treaties, Net Zero fantasies, and all the Politicians and national Governments who are doing the work of the pathological Capitalist Elites.
BPL: And start listening to you? Not gonna happen, pal.
WOW! These folks are SERIOUS about Global Warming! Don’t try this at home!
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=511.1999864578247,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/156/192/741/original/04a5563565f4a3f2.jpg
A ref in support of recent past and future comments
Energy & Environment› Energy
Monthly global liquid fuels consumption 2020-2024
Published by N. Sönnichsen, Dec 12, 2023
Monthly petroleum and other liquids consumption worldwide from January 2020 to October 2023, with a forecast until December 2024 (in million barrels per day)
SEE the GRAPH https://www.statista.com/statistics/859133/global-liquid-fuels-consumption-outlook/
Worldwide consumption for liquid fuels is forecast to reach 103.12 million barrels per day by the end of 2023. Travel restrictions induced by the coronavirus pandemic resulted in consumption of petroleum products falling as low as 81.83 million barrels per day in April 2020, but have since slowly returned to pre-pandemic levels. In 2020, global crude oil demand decreased for the first time since the 2009 financial crisis, falling to an estimated annual average of 91.2 million barrels per day.
[ 2019 was the previous world record demand / consumption of crude oil – 2023 is likely to overtake that ]
Regional variances
Despite the pandemic having found its way to even the remotest corners in the world, not all regions have been affected the same. In China, where the virus originated in late 2019, complete lockdowns of highly impaired areas resulted in a comparatively quick recovery of liquid fuel consumption. When demand crashed in other major economic powerhouses around the world, including neighboring India, China was able to maintain its high petroleum products use.
U.S. still greatest petroleum consumer
The United States remains the largest consumer of petroleum. The fossil fuel serves a great array of functions from being a feedstock in the petrochemical industry to its use as a raw material for transportation fuels. Population numbers, economic size, industry presence, and wealth of its residents all contribute to a country’s need for this commodity. In the United States, petroleum consumption amounted to over 976 million metric tons in 2021, more than the combined consumption of both China and India (with 2.7 billion people).
Ned Kelly: – “[ 2019 was the previous world record demand / consumption of crude oil – 2023 is likely to overtake that ]”
Is it? I’d suggest you are confusing crude oil + condensate data with total liquid fuels data. US petroleum geologist Art Berman suggests global crude oil + condensate (excluding other liquid fuels – natural gas liquids, gas-to-liquids, coal-to-liquids, bioethanol, biodiesel, other synthetics, etc.) is unlikely to surpass the Nov 2018 peak.
Per Art Berman’s tweet on 18 Jan 2023 (including a graph showing global liquid fuel production Jan 2000 to late-2022):
https://twitter.com/aeberman12/status/1615692186682814467
The graph shows the pre-COVID global peak was in Nov 2018, with global total liquid fuels production peaking at around 102 Mb/d, and crude + condensate peaking at around 84.6 Mb/d.
Art Berman posted in his blog on 3 Aug 2023 a piece headlined The Future of Oil, including:
https://www.artberman.com/2023/08/03/the-future-of-oil/
Per the US Energy Information Administration (EIA):
World Production _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ May 2023 _ _ Jun 2023 _ _ Jul 2023 _ _ Aug 2023
Total petroleum & other liquids (kb/d) _ _ _ _ _ 100,742 _ _ _ 102,106 _ _ _101,466 _ _ _101,199
Crude oil, NGPL, & other liquids (kb/d) _ _ _ _ _ 98,499 _ _ _ _99,714 _ _ _ _99,078 _ _ _ 98,812
Crude oil including lease condensate (kb/d) _ _80,846 _ _ _ _81,761 _ _ _ _81,014 _ _ _ _80,700
https://www.eia.gov/international/data/world/petroleum-and-other-liquids/monthly-petroleum-and-other-liquids-production
The latest EIA data published usually lags a few months behind the present day.
The latest EIA data indicates the total global liquid fuel production is back to around the Nov 2018 peak, but global crude oil + condensate production is still a few Mb/d below the Nov 2018 peak, per latest EIA data.
What will be the global petroleum fuel supply and price situation in future? Would there be enough global fuel supplies, particularly diesel, to meet demand, or would fuel rationing be required? I’d suggest most commentators are ignoring this possibility. Are they ‘energy blind’ or willfully ignorant?
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/12/unforced-variations-dec-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-817672
US diesel?
“Brian, hello.
did you know that 17 mbpd is inputted into US refineries, about 93% capacity, max is 18.2 mbpd?
did you know that the US refinery output of diesel is about 5 mbpd, and that the US uses “only” 3.7 mbpd so the other 1.3 mbpd of diesel is exported?
did you know that US imports from Canada are about 4 mbpd of HEAVY oil?
did you know that HEAVY oil is good for diesel production?
(yes of course you do know that.)
did you know about the symbiotic relationship between the USA and Canada in regard to oil?
Canada produces about 6 mbpd but only has about 2 mbpd of refinery capacity, so they MUST export about 4 mbpd.
AND, what do you know, the US produces too much light oil, so they import the 4 mbpd from Canada, and then the US exports a few mbpd of their unneeded light oil.”?
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2023/08/31/fossil-fuel-imports-are-already-constrained/comment-page-9/#comments
James Charles: – “US diesel?”
Reiterating my earlier comments (with a slightly different emphasis):
See also The Oil Crash blog pieces:
1. Posted on 19 Nov 2021 titled Peak Diesel: 2021 Edition. It includes a graph showing global production of diesel and gasoil, from 2003 through to mid-2021, where maximum production reached a bumpy plateau around 26 Mb/d between the end of 2014 through to the start of 2019, then steadily declining to below 23 Mb/d by mid-2021 (over an 11% decline).
https://crashoil.blogspot.com/2021/11/el-pico-del-diesel-edicion-de-2021.html
2. Posted on 28 Dec 2023 titled The Oil Crash: Year 18. It included these statements (translated to English):
https://crashoil.blogspot.com/2023/12/the-oil-crash-ano-18.html
But it seems US net production of distillate fuel oil hasn’t changed much over the period from Jun 2010 through to end-2023, except for a brief drastic downward spike in Feb 2021, per the US EIA:
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=W_EPD0_YPY_NUS_MBBLD&f=W
So it seems Latin America, Africa & parts of Asia are apparently seeing fuel shortages already. Perhaps a portent for what’s to come soon for the rest of us?
Per the EIA’s article published on 10 Oct 2023, titled U.S. crude oil exports reached a record high in first half of 2023, included these statements:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=60622
How much longer will there be sufficient quantities of the heavier grades of crude oil suitable for refining into diesel and gasoil? Multiple indicators I see suggest global diesel/gasoil fuel supplies will likely become increasingly scarcer.
Meanwhile, the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is below half of its peak level in 2011.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WCSSTUS1&f=W
Did you know that the USA burns ~20 million barrels of “oil” per day, yet the USA only extracts ~12 million barrels of crude oil from its territories?
How can this be if everyone from Trump to Biden calls the USA a net exporter of oil?
Because:
1: “oil” can include biodiesel, ethanol, compressed or natural gas liquids, coal-to-liquids, etc, which fall under the “all liquids” oil tag.
2. Unrefined oil imported into the USA is refined and then re-labelled as domestic for accounting purposes, i.e. filed under “production”, not “extraction”.
Both these are creative book-keeping tricks that keeps the USA citizenry ignorant about crude oil depletion.
Paul Pukite (@whut) says
9 Jan 2024 at 12:26 AM
I did!
(vbg)
Late last year saw an estimate that non-Oil sourced “Liquid Fuels” was about 15% of the global total “Oil” consumed. It will continue to increase.
I think that was from Art Berman, but can’t recall exactly.
USA citizenry are ignorant about everything on this Earth. No surprises there.
James Charles: – “US diesel?”
Additionally, published on 9 Jan 2024 at The Oil Crash blog (after posting my previous comment to you above) was a piece titled Peak Diesel: 2023 Edition. Rafael Fernández Díez’s piece concluded with (translated to English):
https://crashoil.blogspot.com/2024/01/el-pico-del-diesel-edicion-de-2023.html
Ned Kelly: – “In the United States, petroleum consumption amounted to over 976 million metric tons in 2021, more than the combined consumption of both China and India (with 2.7 billion people).”
And the US is currently the world’s largest crude oil producer, which contributes substantially to serving it being “the largest consumer of petroleum”. But for how much longer? What will happen when tight oil begins to decline?
https://twitter.com/aeberman12/status/1741469704458318102
https://twitter.com/aeberman12/status/1745520355635053054
Despite China being the sixth largest crude oil producer globally in 2022, it needed to import almost three times more to meet its consumption needs.
See Fig 22: Chinese crude imports vs stagnating domestic production, at:
https://crudeoilpeak.info/another-3-year-warning-on-australias-fuel-imports-vulnerability
And India is in a much worse crude oil import-dependency situation…
See Fig 6: India import ratio 86% (+0.7% pa last 5 years), at:
https://crudeoilpeak.info/peak-oil-in-south-east-asia-and-india-part-1-production-and-consumption-update-2022
Diesel shortages are already being observed in some parts of the world, especially in Latin America. Kerosene production has apparently also peaked globally.
https://crashoil.blogspot.com/2024/01/el-pico-del-diesel-edicion-de-2023.html
I’d suggest it’s only a matter of time before diesel shortages, followed by kerosene/jet fuel shortages, spread worldwide.
Or maybe not. Electrification is (still) compounding. We’re coming to the part of the curve when it’s starting to affect the consumption of petroleum–and it will do so increasingly.
Kevin McKinney: – “We’re coming to the part of the curve when it’s starting to affect the consumption of petroleum–and it will do so increasingly.”
Is it? Where’s your evidence/data to support your assertion, Kevin?
US petroleum geologist Art Berman posted on 8 Jan 2024 in his blog a piece titled EVs Will Have No Effect on Oil Demand. It included these statements (bold text my emphasis):
https://www.artberman.com/blog/evs-will-have-no-effect-on-oil-demand/
I’d add that the growth in EV sales is displacing primarily petrol/gasoline-fueled ICEVs. I’d suggest that won’t help significantly with the already apparent emerging diesel and kerosene/jet fuel shortages. As Art Berman also states:
Far better to thoroughly review the data and the trends and track them over time, carefully. It will reduce the shock levels when you realise there is no genuine “electrification replacement” happening in the transport sector — nor a reduction in demand for diesel going forward.
