Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: ECS is 2.5  (Read 5887 times)

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1943
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: ECS is 2.5
« Reply #50 on: November 03, 2018, 10:53:43 PM »
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8

Quote
Abstract

The ocean is the main source of thermal inertia in the climate system1. During recent decades, ocean heat uptake has been quantified by using hydrographic temperature measurements and data from the Argo float program, which expanded its coverage after 20072,3. However, these estimates all use the same imperfect ocean dataset and share additional uncertainties resulting from sparse coverage, especially before 20074,5. Here we provide an independent estimate by using measurements of atmospheric oxygen (O2) and carbon dioxide (CO2)—levels of which increase as the ocean warms and releases gases—as a whole-ocean thermometer. We show that the ocean gained 1.33 ± 0.20  × 1022 joules of heat per year between 1991 and 2016, equivalent to a planetary energy imbalance of 0.83 ± 0.11 watts per square metre of Earth’s surface. We also find that the ocean-warming effect that led to the outgassing of O2 and CO2 can be isolated from the direct effects of anthropogenic emissions and CO2 sinks. Our result—which relies on high-precision O2 measurements dating back to 19916—suggests that ocean warming is at the high end of previous estimates, with implications for policy-relevant measurements of the Earth response to climate change, such as climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases7 and the thermal component of sea-level rise8

your forcing parameters are AFU.
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 16561
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 213
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: ECS is 2.5
« Reply #51 on: November 06, 2018, 04:56:39 PM »
I would not take comfort in the uncertainties in estimating climate sensitivity:

Title: "Climate sensitivity uncertainties leading to more concern"

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-uncertainties-concern.html

Extract: "Dessler said his “best guess” currently, based on the evidence he’s seen, calls for an increase of 3 to 4 degrees C from a doubling of CO2 concentrations over pre-industrial levels.

“The idea that climate sensitivity from observations is a lot lower than the models, that the models are ‘running hot'” and showing more warming and not less … “that idea is headed for the junkyard,” Dessler concludes."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Ned W

  • Guest
Re: ECS is 2.5
« Reply #52 on: November 11, 2018, 01:23:26 AM »
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8

Yes indeed.  James Annan uses those new values of OHC to calculate an implied probability distribution for ECS (climate sensitivity):


The median value for ECS from that is 2.57 C.  So it fits nicely with this thread title.

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2018/11/blueskiesresearchorguk-that-new-ocean.html

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 16561
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 213
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: ECS is 2.5
« Reply #53 on: November 11, 2018, 04:05:57 AM »
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8

Yes indeed.  James Annan uses those new values of OHC to calculate an implied probability distribution for ECS (climate sensitivity):


The median value for ECS from that is 2.57 C.  So it fits nicely with this thread title.

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2018/11/blueskiesresearchorguk-that-new-ocean.html

First, per James Annan's article, Annan states that estimates of ECS based on standard energy balance calculations (which he presents in his plot that you show) is biased to result in low estimates of ECS due to the "pattern effect" discussed in the second linked reference by Andrews et al. (2018).

Second, per Annan's calculations only consider heat absorbed by the ocean for a relatively short period, while the oceans have been absorbing anthropogenic heat since around 1750.

Title: "That new ocean heat content estimate"

https://bskiesresearch.wordpress.com/2018/11/01/that-new-ocean-heat-content-estimate/

Extract: "Plugging the numbers in to a standard energy balance approximation we get the following estimates for the equilibrium sensitivity:

This simple calculation has a (now) well-known flaw that tends to bias the results low, though how low is up for debate (it’s the so-called “pattern effect” or you might know it as the difference between effective and equilibrium sensitivity).

Another caveat in my calculation is that the new paper’s main result is based on a longer time interval going back to 1991, if the ocean heat uptake has been accelerating then that would imply a larger increment to the Johnson et al figure (which relates to a more recent period) and thus a larger effect."


