Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Poll

What will 2019's annual C02 concentration growth be over 2018?

≤ 2.0 ppm
0 (0%)
2.1 - 2.5 ppm
11 (33.3%)
2.5 - 2.9 ppm
17 (51.5%)
3.0 - 3.4 ppm
4 (12.1%)
≥ 3.5 ppm
1 (3%)

Total Members Voted: 31

Voting closed: February 02, 2019, 12:48:04 AM

Author Topic: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels  (Read 62036 times)

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2709
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #300 on: November 28, 2019, 12:17:33 PM »
This is pure mathematics.
That curve displays deceleration.
Nothing to dispute about that.

A very weird pure mathematics aka Rubbish

The graph you use in #279 (as other graphs used) shows the growth rate (i.e. already first derivative) increasing from under 2ppm per year to well over 2ppm per year.

I.e. The growth rate is trending upwards. That is acceleration.

How many people have to tell you this before you realise you are wrong?

(The third derivative shows decline, which means the rate of acceleration is slightly declining but it is still acceleration.

The graph is showing a growth rate, so acceleration is simply the first derivative.

If the graph showed CO2 levels then acceleration would be second derivative. If you look at this

perhaps you will see it is curving upwards, i.e. acceleration.)
« Last Edit: November 28, 2019, 12:27:35 PM by crandles »

Hefaistos

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 657
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 268
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #301 on: November 28, 2019, 01:22:35 PM »
This is pure mathematics.
That curve displays deceleration.
Nothing to dispute about that.

A very weird pure mathematics aka Rubbish

The graph you use in #279 (as other graphs used) shows the growth rate (i.e. already first derivative) increasing from under 2ppm per year to well over 2ppm per year.

I.e. The growth rate is trending upwards. That is acceleration.

How many people have to tell you this before you realise you are wrong?

(The third derivative shows decline, which means the rate of acceleration is slightly declining but it is still acceleration.

The graph is showing a growth rate, so acceleration is simply the first derivative.

If the graph showed CO2 levels then acceleration would be second derivative. If you look at this

perhaps you will see it is curving upwards, i.e. acceleration.)

I quote myself in my first post above, with some added emphasis:
Quote
If we were on an exponential growth of CO2, we would have a growing rate of increase. As in the very long-term CO2 record.

The curve you //wolfpack// fitted in the graph above actually shows a declining rate of increase.
Are we currently leaving the exponential growth of CO2?

My first statement refers to the long term curve, like the one you show, crandles.

The second statement refers to the rate of change that wolfpack has in his figure, with the polynomial.
We have a negative second derivative, meaning we have a deceleration of the rate of change.

If this is really so, we are now leaving the exponential growth of CO2, and what you say in your bolded statement would not be correct anymore. ("The growth rate is trending upwards. That is acceleration.")

If I'm right, we should rejoice, shouldn't we?

Also want to add, that I don't see that wolfpack has 'overfitted' this with his polynomial.

wdmn

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 521
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 216
  • Likes Given: 155
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #302 on: November 28, 2019, 02:43:40 PM »
Long term trend shows previous "hiatuses" to growth. Wouldn't jump to conclusions while emissions continue to rise.

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2709
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #303 on: November 28, 2019, 03:21:53 PM »

Quote
If we were on an exponential growth of CO2, we would have a growing rate of increase. As in the very long-term CO2 record.

The curve you //wolfpack// fitted in the graph above actually shows a declining rate of increase.
Are we currently leaving the exponential growth of CO2?

I am afraid you are still wrong. The first paragraph of above is correct. It doesn't prove we were ever on an exponential growth path there are lots of other accelerating growth patterns. (So the third paragraph doesn't follow.)

The second paragraph is wrong. The slope of the polynomial is positive throughout the length of the data. So it shows an increasing rate of increase. Towards the end it is getting very close to being horizontal at which point we would have constant rate of growth and not accelerating growth. However it would be quite easy to fit a different curve where the slope decreases but however much it is extrapolated it never quite becomes horizontal. That would be constantly accelerating. This wouldn't then be a polynomial fit but you haven't justified a polynomial rather than any other sort of fit.

I should have quoted the part you wrote which I was objecting to as clearly wrong, which was


Quote
I'm just looking at wolfpack's figure in Reply #279.
He has a polynomial fitted to the data, and it's is negative, as well as its second derivative.
It means, if true, that we have left the time of acceleration, and now have deceleration.

The first derivative is the slope and the slope is upwards so the first derivative is positive. The second derivative of this curve is negative but this is the third derivative of CO2 levels.

So I am happy for you to claim the third derivative appears to be negative. You can also claim that the acceleration appears close to coming to an end but this is far from guaranteed from the data on the graph you are using.

>If I'm right, we should rejoice, shouldn't we?
Well you are wrong in the ways indicated but if you want to rejoice about third derivative appearing to be negative or the acceleration appearing to reduce its rate such that we may be close to 'just' a constant rate of growth then fine, rejoice away.

Others may feel you are rejoicing at the start of the movement in the direction needed before it achieves anything and when there is a long way to go.... but each to their own over what they rejoice about.

Hefaistos

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 657
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 268
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #304 on: November 28, 2019, 04:15:19 PM »
Quote
The first derivative is the slope and the slope is upwards so the first derivative is positive. The second derivative of this curve is negative but this is the third derivative of CO2 levels.

So I am happy for you to claim the third derivative appears to be negative.

Thanks Crandles, I stand corrected!
Sorry for the confusion! I started from the polynomial and looked at 1st and 2d derivative of that.
Which is the same as the 2d and 3d derivatives of the CO2 levels.

Quote
Towards the end it is getting very close to being horizontal at which point we would have constant rate of growth

As to the slight change indicated by the 3d derivate approaching zero (horizontal in the figure), would by itself be a reason to rejoice, as the climate effect - disregarding any feedback effects - of increasing CO2 is the log(CO2).

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8661
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3365
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #305 on: November 28, 2019, 04:19:20 PM »
I am reminded (from many years ago) of a politician in the UK saying "the rate of acceleration of the increase in unemployment has declined" - from which he justified seeing "the green shoots of growth".