An open mind can’t hurt either. Not many of those about. Humans and all aren’t that flexible.
Refs are freely offered and freely rejected.
It is what it is, and why we are exactly where we are now and why the future is going to like it is going to be. Horrific chaos. A sinking ship with not enough life boats.
BTW, I’ve been expecting something like this for years:
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/eu-investigators-inspect-chinas-byd-geely-saic-ev-probe-source-2024-01-12/
There may be some dumping going on–or it may be that the massive Chinese domestic market and much better developed manufacturing scale are now mostly driving (heh!) the cost advantages enjoyed by the likes of BYD in the European market.
Money is a Dirty Business
A really good, lovely, podcast with Rachel Donald with humility and gentleness talking through the notions of trying to get one’s head around the Meta-Crisis. – 13 Questions for 2024
Keep Trying in 2024 | Rachel Donald
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4_ZsrzxPFE
Question 13.
“I listened to your episode with George Monbiot, and you both mentioned the “machine” ratcheting up. This is despite the well-meaning people shouting from the rooftops in protest for decades, if not centuries (if we reach all the way back to, say, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau and John Muir).
“Do you feel that your podcast and similar endeavours from other people (such as George Monbiot, Nate Hagens, Jem Bendell, James Hansen, Resilience.org etc.) make any difference or are you bound to “bark as the caravan moves on”?
“If the latter is the case, are you at peace with it? Is it enough for you that “you tried”, as Louise Harris sings in her song that you’ve shared? Do you think humanity will have a change of heart at the 11th hour or do you think that the “machine” will run until it hits the hard physical, biological and climatic boundaries?”
Planet: Critical investigates why the world is in crisis—and what to do about it. Support the project with a paid subscription. © Rachel Donald
Support Planet: Critical: https://www.patreon.com/planetcritical
Subscribe: https://www.planetcritical.com/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/CrisisReports
Fantastic new book: “The Earth Transformed, An Untold Story, by Peter Frampton, first published 2023.” It’s a complete and detailed history of Earths environment from the earths formation to the last few years. The main focus is on human impacts on the environment, but natural changes are included as well.
Includes earths climate change history, the main evidence for anthropogenic change, and the history of climate change science. Footnotes / bibliography runs to over 200 pages accessible on a website (not included in the book for obvious reasons of length). Good chapters on the period of colonisation. This chapter in particular is an eye opener even if you think you know this history. I have only read some chapters and its quite a long book but I find it is written in a nice flowing accessible style. Two reviews:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/mar/05/the-earth-transformed-by-peter-frankopan-review-why-humans-have-always-been-under-the-weather
https://inquisitivebiologist.com/2023/03/31/book-review-the-earth-transformed-an-untold-history/
Thanks for the rec! Frankopan not Frampton (did a double take on that). [I suspect it’s that dam’ autocorrect.]
It reminded me of a factoid we all might want to know: the dust bowl was an earlier instance of the sweeping changes we humans cause when we wipe out a native ecology.
https://news.ucar.edu/132872/1930s-dust-bowl-affected-extreme-heat-around-northern-hemisphere
A typo.. Mixed him up with the musician Peter Frampton.
Heh, Nigel, that was my first thought after my own double take! I immediately recalled Peter Frampton blasting out of the college dorm down the hill from my apartment, in the early ’80s. Thanks for the earworm, goddammit!
Mal Adapted.
Ha ha. The irony is Peter Frampton is definitely not my favourite musician, but he was hard to avoid in the 1980s.
I agree that NK is not the enemy, and has sometimes posted some good stuff, but his claims scientists communications skills were very inflammatory and evidence free. If his goal was to start a substantive discussion he largely failed in spectacular fashion.. His comments were bluntly dismissed in a few words.
Like Piotr said Hitchens razor means claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Its tricky because we need to grab peoples attention, but if it comes across as wildly evidence free and blatant trolling its going to get a short bluntly dismissive response from most people.
IMO wild evidence free claims, and suspicious looking claims should be challenged. Its perfectly healthy provided its politely worded. It is also how science works. Any weakness is exposed without mercy. Its the only way of being certain we are getting to the truth.
“were very inflammatory and evidence free.”
Oh dear how horrible.
Nigelj, you should launch an inquiry, for we cannot have “inflammatory” comments being said.
And “evidence free”? Oh god no!
It’s just not done. :-)
Barton Paul Levenson says
2 Jan 2024 at 8:59 AM
NK: I said 5% of global energy my ref is Berman ….. not for total transportation CO2 emissions in the USA, but energy for passenger cars only . . . Your 29% was for all Transport emissions in the United States. And I already showed you this was the case … My long comment was play with you …. and you still can’t see it. :-) . . . You can’t even tell when you have doubled down with 3 own goals.
BPL: My response was entirely to the point. You were saying that EVs could only account for 5% of emissions and therefore EVs were irrelevant. Your 5% figure, being based on passenger cars alone, ignored EVs in trucking and transportation, and electrification of railways, etc., etc. You cherry-picked passenger cars because it was a small number. There was no reason to isolate passenger cars from transportation or from electrification of transportation. You were being misleading and I called you on it. Deal with it, buster.
1) Nope, I said for energy – in the world and not the US, and I repeated these corrections and still Barton ‘missed’ them again and again. Even above again. Seniors moments? :-)
2) Yes EVs in trucking and buses are non-existent; railways and trams have been electric for like a century or more ….. move alone.
3) There are ample reasons to isolate energy for passenger cars from transportation or from electrification of transportation in general. It is done all the time, every day all over the world, by energy, EV experts incl by emissions experts and reports, and the ref quote I used.
4) You don’t get to decide what other people talk about here, or anywhere Barton
5) I was not being misleading in any way. I was clear and specific. You Barton are the one who has in fact repeatedly been misleading and distorting what I said and what it meant the first time I said it – not me.
Nice try. You missed your target.
Excellent comment / refs by Geoff Miell on peak oil, higher price pressures now.
3 Jan 2024 at 7:18 PM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/12/unforced-variations-dec-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-817672
I think I posted that Nate Hagen i’view with Berman last month as well (I think I did – plus another talk he gave) … but good for you for repeating and adding those twitter quotes.
Govt plans to expand coal power fleet to meet soaring demand: Report
By Rajesh Kumar Singh
India plans to further expand its thermal power fleet, the power minister Raj Kumar Singh announced, amid an unexpected rise in demand.
The nation intends to add almost 88 gigawatts of new capacity by early 2032, the minister said in parliament on Thursday, a 63% increase from a previous plan published in May.
https://www.business-standard.com/amp/industry/news/govt-plans-to-expand-coal-power-fleet-to-meet-soaring-demand-report-123122200397_1.html
Where there’s smoke, there’s ….. ? This is not a one-off occurrence going forward. Several refs / indications provided in Dec UV.
After November’s figures, I expect that the NASA GISTEMP figures will, in a few days, show very similar results to the Copernicus figures now released. The JMA figures are similar. See:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/09/2023-record-world-hottest-climate-fossil-fuel
I would have been amazed had the figures been lower. After watching this slow-motion train wreck for over 50 years, it was always a question of how long before Nature struck back. Now it looks as though she has.
Whilst I hope that things will cool a bit after this year, I do wonder whether we will even get that luxury. Perhaps the last year or two, rather than being an anomaly, is the next click of the ratchet, as I doubt that we are near the equilibrium temperature for the current GHG loading, let alone the insane increases being planned at present.
I do not put much credence on what the WEF is about and what it;s intentions are. However in a rush to manipulate the whole world some truths can slip out. A discerning critical thinking approach is required. I do not assume the content is all true or reliable. With that in mind:
Global Risks Report 2024
https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2024/digest/
https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2024/
The Global Risks Report explores some of the most severe risks we may face over the next decade, against a backdrop of rapid technological change, economic uncertainty, a warming planet and conflict. As cooperation comes under pressure, weakened economies and societies may only require the smallest shock to edge past the tipping point of resilience.
2024 Report: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_Global_Risks_Report_2024.pdf
“Climate change” and Biodiversity, Ecological destruction risks are addressed throughout.
These reports will be as globally useful and inconsequential in driving rational morality based change as the IPCC Reports and all the UNFCCC COP meetings are.
The exceptions prove the rule, so maybe a few individuals here might will these ‘WEF reports’ compelling, personally motivating, and useful to them and their loved ones. This is the only reason why a share this info.
For good quality nuanced and balanced information about our global predicament and the Meta-Crisis, I recommend Nate Hagens and his many guests as a source: https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/
In particular I highlight Daniel Schmachtenberger of The Consilience Project who has appreared several times:
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/71-daniel-schmachtenberger
Ned Kelley on 4 Jan, : “In the United States, petroleum consumption amounted to over 976 million metric tons in 2021, more than the combined consumption of both China and India (with 2.7 billion people).
What is surprising about that is that China and India use as much petroleum as they do given that much of their populations are essentially 3rd world, as can be seen on this website (2014 data, so they are better today, but still they are emerging economies). You can see how poor they were in 2014 starting at map number 31 and scrolling down to the other maps. The animation in map 31 is kind of shocking:
https://www.vox.com/2014/8/26/6063749/38-maps-that-explain-the-global-economy
China and India are still on the emerging and developing nations list today:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_economy#World_economy_by_country_groups
According to Al Gore’s internet, in 2021, the USA used slightly LESS petroleum in 2021 than China and India combined:
USA = 19.890 MMB/d
China + India = 15.27 + 4.68 = 19.95
That’s close enough that somewhere you might find data that differs. Source:
Second table down the page:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=709&t=6
Also:
https://www.eia.gov/international/data/world/petroleum-and-other-liquids/annual-refined-petroleum-products-consumption?pd=5&p=0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000g&u=0&f=A&v=mapbubble&a=-&i=none&vo=value&t=C&g=00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001&l=249-ruvvvvvfvtvnvv1urvvvvfvvvvvvfvvvou20evvvvvvvvvnvvvvs&s=94694400000&e=1640995200000&
GDP of China and India combined = $21.81 Trillion. (2023 data)
GDP of USA = $26.95 Trillion Source: See graph in upper right corner of page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
China and India have a combined population of 2,804,079,000 people which is 8.35 times as large as the US population of 335,893,238. (I think due to illegal immigration, it’s probably over 400 million, but that’s another story.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population
Thus, the per capita GDP in the USA of $80,263.60 ($219.90 per day) is 10.3 times the per capita GDP for China + India of $7,777.95 ($21.31 per day). With that, we have found the key to lowering petroleum consumption rates: POVERTY. That is shown in all nations around the world, with few exceptions such as Norway of course, which uses a lot of fish-killing hydro power to run electric cars.