Timothy Andrews et al. (30 July 2018), "Accounting for changing temperature patterns increases historical estimates of climate sensitivity; Geophysical Research Letters, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL078887

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018GL078887

Abstract

Eight Atmospheric General Circulation Models (AGCMs) are forced with observed historical (1871‐2010) monthly sea‐surface‐temperature (SST) and sea‐ice variations using the AMIP II dataset. The AGCMs therefore have a similar temperature pattern and trend to that of observed historical climate change. The AGCMs simulate a spread in climate feedback similar to that seen in coupled simulations of the response to CO2 quadrupling. However the feedbacks are robustly more stabilizing and the effective climate sensitivity (EffCS) smaller. This is due to a ‘pattern effect’ whereby the pattern of observed historical SST change gives rise to more negative cloud and LW clear‐sky feedbacks. Assuming the patterns of long‐term temperature change simulated by models, and the radiative response to them, are credible, this implies that existing constraints on EffCS from historical energy budget variations give values that are too low and overly constrained, particularly at the upper end. For example, the pattern effect increases the long‐term Otto et al. (2013) EffCS median and 5‐95% confidence interval from 1.9K (0.9‐5.0K) to 3.2K (1.5‐8.1K).

Third, Andrews et al (2018)'s findings taken together with Brown & Caldeira 2017 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24672 and Caldwell 2018 https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0631.1 should firmly place ECS at 3.5 or greater.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2018, 04:25:55 AM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 16561
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 213
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: ECS is 2.5
« Reply #54 on: November 11, 2018, 04:25:07 AM »
I think that it is important to note that Dessler & Forster (2018)'s recommended likely range for the current value of ECS to be 2.4 to 4.6C:

A. E. Dessler and P.M. Forster (07 August 2018), "An estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity from interannual variability', Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028481

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018JD028481?campaign=wolacceptedarticle
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Richard Rathbone

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 464
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: ECS is 2.5
« Reply #55 on: November 15, 2018, 11:40:17 PM »
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8

Quote
Abstract

Our result—which relies on high-precision O2 measurements dating back to 19916—suggests that ocean warming is at the high end of previous estimates, with implications for policy-relevant measurements of the Earth response to climate change, such as climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases7 and the thermal component of sea-level rise8

your forcing parameters are AFU.

The authors of this paper have admitted a serious error in their calculations.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/11/resplandy-et-al-correction-and-response/

Quote
The revised uncertainties preclude drawing any strong conclusions with respect to climate sensitivity ...


jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1943
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: ECS is 2.5
« Reply #56 on: November 23, 2018, 08:14:17 PM »

Third, Andrews et al (2018)'s findings taken together with Brown & Caldeira 2017 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24672 and Caldwell 2018 https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0631.1 should firmly place ECS at 3.5 or greater.


Brown & Caldeira 2017 inferred a best fit ECS of 3.7C  This OHC adjustment would produce a best fit of ~3.95C
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1943
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: ECS is 2.5
« Reply #57 on: November 23, 2018, 08:19:26 PM »
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8

Quote
Abstract

Our result—which relies on high-precision O2 measurements dating back to 19916—suggests that ocean warming is at the high end of previous estimates, with implications for policy-relevant measurements of the Earth response to climate change, such as climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases7 and the thermal component of sea-level rise8

your forcing parameters are AFU.

The authors of this paper have admitted a serious error in their calculations.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/11/resplandy-et-al-correction-and-response/

Quote
The revised uncertainties preclude drawing any strong conclusions with respect to climate sensitivity ...

Yeah, you need to leave in the full quote, otherwise you are just being deceitful.

Quote
The revised uncertainties preclude drawing any strong conclusions with respect to climate sensitivity or carbon budgets based on the APO method alone, but they still lend support for the implications of the recent upwards revisions in OHC relative to IPCC AR5 based on hydrographic and Argo measurements.
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Richard Rathbone

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 464
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: ECS is 2.5
« Reply #58 on: November 24, 2018, 10:29:18 AM »
You are cited a flawed paper, that the authors admit is flawed, in support of something that the authors admit it doesn't support. After correction it confirms other recent work and because its a less accurate method it shouldn't be used as support for any changes. The full article condemns your position just as strongly as my quote, and you are being deceitful in pretending otherwise.