We do not know
-  when / if the increase in renewable energy will be greater than the increase in energy demand,
-  if the decline in coal will be matched by increases in Natural Gas consumption,
-  how much CH4 fugitive emissions from Natural Gas production will increase,
-  the extent to which the carbon sinks will continue to decay,

We do not know many things, but we do know
- CO2 ppm will increase for at minimum for a few years more,
- if Governments and the industries that own them don't take action p.d.q. CO2 ppm will increase indefinitely,
- The carbon sinks will become less effective given current policies and trends,
- without major action and change it is likely increases in CO2 ppm will accelerate.



"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)

blumenkraft

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4884
  • Fans of Hans Ø Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1667
  • Likes Given: 2808
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #306 on: November 28, 2019, 05:30:20 PM »
Thanks Crandles, I stand corrected!

Nothing you see every day. Kudos, Hefaistos.
"Is a thin line 'tween heaven and here" - Bubbles

Sam

  • Guest
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #307 on: November 28, 2019, 07:28:30 PM »
More important even is that there is no sign at all that globally we will do anything meaningful to change this situation.

The fundamental basis of the current economic paradigm is growth.

The fundamental basis of all or nearly all religions is growth. Out populate those other heavens.

The basis so far for economies is fossil fuel based and that is proportional to population and compounded by economic output. As people everywhere demand a higher living standard and more stuff, energy use (fossil fuel use) rises per capita. Economic growth demands this.

At the same time, the major stories out now breathlessly talk about how CO2 levels now exceed any time in human history going back 3-5 million years. They utterly miss the fact that under current or even under vastly reduced growth rates, the “current” atmospheric CO2 levels will race above that short term blip in CO2 level 3 million years ago and rise to levels not seen in over 25 million years.

And still we blindly race off the cliff into an utterly changed environment, one that will catastrophically destroy the world we know.

Stories out today note that the current plans for reduction under the Paris accords need to be 5 times more aggressive. Instead the United States has decided to burn the Paris accords and slam their foot down on the accelerator instead.

Under the best of conditions, we now need to reduce fossil fuel use by 7.5% per year, year on year for a decade, to have even a mediocre chance of avoiding catastrophic climatic change. Personally, I doubt that we could stop that now even if we stopped all emissions today. But, let’s say we do try that.

No national government or economy has survived such rates of degrowth. Yes, we could convert to wind and solar. That might reach 3% a year. That isn’t enough to even fully offset the economic demands for growth, or separately population growth. So, to “succeed” under the best of circumstances requires overcoming every religion on Earth, and destroying every economy on Earth. Yeah, right. That is not going to happen.

The alternative of course is that we do not do this and we let the natural systems do it for us in a far more abrupt and vastly more catastrophic way. Or, we do it more gradually with a similar though slightly less severe rate of change, and a likely imperceptibly less catastrophic outcome.

If you are looking for magic answers, there are no answers here. We waited too long. We were and are far too slow to learn as a species

As a result, we are in for an evolutionary reset.

The chaos you see ahead is far closer than it appears. And we are racing toward it at breakneck and ever increasing speed.

All the while we are distracted by second and third order derivatives of curves, and fundamental misunderstandings of the most basic understandings of math, physics, and other fields if science.

Sam

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #308 on: November 28, 2019, 11:09:08 PM »
^^
And you Sam may be an optimist!


I love your term "evolutionary reset". So accurate, so precise - yet it doesn't scream with horror at where we're marching to. The wife did her dissertation on the poetry of WWI soldiers. Much of it felt like what you've written.


2nd & 3d derivatives may serve as diversions. I rail at Elon's presentations, pretending that it matters. A dear friend is gifted a carpet, & keeping his toes warm may be as important as anything that Trump, or Hansen, or Mann have said or done today.


Thanks for your message, I think.
Terry

Bugalugs

  • New ice
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #309 on: November 29, 2019, 09:12:27 AM »
Quote
The chaos you see ahead is far closer than it appears.

It appears so. Papua New Guinea is currently well and truly on fire. Is it not a country of rainforest?

KiwiGriff

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 752
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 421
  • Likes Given: 126
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #310 on: November 29, 2019, 10:25:18 AM »
Quote
At the same time, the major stories out now breathlessly talk about how CO2 levels now exceed any time in human history going back 3-5 million years. They utterly miss the fact that under current or even under vastly reduced growth rates, the “current” atmospheric CO2 levels will race above that short term blip in CO2 level 3 million years ago and rise to levels not seen in over 25 million years.
Think of a once in three million year weather event.
Then consider that as a new normal.
“If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for ... but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong.”

― Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

Hefaistos

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 657
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 268
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #311 on: November 29, 2019, 02:18:50 PM »
I am reminded (from many years ago) of a politician in the UK saying "the rate of acceleration of the increase in unemployment has declined" - from which he justified seeing "the green shoots of growth".

We do not know
-  when / if the increase in renewable energy will be greater than the increase in energy demand,
-  if the decline in coal will be matched by increases in Natural Gas consumption,
-  how much CH4 fugitive emissions from Natural Gas production will increase,
-  the extent to which the carbon sinks will continue to decay,

We do not know many things, but we do know
- CO2 ppm will increase for at minimum for a few years more,
- if Governments and the industries that own them don't take action p.d.q. CO2 ppm will increase indefinitely,
- The carbon sinks will become less effective given current policies and trends,
- without major action and change it is likely increases in CO2 ppm will accelerate.

Capitalism now brings major action and change all by itself. Relative prices of coal and renewables for power generation have changed so that it's not economical to build for coal anymore. Coal usage already in decline.
Yes, CO2 will continue to increase, but even if we just change from exponential growth to linear growth, as indicated by Wolfpack's polynomial, it is great news.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8661
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3365
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #312 on: November 29, 2019, 03:38:36 PM »
Quote
The chaos you see ahead is far closer than it appears.

It appears so. Papua New Guinea is currently well and truly on fire. Is it not a country of rainforest?
PNG is the eastern half (plus some islands that were part of the German Empire until after WW1), and Indonesia has the Western half of New Guinea - Papua Province.