:)
The truly amazing thing is that I probably did more math in this post than in all the posts above it COMBINED.
:)
I think you’ve seriously erred by relying on 2014 data; China has been growing at 6%/yr most of the time since then.
More currently, China is very much in the middle of the economic pack.
GDP per capita: $12,541 (US), 64th of 195 nations & territories listed. World mean: $12,648
GDP per capita, Purchasing Power Parity adjusted: $23,309, 72nd. World: $22,226
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Urban China is impressive in terms of its infrastructural standards and economic dynamism; rural China is quite another story–though even there the poverty reduction has been marked.
KIA: the US population of 335,893,238. (I think due to illegal immigration, it’s probably over 400 million, but that’s another story.)
BPL: The Census missed 64 million people? Sorry, I don’t see how that’s even remotely possible. The best estimate of illegal alien population is 11 million, and that’s already included in the 336 million total.
Thread & paper correct the common misattribution of terrestrial ET changes to atmospheric effects. They correctly emphasize the overlooked importance of anthropogenic trends in soil moisture.
https://twitter.com/KaighinMcColl/status/1713944026984951936
The authors blame this common misconception on the relative ease with which atmospheric variables are observed, compared to soils.
“1) Dry soils cause dry air
2) But, air dryness (VPD) is measured much more accurately than soil dryness (soil moisture)
3) So, surface conductance is better correlated with VPD than soil moisture, which gives the appearance of VPD being more important, even when it’s not.”
This also applies to hypotheses of CO2 forced stomatal closure limiting the ET, I think. In a similar way, CO2 is easy to measure, which gives the appearance that it’s more important than anthropogenic changes in moisture availability, even when it’s not.
It should be obvious that the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum of water exchange is primarily constrained by soil moisture and surface net radiation. All else is secondary.
This allows inverting the question –
instead of the question posed 99% of the time – such as: what is the impact of climate on soils? We can instead ask the equally pertinent question: what is the impact of soils on climate?
JCM
JCM
Something that I came across recently fyi: “New research incorporating experimental data reveals that global soils are emitting instead of storing carbon dioxide emissions. The world’s climate-safe carbon budget could thus be up to two-thirds smaller than thought.”
https://www.eco-business.com/news/soil-may-be-foe-not-friend-in-climate-fight-scientists-find/
Thanks nigelj
Certainly. I estimate 5-10 tons carbon/ha/year net loss and oxidized to atmosphere. Needless to say, this also relates to atmosphere gas concentration budgets. I’m speaking of stable soil carbon, or soil organic matter loss, from a hydrological perspective i.e. desertification, increasing bulk density, cloud feedbacks, and increasing hydrological and temperature extremes. From my POV, desertification is one and the same with loss of stable soil carbon. That is: erosion of soils. However, I am not asserting that soil conservation should be directly considered a tool for abating atmospheric trace gas emissions. Nevertheless, in applications for public financing related to land stewardship, the focus on the CO2 aspect appears to be predominant, and we find ourselves compelled to work within this framework. The article is an example which highlights the extreme ignorance and reductionism of environmental management objectives which has practically overwhelmed politics, finance, media, and teaching. The result is perceived low value impact for watershed restoration, lack of interest in local community based land stewardship, and the associated dwindling resources for such initiatives. This article seems to reinforce the obviously phony environmentalist perspective and idiotic reductionism of the issues.
in Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-817928
and
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-818006
Dear JCM,
I would like to ask a question. Paleoclimatology strives to reconstruct the climate history on Earth, and exploit this knowledge for better understanding the mechaisms driving climate generally.
I have found out that there is also paleopedology that perhaps may analogously strive to reconstruct the history of soil formation / degradation on Earth.
I would like to ask if pre-anthropocene Earth basically accumulated organic carbon in soils, or if there were also periods of soil degradation accompanied with organic carbon loss from soils?
Are there some reconstruction of the respective balances of organic carbon in soils during holocene / anthropocene?
Greetings
Tomáš
JCM,
I’m not seeing your perceived connection between focus on CO2 and lack of interest in stewardship etc. This runs counter to my own perceptions: that these aren’t coupled by causation, that more attention is being paid to comprehensive planning than say 20 years ago, and that the problem is strong political head winds attempting to prevent action on any environmental conservation including climate change, or indeed even any good faith discussion of climate change.
I don’t know how things are playing out where you are, but whenever I tune into my local TV there’s a fair about devoted to land stewardship. That said, In practical terms, attention is going to be divided by exigent circumstances, such as allocating CAP water in the southwest, vs meeting threats of lethal wetness in Manhattan, vs putting out fires breaking out pretty everywhere, and so on. The price for kicking the can down the road. That’s not on the climate scientists– bogus arguments to the contrary
Regarding the critique of reductionism, personally that’s looking a little old school to me. It’s not entirely irrelevant, but whenever it comes up, it’s like I’m hearing rhetoric from the magical land of Altmedwoo circa the late 20th century (which in turn harks back to the age of Romanticism). It only serves to remind me that out and out denialists might find it a handy tool to subvert certain demographics à la Alexander Cockburn in order to undermine action.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/cockburns-form/
—-
Climate change is a multiplier, it makes everything worse.
in response to “whenever I tune into my local TV there’s a fair about devoted to land stewardship.”
that’s great news! Do you have an example segment you can share?
I don’t totally understand the other bits about subversion and denial but it sounds interesting.
cheers
Radge Havers says
15 Jan 2024 at 12:47 PM
“,,,,,that more attention is being paid to comprehensive planning than say 20 years ago,”
A quick heads up for context and reality.
Since 2000 the global economy powered by fossil fuel and land clearing and industrial agriculture has grown in GDP metric three times in size.
There is where the real “comprehensive planning” has taken place. No where else.
You are imagining things that do not exist. Except inside your head and momentary TV news distractios suich as you mentioned.
“That’s not on the climate scientists–?”
Oh yes it is – they have been driving this bus since the 1980s … the whole project how it is framed presented to the public and politicians the language framing and rhetoric and semantics being used the goals being set and expectations the recommended mitigation actions and current COP Goals all the way out to Net Zero 2050 including the 2C and the 1.5C yardsticks above “pre-industrial average temperatures” all comes from climate scientists and no one else!
And all of it is a total failure.
JCM,
Sure, PBS mostly. Their nature programming runs the gamut from fine art cinematography on “Nature,” and David Attenborough documentaries, down to smaller local pieces on community efforts regarding things like: invasive species, community gardens, permitting and rescuing vulnerable plant species from being scraped, programs related to habitats, different species, etc.
Where are you located? Do you not get this kind of programming where you are, or is it like a hive of Sovereign Citizens who think PBS is some kind of commie plot?
Some samples
“Dirt” A Documentary About Saving Our Soil, Arkansas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8mawEmm49o
Common Ground, Native Grasslands of Arizona
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPJZ9Fsx-bs
Stewards of the Rangeland, Nevada
https://video.pbsnc.org/show/stewards-rangeland/
Dust Bowl
Stories from the Dust Bowl
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tlWqZHbsOA
American Experience: Surviving the Dust Bowl
(Preview)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PylLYpo9yeY
The Dust Bowl, Ken Burns
(Preview)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT5QSEmWwYs
And just because I like them…
Get in touch with your inner farmer
I’ve given these as gifts on DVD
Seed: The Untold Story
A movie that also aired on PBS.
You can watch it on YouTube with annoying ads.
(Trailer)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GUxC_nojsU
Deeply Rooted: John Coykendall’s Journey To Save Our Seeds, Louisiana
(This link is a trailer)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyKOmltsa2U
Ned is wrong yet again:
“the whole project”–True to the extent that the issue was raised by scientists; false in that “project” implies action, and that is a child of politics.
“how it is framed”–Again, information starts with the science. But the presentation is highly shaped by politics and media both.
“the goals being set”–Nope, that’s political processes–though scientific concern that the 2 C goal was grossly inadequate did get 1.5 C on the table. Odd, I’d have thought Ned would’ve given some credit there, but no.
“the recommended mitigation actions”–Nope. Individual scientists have offered “recommendations,” but bodies such as IPCC WG 3 have taken an evaluative stance–in line with their brief.
“current COP Goals”–This one already contradicts the thesis; COPs are not scientific events, but policy/political ones, and are not primarily attended by scientists but by political delegations. And the COP structure wasn’t set by scientists in the first place, either.
The rest of Ned’s quoted verbiage is repetition, essentially.
Kevin McKinney says
@ 17 Jan 2024 at 9:39 AM
Whatever Kevin.
Why won’t this take a reply?
Someone needs to blow up the internet so we can go back to being human beings again.
NK: Someone needs to blow up the internet so we can go back to being human beings again.
BPL: Right! This is a great opportunity for you to lead by example, Ned. Give away your computer, or better yet, smash it with a sledgehammer! That’ll show ’em! Come on, be a hero! Lead the way!
BPL: Right! This is a great opportunity for you to lead by example, Ned. Give away your computer, or better yet, smash it with a sledgehammer! That’ll show ’em! Come on, be a hero! Lead the way!
I did exactly as you recommended Barton. Thanks for the advice.
“I did exactly as you recommended Barton. Thanks for the advice.”
Enjoying the public library? But you’re just outsourcing the emissions, right?
Kevin McKinney
18 Jan 2024 at 12:21 PM
You’re all so predictable. A real asset to this climate science site.
No Kevin. I blew up the public library. Check your news feeds.