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1943
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: ECS is 2.5
« Reply #59 on: November 25, 2018, 08:49:02 PM »
Richard,

Once again, your 'english as a second language' handicap rears its ugly head. . .

the article states that the revision to the ocean heat content analysis (and more specifically the increased uncertainty) prevents it from being used to draw a 'strong conclusion' independently of other studies.

It then states that the value of the paper is now in support of multiple lines of evidence that supports a higher level of ocean heat content absorption and top-of-atmosphere radiative energy imbalance.

in other words. . .

they said,

Quote
they still lend support for the implications of the recent upwards revisions in OHC relative to IPCC AR5 based on hydrographic and Argo measurements.

you said,

Quote
it shouldn't be used as support for any changes.

perhaps you should read the article again???

here it is:  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/11/resplandy-et-al-correction-and-response/

cheers!
 8)

Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

wdmn

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ECS is 2.5
« Reply #60 on: December 01, 2018, 03:02:21 PM »
Let me play devil's advocate for a minute:

What are the odds that we'll actually double co2? It seems unlikely to me given the transition off of fossils is well underway. Many countries will not be selling ICE cars after 2030-2035.

Pmt111500

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1612
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: ECS is 2.5
« Reply #61 on: December 01, 2018, 03:14:53 PM »
Let me play devil's advocate for a minute:

What are the odds that we'll actually double co2? It seems unlikely to me given the transition off of fossils is well underway. Many countries will not be selling ICE cars after 2030-2035.

Do you have a specific starting point for doubling in mind? 260, 280, 350 ppm? It might be decisive.
Amateur observations of Sea Ice since 2003.

wdmn

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ECS is 2.5
« Reply #62 on: December 01, 2018, 03:21:22 PM »
Was thinking 280, but even 260 seems unlikely.

Sebastian Jones

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 184
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: ECS is 2.5
« Reply #63 on: December 01, 2018, 04:19:03 PM »
A doubling from pre-industrial levels of 260ppm is 520ppm.
Our current level is about 405ppm.
We are adding about 2.5ppm/yr.
That works out to 40 years at current rates to reach 520ppm.
2060 give or take a few years.
However our emissions have been trending upwards, so it is reasonable to suggest 30 years before we hit 520.
Yes, we are aspiring to eliminating CO2 emissions by 2050 across much of the world...with some luck we shall be able to reduce the rate at which CO2 concentrations are trending upwards and extend the doubling time to as much as 60 or 70 years.
It will help if civilization collapses of course.

Qce

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ECS is 2.5
« Reply #64 on: December 01, 2018, 04:49:58 PM »
Quote
What are the odds that we'll actually double co2?
IPCC estimates for 2100 CO2 levels range from 478 to 1099ppm.
Current policies take us to ~670ppm.

Quote
...transition off of fossils is well underway
The previous transition took something like 80 years.
This one will also take many decades if left to market forces alone.

Check out Vaclav Smil's eye-opening on energy transitions.

Or one of his books on the subject.

Oil companies plan to extract everything they've got the licence to extract.
USA, China, Russia and others can't wait to exploit the arctic for fossil resources as it thaws.

Quote
Many countries will not be selling ICE cars after 2030-2035
Citation needed.
Maybe Norway? Who at the same time the world's third largest exporter natural gas and oil, at 50% of their total export value.

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3056
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 335
  • Likes Given: 646
Re: ECS is 2.5
« Reply #65 on: December 01, 2018, 05:32:18 PM »
I believe the only thing that can prevent a doubling of CO2 is civilizational collapse.
I am hopeful market forces will make a sizeable dent, but there is no way they can win in time without a global "Marshall Plan" or a WWII-like effort with the public sacrificing quality of life in order to fight off a common enemy. And I don't expect that to happen unfortunately.

mitch

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ECS is 2.5
« Reply #66 on: December 01, 2018, 05:46:37 PM »
When worrying about heating it is important to remember the other greenhouse gases. If you go to NOAA:

"...In terms of CO2 equivalents, the atmosphere in 2017 contained 493 ppm, of which 405 is CO2 alone. The rest comes from other gases..."
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

Another factor is that coal-burning in China and India is partly blocking solar insolation, so that there will be a warming associated with control of sulfate emissions in Asia. 