I did a contract in PNG many, many years ago. It was rough. If you want to end up dead go into the mountains and try to stop illegal logging. And that is neither a joke nor an exaggeration.
___________________________________________________________
Deforestation in Papua New Guinea has been extensive in recent decades and is continuing at an estimated rate of 1.4% of tropical forest being lost annually. Deforestation in Papua New Guinea is mainly a result of illegal logging, which contributed to 70-90% of all timber exports, one of the highest rates in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Deforestation_in_Papua_New_Guinea
« Last Edit: November 29, 2019, 04:45:55 PM by gerontocrat »
"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)

Lennart van der Linde

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 778
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 83
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #313 on: November 29, 2019, 07:51:26 PM »
Capitalism now brings major action and change all by itself. Relative prices of coal and renewables for power generation have changed so that it's not economical to build for coal anymore. Coal usage already in decline.
Yes, CO2 will continue to increase, but even if we just change from exponential growth to linear growth, as indicated by Wolfpack's polynomial, it is great news.

If... That's a big if. So far the growth rate of CO2 concentration is still growing, as shown here and below: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html

One decade of a little slower growth doesn't mean an end of the acceleration, as shown. Whether the use of fossil fuels will decline and keep declining, remains to be seen. We have to do what we can to hasten their decline, as positive feedbacks can cause further increases in GHG-concentrations thru less uptake by and more release from natural carbon sinks. We can and should try desperately to remain optimistic, but without losing sight of reality. We have a lot of work to do before we can be confidently optimistic.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3068
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 514
  • Likes Given: 355
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #314 on: November 29, 2019, 11:29:46 PM »
Well, it only took like...what...ten posts basically repeating (more eloquently) my basic point before Hef finally conceded the point... :)

But in the midst, we got a nicely thought out and worded piece from Sam, which included centrally:

"...The fundamental basis of the current economic paradigm is growth.

The fundamental basis of all or nearly all religions is growth..."

This, I believe, is true.

But it's even more fundamental than that. The whole global culture (industrial, capitalist, consumerist...whatever combination you want to call it) is primarily geared to annihilation of life on the planet and destruction of the processes that have supported said life for millions to hundreds of millions of years.

There is pretty close to a one-to-one correspondence to who gets the most money and who is most centrally and powerfully involved in this destruction (with only a few exceptions that I am aware of).

High finance has always supported the fastest and biggest return for the buck, which nearly always has meant the fastest way to convert the natural integrity of the planet into local and/or global toxic waste. These are the folks that get some of the biggest pay on the planet.

Arms manufacturers are up there, too.

And so on down the line, with some getting good pay for just doing the very 'important' work of distracting us from the astonishing abyss we are throwing ourselves and the planet into so we don't stop consuming or start revolting....
« Last Edit: November 30, 2019, 06:49:32 AM by wili »
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #315 on: November 30, 2019, 01:20:08 AM »
^^
Ramen!
Terry

KiwiGriff

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 752
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 421
  • Likes Given: 126
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #316 on: November 30, 2019, 03:36:50 AM »
Inside Climate News:
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/26112019/unep-emissions-gap-report-paris-climate-greenhouse-gas-peak-2030
Quote
To be on track for 2°C of warming, the report said, emissions in 2030 would need to be 25 percent lower than today.

To limit warming to 1.5°C, emissions would need to be slashed by 55 percent. Last year, global carbon dioxide emissions rose 1.7 percent.

“Every year that action is delayed, emissions reductions need to be steeper,” said Joeri Rogelj, climate change lecturer at Imperial College London and an author of the report. This is the 10th year in a row that the UN has released an emissions gap report. “It is really the accumulation of bad news every year.”

Confirmation that rising emissions are putting existing global goals further out of reach came on the eve of the COP 25 climate summit that begins in Madrid on Monday.

The meeting will be the first big climate gathering since President Donald Trump began the process of withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement. Brazil’s president has also questioned the deal’s relevance.

New data from the World Meteorological Organization published on Monday showed that global average concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose to 407.8 parts per million in 2018, up from 405.5 parts per million in 2017.

The increase is the result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions, primarily from burning fossil fuels. Another UN report last week showed that if the world’s top fossil fuel-producing nations follow through on their current plans, they will produce about 50 percent more oil, gas and coal by 2030 than would be compatible with the international goal of keeping global warming under 2°C, and two times more than would be allowable to stay under 1.5°C.

Greenhouse gas emissions have risen 1.5 percent each year on average over the past decade, despite a slight levelling off during 2014-16.

“There is no sign of a slowdown, let alone a decline, in greenhouse gases concentration in the atmosphere despite all the commitments under the Paris agreement,” said Petteri Taalas, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization.

“It is worth recalling that the last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 was 3 to 5 million years ago,” he added. “Back then, the temperature was 2 to 3°C warmer, and sea level was 10 to 20 meters higher than now.”
“If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for ... but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong.”

― Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

Lennart van der Linde

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 778
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 83
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #317 on: November 30, 2019, 10:13:02 AM »
Greenhouse gas emissions have risen 1.5 percent each year on average over the past decade, despite a slight levelling off during 2014-16.

“There is no sign of a slowdown, let alone a decline, in greenhouse gases concentration in the atmosphere despite all the commitments under the Paris agreement,” said Petteri Taalas, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization.

“It is worth recalling that the last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 was 3 to 5 million years ago,” he added. “Back then, the temperature was 2 to 3°C warmer, and sea level was 10 to 20 meters higher than now.”

And GHG concentrations have risen quite exponentially by about 1.66% per year on average over the past four decades, while they have reached about 500 ppm CO2-eq by now, as shown here and below: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

When was the last time GHG concentrations were this high? Maybe 20 million years ago?

Sam

  • Guest
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #318 on: November 30, 2019, 05:18:43 PM »
Excellent reminder Lennart.

It is all too easy to forget that in focusing solely or excessively on CO2 alone that we neglect a couple of fundamental truths, 1) that all global warming gases count, 2) that man is producing a lot of global warming gases that nature either never did produce, or that it did not emit as much as man has.

This then leads to false equivalencies in paleohistorical comparisons. The argument that 3-5 million years ago CO2 levels were as high as now is just one such fallacy, and the implied or sometimes stated argument that things aren’t so bad, that nature has done this before and hence that we shouldn’t worry about it. Just keep on keeping on.

When all warming gases are included we get a much better comparison and a more shocking answer. 