*** GHOSTED ON THE LINKED CHANNEL, TRYING THIS ONE, GOOGLESTUBES SCIENCE CENSORSHIP TESTING *** For video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCIy6gmAaU8 I’ll not bother watching the video because I studied this several years ago and if Dsong says the diagram at 1:35 is rubbish then Dsong is 100% correct (for a change). I tried to complain about that drivel (same drivel not that actual article) on Realclimate July 2021 but my comment was censored. I tried again December 2021 and Realclimate posted it this time but there was no interest and a bod just said “Yes. There’s a lot of drivel about the “greenhouse effect” everywhere”. Most people are just too thick inside the skull. Maybe 99.9% of humans are about as thick as pig shit. A “Sixty Symbols” bull shit “greenhouse effect” so-called “explanation” is the worst I’ve come across. That one also completely removes the “greenhouse effect” same as at 1:35 in this video (the (49) to space and (49) to surface is LITERALLY a statement that the diagram has ZERO “greenhouse effect” because the LITERAL definition of a “greenhouse effect” Factor is “to-surface/to-space-1” which is (49) /(49)-1=ZERO). This “Sixty Symbols” Clown removed all “greenhouse effect” the same way and then pretended that the solar SWR absorbed into atmosphere was absorbed into surface, pretended that there’s no net latent heat up from the surface, and pretended that there’s no sensible latent heat up from the surface and thus added a massive 175 w/m**2 of heating power to the surface that DOESN’T ACTUALLY EXIST. Then he did the mathematics of a 10 year old British Primary School child like the diagram at 1:35 and calculated, concluded the surface is 51 degrees warmer due to atmospheric gases, waved a hand airily and said “Looks like I’ve overcooked it a bit but you get the idea” (because “greenhouse effect” is ~33 degrees). Well no not just overcooked but a scam because to balance the non-existent 175 w/m**2 of heating power to the surface (solar SWR + latent + sensible heat) needs about 175/3.3 = 53 degrees of warming to send up that extra non-existent power as extra non-existent LWR). “Sixty Symbols” == TOTAL RUBBISH. They should change the name of their Channel to “TOTAL RUBBISH”. End of justifiable rant.
Accusation as confession: TOTAL RUBBISH
Crankshaft? Borehole? Incoherent and wrong …
Imagine a world where forests are owned by billionaires / investment funds, and we have to pay them for the air that we breathe…the water we take from wells and rivers and rainfall…
Capitalism is really just a different form of monarchy / oligarchy / totalitarian dictatorship / feudalism / slavery and enclosure : different justifications here and there, same result. everywhere. No system lasts forever.
The Meta-Crisis can only mean and lead to fundamental changes of everything everywhere.
A new weekly Mauna Loa CO2 average is available.
Week beginning on January 07, 2024: 423.49 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 419.54 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 398.26 ppm
Last updated: January 14, 2024
The annual increase this week is now at 3.95 ppm. This is very high and much higher than the 10 y average of 2.52 ppm/a.
One of the reasons is a daily average of 424.96 ppm on the 13th which was the highest ever measured daily average.
Had this tossed at me over polar amplification https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-01008-9?fbclid=IwAR1blm3bzk6JuIdKLcbEKRLpgEZu5zvL0fW-Mtbxwdrpn-yA_KyQfXsT5kQ_aem_AddxYecS7SeB6oeTxlep_NQ_Ax9iBVVebvhG429DvfRsWrf3OXJM1eS8TMST69NP63o&mibextid=Zxz2cZ
Daniel Schmachtenberger
1:04:02 – The Difference Between Wisdom and Intelligence
1:12:41 – Chesterton’s fence
1:13:03 – Progressive and Traditionalist as Dialectics
1:18:07 – Genetics and Intelligence vs Wisdom
timed link – https://youtu.be/_P8PLHvZygo?si=yizSm0-bU-odf55D&t=3822
piece together the biophysical history that has led humans to this point, heading towards (and beyond) numerous planetary boundaries and facing geopolitical risks all with existential consequences.
aka why climate scientists (the IPCC / COP or Politicians) offer no credible solutions or practical advice for “solving” or “mitigating” global warming and climate change nor it’s catastrophic effects.
JCM says
15 Jan 2024 at 10:01 AM
“Regarding the notion of a “real point,” it’s worth noting…………..”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-818040
Very well said throughout that entire comment. Congratulations. More like that please!
(Oct 2023) Rapid ice melt in west Antarctica now inevitable, research shows
Sea level will be driven up no matter how much carbon emissions are cut, putting coastal cities in danger
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/23/rapid-ice-melt-in-west-antarctica-now-inevitable-research-shows
Is that correct?
I think it’s long been known that even a dead stop to emissions would see a long period of rising sea level as the cryosphere equilibrates.
So, yes, AFAICT, that is correct. (And, FWIW, it’s been the topic of conversation with my brother-in-law about his home in suburban Miami.)
Analyzing the HadCRUT dataset, blogger Tamino, a seasoned statistician, found that the expectancy value of the rate of temperature rise incresed from 0.2 °C/decade to 0.3 °C/decade during the last 10 years, after removing the influence of solar irradiation variance, volcano eruptions and ENSO.
see: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2024/01/05/global-warming-picks-up-speed/?unapproved=108540&moderation-hash=306892dad1c5fa50d31ac255f0952cbd#respond
and my blog post about it:
https://remarksandobservations.wordpress.com/2024/01/16/climate-averaged-warming-rate-0-3-c-decade-instead-of-0-2/
Thoughts?
” we must accept as a fact that global warming is accelerating “
A good article Dominik. This quote above was an obvious outcome / expectation to me and many others over a decade ago, at two decades ago. I see no reason it would stop accelerating now and into the future as well. It’s logical it will.
Nothing is being done to change this trajectory.
I also seriously doubt, given the last 30 years of human history, that the current 0.3C growth continuing for ~20 years,, nor the crossing of +1.5C already or at any moment now, will make any difference at all to “our (collective) politics and our private (collective) behaviour” either – I see no reason why it would.
“Nothing is being done to change this trajectory.”
LMFIFY:
“Not enough is being done to change this trajectory.”
To Tomas, in response to:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-818030
With respect to Kleidon, they constrain surface energy balance over the whole surface-atmosphere system.
I have given it some thought and attempted to put into words!
Please critique this attempted summary and show if and where I have misrepresented their ideas. It’s a good exercise for me. Refer to their papers for the formulations.
p.1 (of 3)
In Kleidon framework recommendation, the total turbulent flux magnitude of H + LE is limited by, and contributing to, the difference between surface temperature (Ts) and the planetary radiating temperature (Tr). They call it a flux gradient.
Such values of Ts and Tr could also be observed using CERES system, as the Surface LWup and TOA LWFlux parameters.
Taking the initial scenario of BPL, for example, the turbulent flux over the entire Earth was prescribed to increase from 112 to 123 W/m2. This was labelled Fconv.
Applying the Kleidon style thermodynamic constraints, then, the difference between Ts and Tr must have increased too.
That is, a greater difference between Surface LWup and TOA LWFlux.
Kleidon hypothesis is that surface net radiation, i.e. equal to H + LE or “Fconv”, operates at a maximum thermodynamic limit, constrained by the surface-atmosphere temperature flux gradient.
This gradient is the rate of heating from the surface and the rate of radiative cooling to space aloft.
To Tomas, in response to:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-818030
p.2 (of 3)
They identify:
in arid regions, there tends to be a relatively small difference between Ts and Tr. And coupled to this, therefore, less turbulent flux of H + LE. A smaller, less powerful gradient.
in moist regions, there tends to be a relatively large difference bewteen Ts and Tr. And coupled to this, more turbulent fluxes (more power).
They confirm this against FLUXNET surface towers and CERES spaceborne observation etc.
They demonstrate using data:
with increasing aridity, the Ts increases, but the difference between Ts and Tr is smaller.
with decreasing aridity (more moisture), the Ts decreases, while the difference between Ts and Tr is larger.
I think this is not controversial.
Logically, however, this must be a consequence of cloud (condensate). Only cloud can decrease surface temperature while simultaneously increasing the difference Ts – Tr.
They offer an analytical method to understand this.
To Tomas, in response to:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-818030
p.3 (of 3)
In other words, the only way that turbulent budgets could increase, and that Ts could fall, is by having clouds around and more often.
The cloud properties associated with surface net radiation, and therefore turbulent flux magnitude, i.e. the H + LE (and their partitioning), is by far the most important factor determining surface temperature change.
This is confirmed by both Kleidon analytical method and others by GCM. It’s the clouds. I think there can be little doubt that dry-er places on average tend to have warmer climatologies.
By prescribing an initial increase of total turbulent flux and reduced moisture limitation, such as the scenario of BPL, it necessitates acknowledging that clouds and solar absorption is changing too, with substantially more impactful effects (many times more) than an initial evaporative forcing alone. This is shown using GCM by Lague.
I think it’s widely recognized in climatology that dryness is associated with warmer temperatures. Kleidon offers a novel framework for realizing why, even if it already seems intuitively obvious to most.
The only ones who don’t seem to understand are those who have erroneously limited their conceptual framework of climates to greenhouse gas radiative effects, and not included the condensate.
I highly recommend to consider reviewing the essentials of surface energy budgets, surface net radiation and turbulent flux, using the Denning resource I provided long ago. Really try to digest that before attempting Kleidon. https://denning.atmos.colostate.edu/ats761/Lectures/04.SurfaceEnergyBudget.pdf
You can hear from Kleidon himself in the recent lecture series promoting his new paper of the same name which forms the basis of the various applications within Kleidon group. I strongly sense they are having fun while exploring the use of this novel framework. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8i6Ha8c3so
JCM: “I think it’s widely recognized in climatology that dryness is associated with warmer temperatures.”
You mean, like the poles? Stop being an advocate and start being a scientist–look at predictions, not just supporting evidence. And, if your theory really does have merit, critics like BPL, who really does understand the physics involved, are your best friends.
BPL has been on this website and others having to do with climate science literally for decades. He has done a lot to try to make the science clear to the nontechnical readers. Anyone who has been on this site for any length of time knows this–and you only discredit yourself when you claim he is ignorant.
He has done a lot to try to make the science clear to the nontechnical readers.
Must have been his doppelganger then if what you claim is true.
I and hundreds to thousands of others have never seen Barton “make the science clear” in all the years this site has existed. I believe you are profoundly confused Ray.
Back atcha, Ned. You see what you want to see, “and disregard the rest.”
NK: I and hundreds to thousands of others have never seen Barton “make the science clear” in all the years this site has existed.
BPL: Well, you kind of have to want to learn.
in response to “being a scientist”
A judicious person should be able to recognize that it’s not me who averse to considering (non supporting?) evidence and methods. I don’t totally understand or agree with the premise.
It seems to me that it’s others who go unreasonably nuts if you show other ways of knowing. As far as I can tell many prefer to stick to their half-baked logics. That is for real.
The style of analysis presented generates a diverse range of predictions. I have identified a few. My science is the nature of soil, hydrological regimes, and change. I have no shame in advocating for that. I routinely extend invitations to observe this science in action, including predictions, successes and pitfalls across a range of conditions in the fields.
If you have more to add about the poles please do. Are you proposing the summary suggests the poles should be literally hot? Does the icy dry polar night exhibit a relatively high or low sensitivity to trace gas? I noticed McKinney below strives to bring this back to his ‘locus’.