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3852
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 401
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: ECS is 2.5
« Reply #67 on: December 01, 2018, 06:36:24 PM »
A doubling from pre-industrial levels of 260ppm is 520ppm.
Our current level is about 405ppm.
We are adding about 2.5ppm/yr.
That works out to 40 years at current rates to reach 520ppm.
2060 give or take a few years.
However our emissions have been trending upwards, so it is reasonable to suggest 30 years before we hit 520.
A figure often quoted  is that 46% of CO2 emissions end up in the atmosphere, 28% is absorbed by the oceans, 26% rest by plants.
The sinks are under threat. Deforestation can not only remove a fraction of the sinks, but change where the forest was into a source.
Increasing acidification of the oceans can reduce its effectiveness, especially if emissions increase (certainly very possible until the late 2020s even with Paris Accord implemented?)

If the percentage going into the atmosphere increased from 46% to 50%, at current levels of emissions CO2 ppm would increase by 2.7 ppm per annum instead of 2.5. If emissions increase, and carbon sinks decline a double multiplier occurs.

Getting to 560 ppm happens a lot earlier. 450 ppm, still used as the upper limit, becomes much closer to today. Does it matter what the ECS is if we are going to fry before stability is reached?

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/07/03/how-much-co2-can-the-oceans-take-up/
Quote
although the oceans presently take up about one-fourth of the excess CO2 human activities put into the air, that fraction was significantly larger at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. That’s for a number of reasons, starting with the simple one that as one dissolves CO2 into a given volume of seawater, there is a growing resistance to adding still more CO2.

"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

wdmn

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ECS is 2.5
« Reply #68 on: December 01, 2018, 11:40:51 PM »
A doubling from pre-industrial levels of 260ppm is 520ppm.
Our current level is about 405ppm.
We are adding about 2.5ppm/yr.
That works out to 40 years at current rates to reach 520ppm.
2060 give or take a few years.
However our emissions have been trending upwards, so it is reasonable to suggest 30 years before we hit 520.
Yes, we are aspiring to eliminating CO2 emissions by 2050 across much of the world...with some luck we shall be able to reduce the rate at which CO2 concentrations are trending upwards and extend the doubling time to as much as 60 or 70 years.
It will help if civilization collapses of course.

Thank you, I had done the math  ::) Our emissions were mostly steady for three years before going up last year. But there has also been substantial work done changing infrastructure, and costs seem to be coming down for new tech. It's difficult to turn the titanic, as the saying goes, but we have been turning the wheel... we should expect significant drops in emissions beginning by the mid 2020s.

Quote
Many countries will not be selling ICE cars after 2030-2035
Citation needed.
Maybe Norway? Who at the same time the world's third largest exporter natural gas and oil, at 50% of their total export value.

2030 (or before): Costa Rica, Denmark, India, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and South Korea. Also some cities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_banning_fossil_fuel_vehicles


Remember all, I'm playing devil's advocate, so don't go easy on me.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2018, 11:48:15 PM by wdmn »

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3056
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 335
  • Likes Given: 646
Re: ECS is 2.5
« Reply #69 on: December 01, 2018, 11:56:12 PM »
Israel (and some other countries in that list) only banned gasoline and diesel. I know that the (stupid) plan in Israel is to have lots of nat-gas cars, following the discovery in the past decade of extensive gas fields offshore.

I also note that future promises are easily broken or delayed when the future becomes the present.

TerryM

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4212
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: ECS is 2.5
« Reply #70 on: December 02, 2018, 10:48:09 PM »
Israel (and some other countries in that list) only banned gasoline and diesel. I know that the (stupid) plan in Israel is to have lots of nat-gas cars, following the discovery in the past decade of extensive gas fields offshore.

I also note that future promises are easily broken or delayed when the future becomes the present.


Last year Putin asked to convert all Russian autos to CNG, and all Russian trucks, including the military to LNG. It's a damn shame that he doesn't have dictatorial powers.
Terry