We are already at warming gas levels likely not seen since the Oligocene over 24 million years ago at just about the time the Hominoids branch developed and 7-10 million years before the great apes (including man) developed. That is about 20 million years before the first bipedal upright apes walked the Earth.

In our brief few thousand years of technological evolution, and our flash-in-the-pan brief period of fossil fuel use, we have altered Earth’s climate system in ways not seen since tens of millions of years before the first hominid stood upright.

The climate will need just a moment to respond to this massive and shockingly sudden insult before it stabilizes. Before that can fully happen we must first stop emitting warming gases.

We are at the beginning of a highly unstable ultra-rapid human caused climatic shift.

We will soon be at warming gas levels not seen at any time in all of primate history. Our whole group of species is not guaranteed to be adapted to the climate we are creating. We certainly have had no similar pressures during primate development to push whatever adaptations might be required. Now, it may well be that we don’t need any such adaptations. That would seem to be a rather dicey gamble.

The new or even transient conditions may well involve pH homeostasis conditions that we are not adapted for and not suited to. Or, it may take us to oxygen concentrations (low and/or high) that we are not easily suited for. Or ....  an “interesting” gamble indeed.

Given sufficient time, our and other species would likely easily adapt. However, the rate of change we are triggering may be far faster than most species can adapt to, especially considering the complex web of dependencies between species, and the dependence on fairly uniform seasons from year to year that most rely upon.

Sam

Hefaistos

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 657
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 268
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #319 on: December 01, 2019, 01:14:09 AM »
...
The climate will need just a moment to respond to this massive and shockingly sudden insult before it stabilizes. Before that can fully happen we must first stop emitting warming gases.

We are at the beginning of a highly unstable ultra-rapid human caused climatic shift.

...
Sam

I just want to remind readers that more than 99% of surface thermal energy on the Earth is in the oceans, wheras the dry atmosphere contains less than 0.1% of thermal energy.

The atmospere is not heating the oceans. Climate processes are OTOH dominated by the oceans.

Ocean surface waters have been warming at less than 0.5 degrees C per 100 years.
There is nothing "ultra rapid" about these processes, and the climate will certainly need more than "just a moment" to adapt to the forcings.
The figure attached is for the S.Hemisphere sea surface temperatures, where most of the ocean waters are.

Those statements by Sam I bolded are not vindicated by physical facts. There is little cause for such alarmism.

Some physics:
 "If the heat currently accumulating was distributed evenly throughout the oceans, the temperatures of the entire ocean, including the sea surface, would rise by a paltry 0.017 degrees Celsius each decade. Observations show that the Earth is heating at 0.6 Watts per square metre and since the global surface area is 5.1×1014square metres, the buildup of energy is about 3×1014Joules per second which is 9.5×1022Joules per decade. Making a rough approximation, assuming the specific heat capacity of sea water is about 3,900 Joules per kg per degrees Celsius and the total mass of the oceans is 1.4×1021kg this would mean that it would take 5.5×1024Joules (5.5 trillion trillion Joules) to heat the entire ocean by 1 degrees Celsius (1.8 degrees F). Then we simply divide the heating rate (9.5×1022Joules per decade) by 5.5×1024Joules per degrees Celsius to get 0.017 degrees Celsius per decade so it would take about 600 years to raise the temperature by 1 degrees Celsius. "

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/role-ocean-tempering-global-warming
« Last Edit: December 01, 2019, 01:27:55 AM by Hefaistos »

Tom_Mazanec

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3161
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 582
  • Likes Given: 224
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #320 on: December 01, 2019, 01:44:59 AM »
Actually, Hefaistos, I suspect that that is, in the near and medium term, bad news.
The atmosphere and land surface will warm much more than the oceans. So oceans will, for a long time, not significantly increase their evaporation. This means precipitation will remain "normal" while land and air temperatures rise. This sounds like a formula for drought.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

KiwiGriff

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 752
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 421
  • Likes Given: 126
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #321 on: December 01, 2019, 02:26:29 AM »
I don't know why Hefaistos keeps posting sea surface temperature of the southern ocean for ocean heat content .
They are not the same thing.
The southern ocean is one of the most remote places on earth and only directly effects a few thousand hardy souls that live in the southern most tip of south america.
Here in NZ we get weather systems  from the southern ocean but they travel over a few thousand  kilometers of the Pacific first .




The oceans are heated by the atmosphere.
Eli rabbit explains how much better than I can here.
 http://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/11/eli-explains-it-all-how-back-radiation.html



« Last Edit: December 01, 2019, 06:23:57 AM by KiwiGriff »
“If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for ... but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong.”

― Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3451
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 636
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #322 on: December 01, 2019, 02:27:01 AM »
Evaporation is a function of surface issues, and the global sea surface (average) is warming due to AGW.  Humidity is increasing (generally) due to AGW, therefore more intense atmospheric rivers are likely.
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

KiwiGriff

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 752
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 421
  • Likes Given: 126
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #323 on: December 01, 2019, 02:40:42 AM »
Indeed tor
We can expect both deeper droughts  combined with more extreme rainfall events when it does rain.

The Impact of Climate Change and Variability on Heavy Precipitation, Floods, and Droughts
KEVIN E TRENBERTH
Quote
There is a direct influence of global warming on changes in precipitation and heavy rains. Increased heating leads to greater evaporation and thus surface drying, thereby increasing intensity and duration of drought. However,the water-holding capacity of air increases by about 7% per 1 ◦C warming, which leads to increased water vapor in the atmosphere, and this probably provides the biggest influence on precipitation.
 Storms, whether individual thunderstorms, extratropical rain or snow storms, or tropical cyclones and hurricanes, supplied by increased moisture, produce more intense precipitation events that are widely observed to be occurring, even in places where total precipitation is decreasing. In turn, this increases the risk of flooding. Patterns of where it rains also have been observed to change, with dry areas becoming drier (generally throughout the subtropics) and wet areas becoming wetter, especially in mid to high latitudes. This pattern is simulated by climate models and is
projected to continue into the future. Since more precipitation occurs as rain instead of snow with warming, and snow melts earlier, there is increased runoff and risk of flooding in early spring, but increased risk of drought in deep summer, especially over continental areas.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/books/EHShsa211.pdf
“If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for ... but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong.”

― Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

blumenkraft

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4884
  • Fans of Hans Ø Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1667
  • Likes Given: 2808
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #324 on: December 01, 2019, 05:24:56 AM »
The atmospere is not heating the oceans. Climate processes are OTOH dominated by the oceans.


and

Quote
Ocean surface waters have been warming at less than 0.5 degrees C per 100 years.

is kind of contradictory, don't you think?
 
Quote
There is nothing "ultra rapid" about these processes

You really need to watch the NOAA video i shared upstream!

Impressive video! But not the good way...  :-[

Carbon Dioxide Pumphandle 2019


"Is a thin line 'tween heaven and here" - Bubbles

Sam

  • Guest
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #325 on: December 01, 2019, 06:17:27 AM »
...
The climate will need just a moment to respond to this massive and shockingly sudden insult before it stabilizes. Before that can fully happen we must first stop emitting warming gases.

We are at the beginning of a highly unstable ultra-rapid human caused climatic shift.

...
Sam
Those statements by Sam I bolded are not vindicated by physical facts. There is little cause for such alarmism.

Quite to the contrary. The CO2 in the atmosphere, along with several other key warming gases will take millennia to reduce to prior levels assuming current ecosystem functions. And that only happens if the climate doesn’t shift before that can occur. As the climate shifts, the ecosystems shift, and those basic functions are put at risk.

What should be amply clear (and is) even to young people, let alone to those of us with more life history behind us, is that we are already seeing an ultra rapid shift in progress.

We see that with the rapidly vanishing arctic ice. We see it with the methane boiling out of the clathrates on the arctic plains. We see it with the collapse of the tundra globally. We see it with the warming of the ocean surfaces sufficient to doom coral reefs within the next decade or two. We see it in the hyper rapid acidification of the oceans which doom most shelled creatures. We see it in the very rapid melt on both Greenland and the West Antarctic sheet. We see it in the rapid loss of mountain glaciers and ice all over the world, and with the quite soon loss of the glacial ice supporting a billion people in South Asia. We see it in the destabilization of the atmospheric circulation with massive swings in heat transport both north and south from and to the arctic resulting in climatic chaos in the northern hemisphere beginning. We see it in droughts, fires, deluges and worse. .... and in a thousand other ways ....

Hefaistos, that you apparently choose not see these and myriad indicators is only evidence of your own willful and reckless blindness.

Greta Thunberg is still a young person. Yet she sees clearly, where you do not. She sees the indicators and clearly and concisely called out the leaders of the world in Davos. She is right. You are wrong.

Yes the oceans will take time to equilibrate. And perhaps if we bend every effort, destroying civilization as we know it in the process, we might now barely be able to salvage something of the world we know. Personally, I doubt that is possible any longer. We waited too long. We were too slow to learn. We were and remain too blind to see. And the CO2 trends from Mauna Loa speak volumes to that at megaphone levels. We are not in any way doing what must be done. Instead we argue about slowing the rate of increase of the rate of increase. That is insane.

Worse leaders of major countries are already throwing out efforts to reduce emissions and are instead increasing the rate of burning of oil, coal and natural gas, while also slash burning the lungs of the world. That is beyond insane.

The CO2 already in the atmosphere is catastrophically high. Under the most optimistic business near usual trends, we don’t even slow the increase, let alone stop it, and reverse it. Under these conditions, we will release the 1,600 Gigatons of carbon in the permafrost. And we will boil out the clathrate on the arctic plains, both in the very near future. Either of those take the situation completely out of human control.

Yes the oceans will take time to equilibrate. The continued heat input caused by the warming gases will assure that there is heat enough and time enough to do that. But that is meaningless in the time scale of the catastrophe we face. The continued heating of the Earth from the gases in the atmosphere will assure it. And the changes in the surface biosphere and atmosphere will not wait for that equilibration to finish.

Our rate of change now makes the PETM look obscenely slow. And yet the PETM is the definition of rapid climate change. We are now in the early stages of an ultra rapid climate shift. And that is obvious for all to see except for the willfully blind.

In time, the Earth may shift back to this mostly precariously stable point between hot house and ice house conditions. These have been rare in Earth’s history. The orbital balances could bring us back to some stable place with ice remaining in the Antarctic. And perhaps in half a million years there may be ice in the arctic again. But it is also possible that we continue on a runaway to hot house conditions, having pushed over the climate and ruined the world we know.

I worry more about the highly unstable transition. Creatures can adapt to hundred millennia scale changes. Decade scale changes are another matter entirely. Worse, the impacts of the collapse of whole ecosystems may have dramatically more important transient impacts on O2, pressure, temperature, rainfall, circulation, CO2, methane and other parameters that may drive many species and even whole genera extinct.

Sam


Bruce Steele

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1786
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 436
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #326 on: December 01, 2019, 07:10:50 AM »
Sam, I think there are plenty of examples of animal populations in trouble . Whether you react with alarmism , denial, or just profound sadness is somewhat dependent on what you have seen and what you are built out of. I agree with you about the speed of the changes taking place . I also agree that these changes will progress far into the future and I personally think it will take the typical 100,000
years for weathering processes to bring the surface oceans back into current pH levels . That for me is indicative of how long other earth processes will struggle with the carbon excursion we have triggered. 
 The calcite horizon is beginning to invade the shelf off Oregon and Washington. Twenty years ago the words “ ocean acidification “  weren’t coined yet. The aragonite horizon is now shoaling to surface waters in the Eastern boundary Calif. Current ecosystem and the numbers days that the surface waters will be under saturated will continue to increase. I don’t think animal extinctions are anywhere as common in the oceans as they are on land . They are coming.
 Insects, birds, ancient ocean species beginning to blink out of existence. Should my alarm bother me?
What physical evidence do we need ?   
 

Wherestheice

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 90
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #327 on: December 01, 2019, 07:43:08 AM »
...
The climate will need just a moment to respond to this massive and shockingly sudden insult before it stabilizes. Before that can fully happen we must first stop emitting warming gases.

We are at the beginning of a highly unstable ultra-rapid human caused climatic shift.

...
Sam
Those statements by Sam I bolded are not vindicated by physical facts. There is little cause for such alarmism.