Thanks, Ray.
To Tomas, in response to:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-818030
PS
It should always be kept in mind (critically) that the turbulent flux H + LE, given in standard average values for land, are typically only occurring during the daylight.
That’s 50% of the time. During the night, the other 50% of the time, there is practically no net continental turbulent flux.
Solar input is the driving force of surface available energy for landscapes, because land heat storage change is nil below surface. When the sun goes away, surface net radiation goes negative, there is no heat storage, and there can be no upward turbulent flux. See Dennning!!
This thermodynamic diurnal effect is important when considering how the greenhouse gas effects are factoring in, and how climates work in general.
Under sunlight, over land, the turbulent flux magnitude is coupled to and buffering GHG effects, or Ts – Tr, via flux gradient feedbacks. Higher gradients buffered by more turbulent flux.
During the day, using a Kleidon thermodynamic perspective, trace greenhouse gas effect forcing should be practically unobservable over moist surfaces.
Conversely, at night, when there is no turbulent flux away from surface, the surface LW net radiation (which is always negative to some degree) becomes the only factor in the rate of surface cooling. Therefore, the direct LW radiative forcing by gas should only be clearly observable at night and on land.
From ocean there is always surface available energy, because the heat storage occurs in sub-surface mixed layer (below ocean surface). From ice-free ocean there is usually some budget for turbulent flux away from the surface which buffers LW radiative forcing 24hrs a day. Oceanic warming should really only be occurring via SW cloud feedbacks.
For Land, heat storage occurs in the mixed boundary layer (above land surface), and surface upward turbulent flux shuts down when the sun goes down (see Denning).
For this reason, unnatural greenhouse direct forcing of landscapes should be substantially larger than that of ocean. This from a diurnal thermodynamic perspective.
Further, for those landscapes with the least thermodynamic turbulent power, i.e. arid places, greenhouse gas direct forcing effects should be most evident. I have attempted to convey this message previously, aiming to narrow the gap with people who choose to perceive me as their adversary.
Input is welcome and appreciated.
If, as has often been stated, the primary locus of the GHE is not the surface–albeit GHE effects do occur there, secondarily–but the so-called “top of atmosphere,” what then becomes of your analysis above? If the main factor is the cooling rate there, then the main part of your comments that remains directly relevant to GHE is the cloud albedo change.
And if I recall, for instance, daytime clear-sky satellite spectrograph results, you can clearly see the ‘bite’ that CO2 takes out of the outgoing spectrum.
(The linked spectrograph above doesn’t give time of day for the IRIS observation, but given that the surface T was 320 K (ca. 46 C), it was surely a daytime observation. And yes, this is an arid place–Sahara, in fact.)
https://nicklutsko.github.io/blog/2018/10/10/Understanding-the-Regional-Pattern-of-Surface-Warming
– an interesting explanation of the different responses of land and ocean sfc T or SAT
I had a similar idea related to the diurnal temperature range on land (vs. the muted response of SSTs to short-term flux changes). I figured with convection from land heating the troposphere when the land is warmest+most humid (a combination; hot and dry will not keep up with the moist adiabat beyond some point, depending…), nocturnal cooling will tend to decouple the land surface from the free troposphere, at least as far as convection is concerned. GHGs and clouds, in particular via surface (and near-surface? – ie to keep fog warm) backradiation, reduce the diurnal temperature range
…
(partly because the air is less-directly heated by the Sun, and also via heat capacity?? (~1/3 of direct solar heating, ~8500-ish kg/m2 * ~ 1000 J/(kg K) troposphere (values vary); T cycle penetration into solid-ish surface depends on time scale) it has a smaller diurnal temperature cycle, so backradiation tends to have a smaller cycle than solar radiation, etc.)
…
If the free troposphere T tends to follow the warmest-humid surface T, other surfaces would tend to warm up to near that T if solar heating allows (other things being = ) – if they don’t cool off at night then their time-averaged T would then be warmer.
Time-averaged T would then tend to increase more where the diurnal T range is being reduced more.
I asked Chris Colose (on his blog) about this several years ago but I don’t remember what he said.
Also, https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/11/science-denial-is-still-an-issue-ahead-of-cop28/#comment-817624
“From ocean there is always surface available energy, because the heat storage occurs in sub-surface mixed layer (below ocean surface). From ice-free ocean there is usually some budget for turbulent flux away from the surface which buffers LW radiative forcing 24hrs a day. Oceanic warming should really only be occurring via SW cloud feedbacks.” – Now this does not quite make sense. Why wouldn’t heat capacity also buffer SW cloud feedbacks? Heat capacity is like a low-pass filter – it buffers the faster cycles most. A sustained change in any flux will cause some change over time until that change is balanced (for heat flows, that is a warming or cooling, resulting in a change in LW radiation or convection or both).
Tidal forces are inexorable and occur day or night. Because of the enormous reduction in the effective gravity at the thermocline interface, the tides can raise or lower the depth at which the thermocline occurs at will.
I find it amazing that people are enthralled by zero-gravity antics paid for by billionaires such as Musk, Branson, and Bezos, yet are not educated on gravitational physics that are impacting the climate variations in day-to-day life — see El Nino, AMO, PDO, IOD, QBO, MJO, etc.
That’s a rhetorical question because fluid dynamics is challenging subject matter and unless the mathematics is correctly formulated and the long-period tidal forces are correctly calibrated, climate scientists will continue to spin their wheels and not gain any traction in making progress in understanding ocean dynamics.
“patrick o 27” whoever that is has tried to engage on this topic in past RC comments but has gotten bogged down in word salad.. There are ways to get beyond this and actually fit the ocean cycles and perform the cross-validation necessary to substantiate the models.
It’s all about discriminating between the sources of climate variation. As long as these sources are not at least calibrated to order of magnitude, attribution will continue to be hopeless. Still amazed how many climate scientists think that sunspots are contributing at all instead of being tertiary factors down in the noise. And wind is one of those dog-chasing-its-tail things — so many shifts are attributed to a change in prevailing winds or jet streams but what’s the cause of that?
Hunga Tonga may be one of those impulses that help clarify the climate responses. The weird aspect is that in the past, volcanic disturbances have lead to cooling but this has lead to warming spike?
PP.
“And wind is one of those dog-chasing-its-tail things — so many shifts are attributed to a change in prevailing winds or jet streams but what’s the cause of that?”
I also find those sorts of explanations very inadequate and frustrating.
“Hunga Tonga may be one of those impulses that help clarify the climate responses. The weird aspect is that in the past, volcanic disturbances have lead to cooling but this has lead to warming spike?”
Volcanos typically eject a lot of aerosols causing cooling but Hunga Tonga ejected both aerosols and water vapour and it appears the water vapour might be the dominant effect.
Some people (including MAR) have mentioned that the warming last year was concentrated around july – october. They have suggested this was because the Hunga Tonga volcano ejected a whole lot of both water vapour AND aerosols, and so had both cooling and warming effects, and that prior to july aerosols cancelled out the heating from the water vapour.
Then the aerosols all washed out in early 2023 based on estimates of their residence time, leaving the water vapour still circulating and dominating, and thus causing the sudden strong warming july – october 2023.
It sounds like a good explanation to me. However the unusually high temperatures subsided late last year around October so this would suggest the water vapour declined conveniently and quite suddenly at that point. Not sure if this is what has actually happened. There seem questions about the timing of it all. I do not have a physics degree but these puzzles intrigue me. .
Paul Pukite
“It’s all about discriminating between the sources of climate variation. As long as these sources are not at least calibrated to order of magnitude, attribution will continue to be hopeless.”
Yes. We have all set sail upon the good ship ‘Hopeless’ without a compass or a sextant, and no trained navigators in sight anywhere. :-)
Yes, I asked about that here:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/annual-gmsat-predictions-and-enso/#comment-817745
See Gavin’s brief clarification.
nigelj says
23 Jan 2024 at 2:57 PM
“However the unusually high temperatures subsided late last year around October …”
What do you mean by “subsided”?
Is that a “science” term I have not of before?
Why do you (and others) almost never offer references to support what you assert here?
I do. Not that anyone will do anything about that, or read them.
GSATs falling in October is totally normal.
That GSATs moved back closer to the “group” of previous years in Oct 2023 is reflected in the graphs.
But there is more. 2023 GSATs spiked far above the recent grouping and the GSAT Mean again threetimes through November and December .
And again for a fourth time in January 2024.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world
So what you have said Nigelj does not fit with nor abide by reality nor the scientific data record.
Maybe you could explain this to the viewers.
Maybe you were bogged down. Suggestion:
read https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/11/science-denial-is-still-an-issue-ahead-of-cop28/#comment-817105
and
comment-817382 (for brevity, skip part between first two “—- — — “(“<i>(In addition to Doppler-shifting by </i>”…); jump to “<i>Anyway, this refraction process</i>”…, feel free to skip section after “———- ——-“(“(Complexity/Caveat:“…) about secondary circulations)
–
skip next 2 comments about Coriolis effect (which are interesting comment-817618 – note correction in 2nd comment-817664) –
–
then go to comment-817626 and following…
But in brief:
wave or eddy fields: displacement x’,y’,z’, pressure p’, velocity u’,v’,w’, etc.
form drag on a material surface results from correlation between pressure anomaly p’ and slope anomaly eg. ∂z’/∂x , ∂z’/∂y for a horizontal (besides wavy z’ field) material surface; form drag is a force that transfers momentum across surface, eg’: p’ on ∂z’/∂x transfers eastward or westward motion.
Wave activity is generated by weather in the troposphere; some of which propagates vertically upward with group velocity cg (vertical component cgz). A wave packet carries momentum with it. As waves dissipate or are otherwise absorbed, form drag is reduced, and the momentum becomes ‘stuck’ – ie. left in the layers where the wave activity is dissipated. (ie/eg. For wave z’ and/(or?) p’ decreasing over height, the momentum flux is convergent (or divergent depending on sign).)
When velocity varies over height, wave intrinsic frequency is doppler shifted as waves propagate vertically. A critical level is where the wave phase propagation speed matches the local velocity so the intrinsic frequency is 0. (Beyond some point) cgz decreases as intrinsic frequency drops (see dispersion relations), so wave activity takes longer to propagate (also I infer an increase in amplitude and likelihood of nonlinear wave-breaking), so there is more dissipation and momentum gets deposited in those layers more.
waves with upward group velocity: Eastward-propagating Kelvin and gravity waves carry eastward (westerly) momentum upward and tend to be absorbed more in westerly shear approaching their critical levels where flow is more westerly; Westward-propagating Rossby-gravity and gravity waves carry westward (easterly) momentum upward and tend to be absorbed more in easterly shear approaching their critical levels where flow is more easterly (I infer the relationship to shear is due to the fact they are coming from below). This causes regions of westerlies and easterlies to progress downward through the air; as the regions are damped/squeezed out at the bottom of the QBO region, the waves that drove them are no longer absorbed there and reach higher; each set of waves reaches higher than others driving the opposite region and…
1 could? start driving a new easterly or westerly region above.
2 build downward from SAO phases –
(PS phenomena in the upper stratosphere and mesosphere could be driven by waves which are not (completely) absorbed below because 1. their phase speeds might be outside the range of velocities of the QBO, ?or 2. ?)
Note additional comments:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/11/science-denial-is-still-an-issue-ahead-of-cop28/#comment-818014
Anomalistic month, and half tropical and half draconic months (as well as anomalistic and half-tropical years) all contribute to zonally-symmetric changes in tidal forcing; tropical month dominates over draconic month in lunar declination. see https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/11/science-denial-is-still-an-issue-ahead-of-cop28/#comment-817719 , https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/11/science-denial-is-still-an-issue-ahead-of-cop28/#comment-817865 ,
QBO: comment-818221 , note correction
SAO is also shaped by seasonal cycle of momentum advection. 2 equinoxes and 2 solstices per tropical year: QBO and SAO: comment-818216 and next.
PS 1 m displacement by LOD changes – sure, in a 2 ms fortnightly cycle: ∼10 µm/s · 86400 s · ∼13.66/2π = ∼1.88 m
It is quite plausible to me that tides could affect climate/weather via ocean mixing – as I have read tides contribute to mixing to a similar extent as planckton (tiny marine organisms that study quantum mechanics ) and wind, so AFAIK, tides do have an effect.
(I am skeptical about how much of a difference it can make beyond the Spring-Neap cycle and then the ~6,~9,~18.6? year, … etc. I mean just how much stronger are the strongest of the strongest strong tides compared to the average strongest strong tides?)
But “Because of the enormous reduction in the effective gravity at the thermocline interface, the tides can raise or lower the depth at which the thermocline occurs at will.” That’s an exaggeration, and I find it inaccurate. Yes, the same energy in a small (in terms of z’) amplitude ocean surface tide (z’ @ surface) can be converted to a large z’ internal tide (I assume kinetic energy is not a problem because of the small c of internal tides) – and this is a significant energy sink of the tides AFAIK. But it’s not like the tidal acceleration g’ just reaches down and picks up the thermocline to large heights., because of reduced gravity. If it could do that, why wouldn’t it take the warm air in a thunderstorm updraft and launch it into Space?
Consider the tidal response as the material of the Earth (or whatever planet, star, etc.) shifting toward the tidally-deformed geopotential surfaces (TDGSs). For the lunar tides on Earth, the range (crests of bulges to bottom of ring-shaped trough) is ~ 53 cm …
(I believe I’ve read 54 cm (for what distance?) but I get a bit over 53 cm)
… for Moon @ 385,000 km, not including gravitational feedback from the tidal response (which is actually significant), but there were some approximations –
– anyway, it seems more energetically favorable for larger (relative?) density contrasts to follow this shape, and makes more sense that they would be pulled more strongly toward it, than smaller contrasts. Pulling the ocean surface toward following the TDGS may actually slightly inhibit the thermocline from following its TDGS as I explained before:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/11/a-distraction-due-to-errors-misunderstanding-and-misguided-norwegian-statistics/#comment-815976
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/11/a-distraction-due-to-errors-misunderstanding-and-misguided-norwegian-statistics/#comment-815978
… of course there is a dependence on what the solid Earth’s response is.
Planck-ton
Nice :-)
(A remark to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-818394 )
Patrick, How limited a view you have of the thermocline. You probably never took a course in limnology like I did years ago. The thermocline differential is a dynamic behavior that constantly changes throughout the year. In freshwater lakes discrete overturning events occur according to the seasonal calendar. It’s pretty clear that a seasonal adjustment is also occurring with ENSO (and QBO) that enables the impulse amplification of the El Nino or La Nina episodes at specific times. That’s just the starting point and the complete fluid dynamics analysis, tidal calibration, and cross-validated model fitting follows from this. The word salad must stop for the time it takes to do look at the numbers as with any other serious scientific hypothesis. Like it or not, if it’s not me, then it will be a machine learning experiment that will discover these patterns and it will be Google or NVIDIA that will pour resources into the cross-validation. Cheers!
re Tomáš Kalisz – Thanks!
Thanks for the various insightful comments patrick o.
I especially liked the Lutsko reference which hammers home the difference between the moisture limited landscapes vs the energy limited ocean surface. For the latter case, heat and moisture is added to atmosphere at vapor pressure saturation (equilibrium partitioning). Lutsko’s framework translates well to understanding how changing moisture availability influences climates.
JCM — changing moisture availability influences climates.
and it is not the only thing that influences and drives global warming (climates) and is not being measured accurately, or at all, and not being addressed as a critical issue to be rectified asap.
JCM — changing moisture availability influences climates.
NK: and it is not the only thing that influences and drives global warming (climates) and is not being measured accurately,
BPL: Not true.
NK: or at all,
BPL: Now you’re just lying.
NK: and not being addressed as a critical issue to be rectified asap
BPL: See above.
“Therefore, the direct LW radiative forcing by gas should only be clearly observable at night and on land.” … sorry, again; it’s the “only” that I particularly disagree with. … and/or maybe I should suggest considering the ‘indirect LW radiative forcing’ as well as the direct forcing.
Tropopause-level radiant forcing (after stratospheric adjustment) is a net change in heating of the whole of the troposphere+surface system. However it is distributed vertically (I was also going to say horizontally but I’m not sure that I should here), the tendency is for the response to spread vertically by changes in convection where the air is not stable. But even where the air is stable, layers that warm will emit more LW radiation, some of which can heat other layers (and layers that cool… etc.). It makes sense that radiation alone will determine the temperature where the air is stable – not counting horizontal transport of heat, and transport of heat through time by heat capacity – both of which link night and stable air masses eg. frontal inversions, nocturnal inversions, polar inversions… to the whole of the convecting troposphere.
…continued @ https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-818149
Ned Kelly 17 JAN 2024 AT 1:21 AM I calculated this as my rough guess in 2016 or 2017 based on AR5 forcings, GMST & assuming oceans mix the same (Including no reduction in the lifting of the permanent thermocline by THC). That’s cut’n’paste what I kept posting on GooglesTubes since 2016/7 but I only spent like 40 minutes looking for info & pondering it. I didn’t know that Chinese & ships were being cleaner so it needs to be boosted for that even if it were a reasonable approximation otherwise. I don’t really have the confident certainty but, you know, when arguing with an army of comments from bods saying humans warm Earth by Boy Scout camp fires, volcanoes melt the ice off Antarctica (Judith Curry) and other assorted ignorant imbeciles it doesn’t pay to be a Sissy Boy in my opinion (I won’t be anyway). Can’t swing a cat by the tail any place without hitting a dozen Total Half Wits.
2020-2030 +0.25 degrees
2030-2040 +0.31 degrees
2040-2050 +0.37 degrees
2050-2060 +0.43 degrees
Total = +1.36 degrees
So at 2060 AD will be 1.15 + 1.36 = 2.51 degrees above 1850-1900 CE average. 1.28 + 1.36 = 2.64 degrees above 1750 CE. I calculated it in 2017 from the anomaly in Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) which is the global heater and is now 740 terawatts, coupled with the GMST anomaly. That’s the proper way to do it. For 11 years I’ve seen & heard ignorant half wits trying to extrapolate from just the GMST anomaly. That’s worthless rubbish. No computer models are needed to get that basic information, certainly accurate +/- 15%, only projecting for the next 40 years what has happened for the last 45 years. The only big uncertainty is what effect on clouds has human air pollution actually had the last couple hundred years, what effect on clouds is it right now and what changes will humans make to their air pollution (“soot” and “sulphur”) the next 40 years. That’s all a big unknown.
And Barry, have you thought about this year at all?
If you have a look at the full year temperatures during the runup to stronger El Ninos (say 1986,1997,2015), note the following years when the El Nino impact was strongest (in 1987,1998,2016)
The differences are: +0,15 C, +0,19 C, +0,17 C, which is fairly consistent. Based on this we could expect 2024 to be above 2023 by around 0,15-0,2 C.
That would make it something like 1,38-1,43 C (vs the 1950-1980 average)
Making it + 1,58-1,73 C above pre-industrial scales.
How much any further continued decrease in sulphate aerosols makes to albedo conditions is hard to quantify comparatively.
Meanwhile current measurements of CO2 levels and annual growth rates are at all time records.
We might like to consider the recent return of GDP growth post-covid and the related current Oil Gas energy use growth running at all time highs as well?
But, all things being equal, in turn it already is suggesting SATs permanently blowing the +1.5C yardstick out of the park, and all the fancy mega complex projections and graphs out the water along with it again (even if a La nina develops mid-late this year.)
What do you think Barry? It may be your 2020-2030 +0.25 degrees expectation is conservative.
Cheers
Kevin McKinney says
17 Jan 2024 at 9:39 AM
“Ned is wrong yet again:”
Of course she is. A very compelling ‘argument’ / ‘discussion’ Kevin. Many thanks. Like a failed experiment, it is still really insightful.
Kevin McKinney Jan 17: “ Ned is wrong yet again:” and then he presents falsifiable arguments proving this:
In response Ned Kelly JAN 18, does not address even a single Kevin’s arguments, instead … deletes all of them, leaving only the opening line ( “ Ned is wrong yet again:”) . Havoing done so, he
…. ridicules Kevin’s response:
“ Of course she is. A very compelling ‘argument’ / ‘discussion’ Kevin. Many thanks.”
By their fruits you shall know them. Ned Kelly – everyone.
(part one)
Dear Barry,
Thank you for your kind detailed response to comment above to Dominik.
I find I am in agreement with everything you say there. Including the good natured humorous asides.
RE “I didn’t know that Chinese & ships were being cleaner so it needs to be boosted for that even if it were a reasonable approximation otherwise.”