Quite to the contrary. The CO2 in the atmosphere, along with several other key warming gases will take millennia to reduce to prior levels assuming current ecosystem functions. And that only happens if the climate doesn’t shift before that can occur. As the climate shifts, the ecosystems shift, and those basic functions are put at risk.

What should be amply clear (and is) even to young people, let alone to those of us with more life history behind us, is that we are already seeing an ultra rapid shift in progress.

We see that with the rapidly vanishing arctic ice. We see it with the methane boiling out of the clathrates on the arctic plains. We see it with the collapse of the tundra globally. We see it with the warming of the ocean surfaces sufficient to doom coral reefs within the next decade or two. We see it in the hyper rapid acidification of the oceans which doom most shelled creatures. We see it in the very rapid melt on both Greenland and the West Antarctic sheet. We see it in the rapid loss of mountain glaciers and ice all over the world, and with the quite soon loss of the glacial ice supporting a billion people in South Asia. We see it in the destabilization of the atmospheric circulation with massive swings in heat transport both north and south from and to the arctic resulting in climatic chaos in the northern hemisphere beginning. We see it in droughts, fires, deluges and worse. .... and in a thousand other ways ....

Hefaistos, that you apparently choose not see these and myriad indicators is only evidence of your own willful and reckless blindness.

Greta Thunberg is still a young person. Yet she sees clearly, where you do not. She sees the indicators and clearly and concisely called out the leaders of the world in Davos. She is right. You are wrong.

Yes the oceans will take time to equilibrate. And perhaps if we bend every effort, destroying civilization as we know it in the process, we might now barely be able to salvage something of the world we know. Personally, I doubt that is possible any longer. We waited too long. We were too slow to learn. We were and remain too blind to see. And the CO2 trends from Mauna Loa speak volumes to that at megaphone levels. We are not in any way doing what must be done. Instead we argue about slowing the rate of increase of the rate of increase. That is insane.

Worse leaders of major countries are already throwing out efforts to reduce emissions and are instead increasing the rate of burning of oil, coal and natural gas, while also slash burning the lungs of the world. That is beyond insane.

The CO2 already in the atmosphere is catastrophically high. Under the most optimistic business near usual trends, we don’t even slow the increase, let alone stop it, and reverse it. Under these conditions, we will release the 1,600 Gigatons of carbon in the permafrost. And we will boil out the clathrate on the arctic plains, both in the very near future. Either of those take the situation completely out of human control.

Yes the oceans will take time to equilibrate. The continued heat input caused by the warming gases will assure that there is heat enough and time enough to do that. But that is meaningless in the time scale of the catastrophe we face. The continued heating of the Earth from the gases in the atmosphere will assure it. And the changes in the surface biosphere and atmosphere will not wait for that equilibration to finish.

Our rate of change now makes the PETM look obscenely slow. And yet the PETM is the definition of rapid climate change. We are now in the early stages of an ultra rapid climate shift. And that is obvious for all to see except for the willfully blind.

In time, the Earth may shift back to this mostly precariously stable point between hot house and ice house conditions. These have been rare in Earth’s history. The orbital balances could bring us back to some stable place with ice remaining in the Antarctic. And perhaps in half a million years there may be ice in the arctic again. But it is also possible that we continue on a runaway to hot house conditions, having pushed over the climate and ruined the world we know.

I worry more about the highly unstable transition. Creatures can adapt to hundred millennia scale changes. Decade scale changes are another matter entirely. Worse, the impacts of the collapse of whole ecosystems may have dramatically more important transient impacts on O2, pressure, temperature, rainfall, circulation, CO2, methane and other parameters that may drive many species and even whole genera extinct.

Sam

I agree with you Sam, the world is in extremly dire straights now. Anyone who says otherwise isn't paying attention
"When the ice goes..... F***

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3451
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 636
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #328 on: December 01, 2019, 07:58:36 AM »
Concerning the term "ocean acidification", using the Google Ngram tool, we see the two words juxtaposed (possibly coincidentally*) a couple(?) times in books in 1980, then used once(?) each in 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003 and 2004, then 19 times (?) in 2005 and then lots of times thereafter.

This supports Bruce's declaration.

By the way, learn all about Ocean Acidification with the series of posts/lessons in Skeptical Science: OA not OK
___________
* - by "coincidentally", it could be something like, "Things reduce in the ocean.  Acidification doesn't happen there." [This is just an example to show juxtaposition, not intending to be scientific, real or anything else.]

Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Hefaistos

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 657
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 268
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #329 on: December 01, 2019, 11:41:18 AM »
I don't know why Hefaistos keeps posting sea surface temperature of the southern ocean for ocean heat content .
They are not the same thing.


I didn't.
And no, they aren't.
That graph is for the Southern Hemispere, which shows no warming trend whatsoever of the surface waters. Some warming takes place in deeper waters.
Don't know how much percent of water mass is in SH, but could it be maybe 75% of the total ocean water? SH is 81% ocean and 19% land.
Anyway, it's a relevant graph.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2019, 11:48:37 AM by Hefaistos »

Hefaistos

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 657
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 268
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #330 on: December 01, 2019, 11:53:38 AM »
The atmospere is not heating the oceans. Climate processes are OTOH dominated by the oceans.


and

Quote
Ocean surface waters have been warming at less than 0.5 degrees C per 100 years.

is kind of contradictory, don't you think?
 

No. It's primarily the sun that heats the ocean, not the atmosphere. Everything else is pretty much secondary to the direct insolation effect.

Quote
There is nothing "ultra rapid" about these processes

Quote
You really need to watch the NOAA video i shared upstream!

That simulation shows what's going on in the atmosphere, which is much more sensitive to climate changes than the Ocean.

Hefaistos

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 657
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 268
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #331 on: December 01, 2019, 12:03:07 PM »
Indeed tor
We can expect both deeper droughts  combined with more extreme rainfall events when it does rain.

The Impact of Climate Change and Variability on Heavy Precipitation, Floods, and Droughts
KEVIN E TRENBERTH
Quote
There is a direct influence of global warming on changes in precipitation and heavy rains. Increased heating leads to greater evaporation and thus surface drying, thereby increasing intensity and duration of drought. However,the water-holding capacity of air increases by about 7% per 1 ◦C warming, which leads to increased water vapor in the atmosphere, and this probably provides the biggest influence on precipitation.
 Storms, whether individual thunderstorms, extratropical rain or snow storms, or tropical cyclones and hurricanes, supplied by increased moisture, produce more intense precipitation events that are widely observed to be occurring, even in places where total precipitation is decreasing. In turn, this increases the risk of flooding. Patterns of where it rains also have been observed to change, with dry areas becoming drier (generally throughout the subtropics) and wet areas becoming wetter, especially in mid to high latitudes. This pattern is simulated by climate models and is
projected to continue into the future. Since more precipitation occurs as rain instead of snow with warming, and snow melts earlier, there is increased runoff and risk of flooding in early spring, but increased risk of drought in deep summer, especially over continental areas.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/books/EHShsa211.pdf

Again, lot's of forecasts and dire warnings.
Climate reanalyzer shows no big trend for precipitation the last 40 years. About one percent up. And declining slightly during the last 10 years.
Agreed, this is the aggregate.

blumenkraft

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4884
  • Fans of Hans Ø Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1667
  • Likes Given: 2808
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #332 on: December 01, 2019, 12:07:55 PM »
Quote from: Hefaistos
The atmospere is not heating the oceans

Ok, then please explain to me why you said that ^.

How i understand it, those are not decoupled systems. When something happens to one of both (i.e. warming), it will affect the other one eventually.

What's the mechanism behind the phenomenon you are referring to? Any kind of feedback that doesn't allow the ocean to warm while the air becomes warmer? I've never heard of something that magically separates them before.
"Is a thin line 'tween heaven and here" - Bubbles

Hefaistos

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 657
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 268
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #333 on: December 01, 2019, 12:10:50 PM »
Quote from: Hefaistos
The atmospere is not heating the oceans

Ok, then please explain to me why you said that ^.

How i understand it, those are not decoupled systems. When something happens to one of both (i.e. warming), it will affect the other one eventually.

What's the mechanism behind the phenomenon you are referring to? Any kind of feedback that doesn't allow the ocean to warm while the air becomes warmer? I've never heard of something that magically separates them before.

My reply came in #330:
No. It's primarily the sun that heats the ocean, not the atmosphere.
Everything else is pretty much secondary to the direct insolation effect.

Lennart van der Linde

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 778
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 83
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #334 on: December 01, 2019, 12:33:24 PM »
Again, lot's of forecasts and dire warnings.
Climate reanalyzer shows no big trend for precipitation the last 40 years. About one percent up. And declining slightly during the last 10 years.
Agreed, this is the aggregate.

More intense droughts and more intense precipitation will probably show no big trends in aggregate precipitation. And forecasts/projections matter, especially in inert systems. As Diffenbaugh & Field 2013 show the current and coming antropogenic warming may well be 10-100 times faster than any warming in the past 65 million years:
https://denning.atmos.colostate.edu/readings/Impacts/Ecosystems.Science-2013-Diffenbaugh-486-92.pdf

How hard will it be for life, including human civilization, to adapt to such an unprecedented rapid climate shift? Should we take the risk to find out? On paper thru the Paris Agreement humanity decided we should not take that risk. Our practical behaviour and policies do not conform to this agreement yet. This is troubling in light of the risk of crossing potential tipping points even below two degrees C. Your persistent downplaying of this risk seems quite irrational and irresponsible. Why are you apparently so unwilling to take the science pointing to this risk seriously?

blumenkraft

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4884
  • Fans of Hans Ø Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1667
  • Likes Given: 2808
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #335 on: December 01, 2019, 12:49:00 PM »
My reply came in #330:
No. It's primarily the sun that heats the ocean, not the atmosphere.
Everything else is pretty much secondary to the direct insolation effect.

Dude, you are bullshitting hard...  :-\
"Is a thin line 'tween heaven and here" - Bubbles

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2709
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #336 on: December 01, 2019, 01:15:08 PM »

The atmospere is not heating the oceans. Climate processes are OTOH dominated by the oceans.

Ocean surface waters have been warming at less than 0.5 degrees C per 100 years.

https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm



Solar irradiance declining since about 1960 from circa 1361 W/m^2 to 1360.6 W/m^2 and you think that is able to explain the increase in ocean temps ?

Ocean temps increase slower than elsewhere because of huge heat capacity it takes a long time but the oceans are warming and this cannot be explained by "its the sun" myth.

Hefaistos

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 657
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 268
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #337 on: December 01, 2019, 01:15:43 PM »
My reply came in #330:
No. It's primarily the sun that heats the ocean, not the atmosphere.
Everything else is pretty much secondary to the direct insolation effect.

Dude, you are bullshitting hard...  :-\
ok boomer  ;)

blumenkraft

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4884
  • Fans of Hans Ø Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1667
  • Likes Given: 2808
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #338 on: December 01, 2019, 01:24:13 PM »
Wrong use of meme!

#sad
"Is a thin line 'tween heaven and here" - Bubbles

Hefaistos

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 657
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 268
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #339 on: December 01, 2019, 01:55:41 PM »

The atmospere is not heating the oceans. Climate processes are OTOH dominated by the oceans.

Ocean surface waters have been warming at less than 0.5 degrees C per 100 years.


Ocean temps increase slower than elsewhere because of huge heat capacity it takes a long time but the oceans are warming and this cannot be explained by "its the sun" myth.

Thanks Crandles, really nice graph! But again, it shows the temperatures in the atmosphere, whereas more than 99 procent of surface thermal energy is stored in the oceans. Temperature is not thermal energy, and in the climate it's the thermal energy that is of primary importance.

Here is the Earth energy balance from Kevin Trenberth. There is only one arrow pointing down towards Earth into our atmosphere. Thats where the energy comes from. The net reaching surface is  161 watts/sq.m.

Then we have outgoing surface radiation minus back radiation, but the net of those isn't that big. 356-333 = 23 watts/sq.m.
That's secondary to the direct insolation, and even more so over the Ocean.

There is a big difference between how the sun warms the ocean, and how it warms land. There is more warming from direct insolation than over land.