Yes this really did go under the radar somewhat, possibly due to shipping downturns during co vid, and it caught us all by surprise I think when Hansen first mentioned it last year in one of his reports. The implementation of the treaty on bunker fuels was a big step, and china is always making improvements which barely anyone ever pays attention to. More the pity. The other thing that slipped through mostly unnoticed has been the increasing uptake of anti-NOx additives to land transport and heavy equip/mining diesel fuels globally. I don’t know all the details in full, impacts and timing etc but took from credible people it was a significant enough start having cumulative effects as well.
( why won’t this post like normal? )
(part two)
https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-advice/what-is-adblue-diesel-exhaust-fluid
https://www.crownoil.co.uk/guides/adblue-guide/
why won’t these links post as normal?
Dear Barry
Part three
“So at 2060 AD will be 1.15 + 1.36 = 2.51 degrees above 1850-1900 CE average”
The basic logic behind your calculations seems sound enough. Every observation of reality screams increasing trend lines. The presentations about reducing agw drivers in the grand plans towards net zero of the these cop meetings and ipcc v6 scenarios are obviously ludicrous and not happening or going to happen before 2050.
Acceleration is the trajectory.
RE “…. trying to extrapolate from just the GMST anomaly. That’s worthless rubbish. No computer models are needed to get that basic information, certainly accurate +/- 15%, only projecting for the next 40 years what has happened for the last 45 years. ”
Um, yes. In spades, yes. You cannot plug a change in drivers of increased warming until such time as there is actually real world fundamental (and measurable) changes capable of impacting those current drivers all of which are tightly embedded within all our extractive societies and economic / financial norms.
No change leads to no change. How hard is that to work out? Well looks to me it’s impossible for almost everyone to work out. Bridge out dead ahead – and no one cares or is even looking. C r a z y stuff.
Meanwhile we still have no satellite measuring albedo shifts in real time. (And life’s a box of chocolates?)
Clouds and pollution are unknowns going forward …. yes. Seems so. So is human intelligence and wisdom a complete unknown but mainly absent at this point in time. And until that changes …. well ….. there’s that bridge out dead ahead and it isn’t going anywhere.
Thank you very much. Good luck to you finding more like minded people. They are out there. Try here
Dear Barry,
Part four
Try here:
https://metacrisis.org/META-CRISIS/00.+%F0%9F%91%8B+About/Start+Here
Clear and Present Dangers
2024 may determine our future on the planet
https://geoffreydeihl.substack.com/p/clear-and-present-dangers
A Review of “The Great Mindshift”
Why you need to re-think just about everything!
https://kathleenmccroskey.substack.com/p/a-review-of-the-great-mindshift
A Great Mindshift, Part Two
A restorative pathway for climate mitigation
https://kathleenmccroskey.substack.com/p/240170114
with the Paper
“An environmental and socially just climate mitigation pathway for a planet in peril”
by: William J Ripple, Christopher Wolf, Detlef P van Vuuren, Jillian W Gregg and Manfred Lenzen
Published 9 January 2024
Will somebody like the MA Rodger, Barton Paul Levenson or Ray Ladbury (somebody whose text I understand over the years) explain how I’m mis-understand “Oceanic warming should really only be occurring via SW cloud feedbacks” at JCM 17 JAN 2024 AT 10:12 AM because I’ll never find time to plough through the hundreds of long exchanges last couple years about deforestation, soil moisture, irrigation, turbulent near-surface air and what I quoted looks superficially like the old Junk-Science meme from pre-2011 “SWR only penetrates 1 mm and average 10 microns so it can’t heat the ocean, only increase evaporation” banal crap from pre-history (prior to the improved banal crap that Earth is heated by Planet XC-Niburu gravity field, heated by volcanoes, heated by the ionosphere, heated by InterGalactic Cosmic Electrical Sheets, heated by English coal fires, heated by magnetic poles, heated by too many solar PV panels, heated by wind turbines. Just a pithy “You misunderstood that” will do from MAR, BPL or RL no need for flowery wasting your time (I’m assuming I’m getting a tad of dyslexia as I try to parse “Oceanic warming should really only be occurring via SW cloud feedbacks”. Thanks.
Sorry, I don’t understand that one myself. “Oceanic warming should really only be occurring via SW cloud feedbacks” doesn’t seem right to me.
Contrary to popular belief, longwave back-radiation does warm the ocean. Yes, it only penetrates a few microns (or a few millimeters, I don’t remember which). But it’s not always the same few millimeters, because the ocean is turbulent. The top mixes because of wind and currents and so on, except on a very calm day without wind. And then you have heat moving down by conduction. If only the top millimeter was heated by longwave radiation, you would expect that top millimeter to heat all the way to boiling, evaporate off, and then the next millimeter would heat, and so on. I’m pretty sure that’s not how oceans work.
But my knowledge of oceanography and radiative transfer in liquids is very limited. There are probably several people here who understand this better than I do and can explain it better.
It may help to note that (much of) solar heating generally penetrates to a significant depth in the ocean. The photic zone is thus *generally* heated from within and cooled at the top …
(by LW radiation, and evaporation…
(which also concentrates salt, thus able to produce a compositional unstable potential density gradient (like at the inner/outer core boundary as the inner core grows); rain and river outflow – etc, would impede that)
…and sensible heat loss – global average – I think (locally sensible … well any of these fluxes can be net downward depending on local/temporal conditions… anyway)
… increased backradiation must first reduce the net LW loss before it would become a net LW heating, etc.
And if somehow convection stops in a shallow layer, the temperature will just rise that much faster at the surface. As far as GHE and the atmosphere+land are concerned, aside from ocean currents’ redistribution of heat and any biogeochemical effects, the ocean SSTs are what matter and what must equilibrate to conditions above.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-818204 PS nice link! (although it initially came up with the left edge cut off; after accepting cookies (they were delicious!) I clicked refresh and then it was fine.)
In Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-818149
Dear Barry,
I recognized that you react to post scriptum
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-818117
For me, the thoughts and references offered by JCM represent a good hint what could be worth of reading.
As regards your comment, could you translate your plea into a simpler language?
For me, as a non-native English speaker, is quite unclear what you are actually asking for.
Thank you in advance and greetings
Tomáš
“Oceanic warming should really only be occurring via SW cloud feedbacks” at JCM 17 JAN 2024 AT 10:12 AM – It’s wrong. Any heat flux imbalance will have a heating or cooling effect, of course.
In response to the oceanic SW implication which is causing some discomfort:
Using the summarized analysis framework, the turbulent flux intensity is bound to operate at a maximum thermodynamic limit by its meshing with Ts – Tr.
That is the difference between the surface temperature and the effective radiation temperature observed from space.
In other words, the heat flux away from surface and the radiation flux to space optimally depletes the Ts – Tr disequilibrium to sustain maximum thermodynamic power.
It could also be called a dynamic non-equilibrium steady state flux gradient, where there is some proportion of spatiotemporal separation between surface Energy flux and TOA LWflux. For example, the lifted condensation level and atmospheric heat transport, in addition to the surface radiative transmittance.
In terms of a standard surface energy budget, the Surface Net Radiation (Rnet) is balanced by the turbulent Fluxes plus ΔStorage.
That is ΔStorage = Surface Absorbed SW – LW Radiative Cooling – J
Where J = turbulent fluxes away from the surface;
LW Radiative Cooling = the difference between LWdown and LWup at the surface (-Surface Net LW).
ΔStorage is generally set = 0 for land systems, SW is constricted to surface, and the balance is be accounted for in LW radiative cooling (Surface Net LW) and turbulent flux (J).
For a warming ocean, the accumulating ΔStorage (sub-surface) depends on the balance of SW penetration to depth prior to absorption, LW radiative cooling (surface net LW), and turbulent Flux. In a non-warming ocean there is no long-term accumulation of ΔStorage.
Using the summarized hypothesis, i.e. the surface-energy-balance constrained through the atmosphere, a warming ocean suggests that a fraction of absorbed SW energy is becoming distinct from the Ts, and therefore distinct from the Ts-Tr thermodynamic depletion (steady-state).
In other words, a condition where the surface LW radiative cooling and turbulent flux intensity are consistently not matching total absorbed SW. This miscalibration being the result of anomalous SW absorption to depth, resulting in energy unavailable and unknown to the surface-atmosphere system.
In this way, an anomalous accumulation of ocean heat content is logically bound to be accounted for in the SW, not in the LW. Surface Net LW cannot become distinct from Ts, nor can it be distinct from the Ts-Tr steady state.
In my view, this logical framework is much more straightforward than trying to find a way to rationalize a preconceived dominant LW diffusion mechanism down into ocean, particularly when Ts is meshed to turbulent surface-atmosphere thermodynamic limits.
The analysis framework implies that ocean heat must be accumulating in the SW after all. The does not preclude the effect being a feedback to anthro forcings.
JCM: In my view, this logical framework is much more straightforward than trying to find a way to rationalize a preconceived dominant LW diffusion mechanism down into ocean
BPL: JCM is on the side of the “longwave radiation can’t penetrate water, so only shortwave matters” deniers.
please try to distinguish between the instantaneous radiative forcing & effective radiative forcing before painting me with the D word. There can be no doubt the Planck and Cloud effects are overwhelming the GHG effect in climate response (i.e. the LW and SW factors of EEI). I assure you your D’s despise me as much as the A’s here. It’s a unique space to occupy. Somewhere between the Dicks and Asses i think. although I confess it’s Barry who has me onto the potty talk.
cont. from https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-818117 , https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-818215 (PS @ https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-818255 you’re welcome!)
“In this way, an anomalous accumulation of ocean heat content is logically bound to be accounted for in the SW, not in the LW. Surface Net LW cannot become distinct from Ts, nor can it be distinct from the Ts-Tr steady state.” – Okay, so we’re distinguishing SST change from oceanic enthalpy (heat) change. The equilibrium SST depends on forcings at the surface including LW, so that the combination of net LW + sensible + latent cooling = SW heating (setting aside the rather tiny geothermal and teeny-tiny tidal heating fluxes). That a significant part of SW heating is distributed over significant depth, and the only way out is up, tends to guarantee that heating at the surface will result in a build-up of heat at depth. Given forced upwelling and mixing by wind, tides, etc., and of course the thermohaline circulation, we can tend to expect a response over the whole ocean depth given time (and over a very long time I suppose we could include geothermal flux if all else failed)
Excludes localized/regional/temporal situations, of course.
PS “ In other words, the heat flux away from surface and the radiation flux to space optimally depletes the Ts – Tr disequilibrium to sustain maximum thermodynamic power.” I don’t know what you mean. I’ve noticed we use ‘equilibrium’ differently; note you can speak accurately of a climatological (or ecological, etc.) equilibrium as a steady state (which may encompass a climate of variability and seasonality/etc. built into the state ie. a 4+ dimensional state), which is of course not in thermodynamic equilibrium. There is an equilibrium temperature distribution maintained by radiant and convective flux convergences and divergences; the radiant fluxes by themselves would sustain an equilibrium that is unstable to various motions, and the radiant disequilibrium sustained by convective overturning/etc. has a heating pattern that creates available potential energy (APE, eg. CAPE, MAPE) and instabilities which various types of motion feed from – although there is some cycling back (some motions convert kinetic energy to APE (partly distinct from mixing which reduces stratification); this extends outside the heat engine of the troposphere (and photic zone?), includes sudden-stratospheric warmings, the refrigerator of the summer polar mesopause, cold dense upwelling water, etc.
in response to “equilibrium”
The intent of the discussion (i.e. maximum power & limits) is to use an analysis framework that avoids getting bogged-down in the endless complexity and “hen & egg” issues of process-based dynamics.
It does so in such a way which proposes that process-structures must evolve to the thermodynamic limit set by the boundary conditions of the system.
Kleidon points out that (non equilibrium) thermodynamics apply to far more than simply conversion of heat into mechanical work. Critically for climates, the power involved in energy conversions to and from radiation (with different spectral compositions).
Some of the most interesting ecological hypotheses stem from the perspective of sustained work being done through thermodynamic disequilibrium in different forms. This framework is especially useful for my interests to understand the interconnectedness of hydrologies, ecologies, and climate changes.
Using this framework it seems intuitively obvious to me why the warming Earth must in actuality be accumulating heat in the shortwave, where the mechanistic effect is independent from the initial forcing.
Please review: https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/14/861/2023/ where Kleidon points out that non-equilibrium thermodynamics is everywhere…
…even (especially) in the different spectral composition (distribution of frequencies) of the absorbed shortwaves and outgoing longwaves. When the Stefan–Boltzmann law is used to calculate the emission of radiation from a surface, it implicitly assumes thermodynamic equilibrium between the kinetic temperature of the surface and the spectral composition of the emitted radiation. But after reading Kleidon you should understand that is not necessarily the case in reality. ASR and OLR could never be deemed to be in thermodynamic equilibrium, even if EEI is zero.
correction: not “intuitively”. It is rational.
…“and the radiant disequilibrium sustained by convective overturning/etc. has a heating” and cooling “pattern that creates available potential energy”…
– cooling is negative heating, so the statement was already correct, but this is better.
“The equilibrium SST depends on forcings at the surface” – I may have meant fluxes at the surface, but as “effective forcing” @ surface, I suppose this works. ( https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/#comment-818357 )
Barry E Finch (me) 18 JAN 2024 AT 4:13 AM Ho hum. “I’m mis-understand” S.B. “I’m mis-understanding”. pre-2011 “SWR only penetrates” S.B. “pre-2011 “LWR only penetrates”. “turbines. Just” S.B. “turbines). Just”. “feedbacks”. Thanks” S.B. “.feedbacks”). Thanks”. If my eyes get any worse I’m going to start reading the furniture.
Here’s an explanation that’s a lot better than mine:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/10/06/does-back-radiation-heat-the-ocean-part-one/#:~:text=So%20DLR%20is%20unable%20to,only%20have%20a%20cooling%20effect.
A little something that’s uplifting and wise for us stressed out and confused humans
The Behavioral Stack | Frankly #52
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QynYlsW35Sw
JCM 17 JAN 2024 AT 10:12 AM “the direct LW radiative forcing by gas should only be clearly observable at night and on land”. Rather than time-of-day or land-surface-versus-water-surface being the main determinants of being able to accurately sort out the trend portion of increasing down-welling LWR arriving at the surface from the short-term fluctuations, I think the big determinants are the accuracy of the pyrgeometers used, the absence of cloud (so that any trend cloud changes don’t have their SHE conflated with the IR-active gases GHE) and the length of the measurement record (~22 years is likely good), plus of course that the climate scientist doing it is able to add & subtract and not interchange + & – signs like Roy Spencer did.
SHE = Shithouse Effect and is my belated response to bloke who semi-correctly pointed out couple years back here or on SKS that I’m not permitted to use Greenhouse Effect for clouds because they transmit less visible light than glass (a bloke who never ever saw my house windows). No expense spared to keep people happy.
Great series on Earth history, includes paleoclimate:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/series/ancient-earth/
( https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/polar-extremes/ was not part of that series but it fits in. )
I especially liked the dramatic opening for “Inferno”, with the clock counting back at an accelerating rate to 253,000,000 years BP. PS I was a little puzzled by “Birth of the Sky” – it made it seem as if the Earth (after the Moon-forming impact, it seems) initially had no significant atmosphere. I would have thought outgassing would have started even before the Moon-forming impact, and of course there would have been a rock vapor atmosphere immediately after, and … etc.
I also highly recommend “Frozen 2” – it has a song about ice cores!
patrick: outgassing would have started even before the Moon-forming impact
My guess: they may have meant that the impact destroyed the proto-atmosphere (BTW mainly the primordial H and He, rather than from degassing), so “after the impact” there may have not been a significant atmosphere left. We know it because there are not enough noble gasses in today’s atmosphere compared to what it should have been if proto-atmosphere survived . Only then the degassing would have started making new atmosphere, but this could take some time and given at least partial melt during the impact, and being hit by asteroids in Late Bombardment – I’d expect a very warm atmosphere – which would make harder to keep the atm. gasses.
Also the lack of a magnetosphere at the time may have had something to do with it. That and apparently there wasn’t much atmosphere until later when the earth cooled enough to form a crust (and volcanos).
re Piotr, Radge Havers, & Barry E Finch ( https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-jan-2024/comment-page-2/#comment-818264 ) Thank you.
When the Solar System formed, shorter-lived radioactive isotope(s?) may have been present and produced significant heat:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium-26#Occurrence_in_the_interstellar_medium
(PS AFAIK it would be mostly heating from (other forms of?) radioactive decay; fission is a specific process)
PS also, thermal contraction and compositional stratification would both increase g within the Earth and increase pressure, therefore driving more compression and adiabatically increasing T (relative to what it otherwise be) – I don’t know the relative importance of this, though; I’m guessing small)
“Initiation of clement surface conditions on the earliest Earth” N. H. Sleep, K. Zahnle, P. S. Neuhoff (2001)
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.071045698
“Once the rock vapor was gone an atmosphere of water vapor and other common volatiles including CO2 remained.”
– of course there may have been revisions to the understanding presented here over the last 23 years.
It takes awhile for the solar wind to scrape away an atmosphere (right?); Earth is a bit more massive than Venus.
I once came across a suggestion that axial precession could have driven a geodynamo prior to the formation of the inner core (inner core growth provides latent heat + compositional buoyancy of rejected impurities; there might be other reasons for geodynamo dependence on inner core that I don’t know about (??PV gradient reversal at tangent cylinder providing barotropic instability?? – my idea)
PS I wonder what the dynamics of a thick, largely H2O atmosphere would be like (or rock vapor, for that matter). Too bad we don’t have storm-chaser videos from that time.
patrick o twentyseven,
There seems to be more questions than answers, but this was interesting. As you suggest, there probably was an atmosphere loaded with CO2 and water. The authors think that the GHG fraction was stripped out of the atmosphere and sequestered by melt convection and exposure to pyroxenites.
A wet heterogeneous mantle creates a habitable world in the Hadean (paywalled)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04371-9?error=cookies_not_supported&code=faff0609-0dfb-4bf7-952e-27b18dccfdcc
The SciTechDaily version
https://scitechdaily.com/how-earth-went-from-molten-hellscape-to-habitable-planet/
Out of my depth though…
patrick It takes awhile for the solar wind to scrape away an atmosphere (right?); Earth is a bit more massive than Venus.
Not necessarily, since we ware talking protoatmosphere – extremely hot, dominated by the lightest elements H and He, both of which helps atm. gases to escape:
– The higher the temperature -> the more energy of molecular collisions in air -> the more difficult to hold on the gas by the planet (and easier to be bounced off by the solar wind)
– The lower the molecular mass (MW)-> the less gravity pull on the molecules of gas by the planet -> the more difficult to hold on the gas by the planet (and easier to be bounced off by the solar wind).
This may be the main reason why Venus i) much warmer than Earth ii) closer to the Sun => more solar wind and with iii) very little magnetic field to deflect the solar wind – has lost pretty much all of its H2 (MW=2) and He (MW=4), and probably larger fraction of H2O (MW=18), while mainly retaining heavier N2 (MW=28) and CO2 (MW= 44) (the latter dominating – since it wasn’t scrubbed by life as it has been on Earth).
So to sum up: bumping off the lighter molecules (H2, He, H2O) in extremely hot (i.e. energetic collisions) atmosphere, not protected from the solar wind by the magnetic field, and bombarded by the massive asteroids – would have depleted the protoatmosphere anyway in ~ 0.5 bln years,
but a hit by the Mars-size planet blew the remaining protoatmopshere into the sky
So the above provides the plausible mechanisms to answer your:
patrick: I was a little puzzled by “Birth of the Sky” – it made it seem as if the Earth (after the Moon-forming impact, it seems) initially had no significant atmosphere.
while the shortage of the noble gasses and different isotopic ratios compared to the likely conc. in the proto-atmosphere – offers observational support for the no significant atmosphere“, at the time, and therefore the need for the “Birth of the [modern] Sky“.
clarification/correction to my Jan 25, post: then sentence about MW should read:
“The lower the molecular mass (MW)=> the bigger the velocity it get from a collision with other atm. gas molecules => the better the chance to escape the Earth’s gravity (and easier to be bounced off into space by the solar wind)”.
Re Radge Havers and Piotr – thank you; the nature paper sounds interesting; I have some background knowledge on geology and … well, it’s interesting (I have a particular fondness for paleogeography/continental drift and assemblage eg.: Algol’s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1OreyX0-fw ). H escape to Space – reminds me of another of my fav ~20 year old classics:
“Biogenic Methane, Hydrogen Escape, and the Irreversible Oxidation of Early Earth” https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1061976
The Capitol Steps have been replaced as a comedy venue by the Courthouse comings and goings outside the Mann v Steyn trial:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2024/01/sudden-onset-post-jury-selection-tiny.html
And people wonder why clowns have a bad reputation.