But all this was not really my point. I bring this up, because 'alarmists' tend to forget about the incredible energy inertia we have with the Ocean.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2019, 02:01:41 PM by Hefaistos »

Lennart van der Linde

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 778
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 83
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #340 on: December 01, 2019, 02:37:40 PM »
But all this was not really my point. I bring this up, because 'alarmists' tend to forget about the incredible energy inertia we have with the Ocean.

Those of us who are alarmed by the risks the science indicates know about this inertia from the same science. So how come you're not alarmed, apparently?

Lenton et al 2019 raised the alarm on the risks of tipping points once again this week:
https://www.nature.com/magazine-assets/d41586-019-03595-0/d41586-019-03595-0.pdf

IPCC AR5 showed 93% of the extra heat is taken up by the oceans:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf

The point is this climate shift is one or more orders of magnitude faster that any in the past 65 million years after 10.000 years of relatively stable climate in which civilization developed. If you're not alarmed, you're still not paying attention to what the science shows.

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2709
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #341 on: December 01, 2019, 02:55:26 PM »
The net isn't that big:

Yes that is true:
161+333=494
356+40+80+17=493

That is a difference of 1 producing the heating. But doesn't say where it came from.

So we can look at gross figures and see 333 is a lot bigger than 161 so your assertion is wrong on that count. But this isn't really the appropriate way to do it.

Alternatively we can consider what has changed from a cooler system that was in balance. What would the figures have been in an 1000BC to 1850 average climate that was on average more or less in balance:

I believe the 161 would be almost unchanged, if anything marginally higher with less absorbed by atmosphere.

The 356+40 emitted depends on temperature so this would have been lower. To make it balance the 333 also has to be lower which makes sense for a cooler atmosphere.

So the change that is warming the oceans is the increase of the back radiation up to 333.

Therefore it is the atmosphere that is heating the oceans.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2204
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1173
  • Likes Given: 905
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #342 on: December 01, 2019, 03:02:43 PM »

No. It's primarily the sun that heats the ocean, not the atmosphere.
Everything else is pretty much secondary to the direct insolation effect.

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.png

Yes it is primarily the sun but we can easily tell something else is having an effect too because we know the sun is not driving the change since the 1990.

If you look at all the effects we are already seeing across the world then ocean inertia is not really relevant. It was always there, our added warming effect was not.

We have been slowly adding energy for some 10k years and we have been ramping it up lately.

The graph above in combination with arctic permafrost becoming a source since 2003 and the state of the arctic ice and the effects already seen in Antarctica (something which would be an after 2100 thing last century) clearly show that 1 C of warming was the best goal we could have used.

Quote
I bring this up, because 'alarmists' tend to forget about the incredible energy inertia we have with the Ocean.
Alarmists might acknowledge the fact that ocean energy inertia is not relevant.

Why do you think it might safe us? All recent trends are there despite ocean energy inertia not budging just because there is a lot of ocean and lots of it is rather isolated. Always was that way but that did not stop snowball earth or the PETM.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Stephan

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1287
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 536
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #343 on: December 01, 2019, 05:39:16 PM »
Next week last year averaged at 408.4 ppm. Only if the daily values will start to increase more vigorously than this week, an annual increase of 2 ppm is possible. Otherwise the rate will stay at the moderate value it has been at this week.
Back to data - here is the weekly Sunday evening CO2 update from Mauna Loa

Week beginning on November 24, 2019:     410.71 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:                   408.42 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:                386.51 ppm
Last updated: December 1, 2019

The annual increase is back well above 2 ppm. There was no further daily average below 410 ppm, but some hourly values lay below this threshold.

Next week last year stayed around 408.5 ppm. At the moment the day-to-day changes are small, therefore an annual increase of slightly above 2 ppm is likely.
It is too late just to be concerned about Climate Change

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5873
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1979
  • Likes Given: 1755
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #344 on: December 01, 2019, 05:57:28 PM »
Hefaistos, beyond the nonsense of the atmosphere having no effect on ocean surface temps, you 0.017C per decade assume full mixing of the whole ocean volume down to the Mariana Trench. But the ocean is not fully mixed, and ita surface is warming much more than its depths (except in the Arctic and the Antarctic).

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3451
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 636
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #345 on: December 01, 2019, 07:35:39 PM »
...
Here is the Earth energy balance from Kevin Trenberth.
...
Where is the contribution of human fossil fuel use, etc.?  Is it the "Thermal"?

Of course, it is the 'thickening' CO2e 'blanket' that is causing the lower atmosphere to heat up.  Pure and simple and 'settled science' for over 100 years.
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Hefaistos

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 657
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 268
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #346 on: December 01, 2019, 10:43:41 PM »
Why do you think it might safe us?

It gives us enough time to get off the fossile fuels without too much drama.

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18804
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2057
  • Likes Given: 255
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #347 on: December 01, 2019, 11:10:31 PM »
Per the linked peer reviewed reference, GMSTA is currently increasing at a rate of 0.2C +/- 0.1C per decade:

O. Hoegh-Guldberg et al. (20 Sep 2019), "The human imperative of stabilizing global climate change at 1.5°C", Science, Vol. 365, Issue 6459, eaaw6974, DOI: 10.1126/science.aaw6974

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6459/eaaw6974

Extract: "Climate change is one of the greatest challenges for humanity. Global mean surface temperature (GMST) is increasing at the rate of 0.2° ± 0.1°C per decade, reaching 1.0°C above the pre-industrial period (reference period 1850–1900) in 2017."
« Last Edit: December 01, 2019, 11:37:03 PM 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

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18804
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2057
  • Likes Given: 255
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #348 on: December 01, 2019, 11:36:30 PM »
Per the linked peer reviewed reference, GMSTA is currently increasing at a rate of 0.2C +/- 0.1C per decade:
...

Per the linked image James Hansen speculated that in 2018 GMSTA was increasing at a rate of about 0.38C per decade and is almost certainly still increasing.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2019, 01:11:39 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

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18804
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2057
  • Likes Given: 255
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #349 on: December 02, 2019, 12:53:28 AM »
Obviously, the rate of increase of GMSTA per decade has been and is continuing to accelerate:

Title: "September Global Temperature Change"

https://www.co2.earth/global-warming-update

Extract: "Overall, the global annual temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07°C (0.13°F) per decade since 1880 and at an average rate of 0.17°C (0.31°F) per decade since 1970.""
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson