Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Poll

How much warmer on Earth in 2100, compared to mid-19th century?

1-2 degrees
2 (2.2%)
2-3 degrees
11 (12.4%)
3-4 degrees
22 (24.7%)
4-5 degrees
26 (29.2%)
5-6 degrees
7 (7.9%)
6-10 degrees
15 (16.9%)
10-20 degrees
0 (0%)
20-50 degrees
0 (0%)
50-100 degrees
0 (0%)
Not enough information
6 (6.7%)

Total Members Voted: 88

Author Topic: Magnitude of future warming  (Read 7216 times)

Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 842
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: Magnitude of future warming
« Reply #100 on: September 23, 2019, 07:03:18 PM »
Current sequestration is not based on emitted amounts, but on atmospheric concentrations.  As concentrations continue to increase, sequestration should increase to keep pace (similar percentage).  At some point removal will equal addition, such that the conentration will remain constant.  Once emissions fall below the removal rate, atmospheric concentrations will fall.

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4531
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 907
  • Likes Given: 1301
Re: Magnitude of future warming
« Reply #101 on: September 23, 2019, 08:35:45 PM »
Again, I am far from knowledgeable on this subject, but I would guess sequestration is also dependent on ocean CO2 level, which has probably risen since the 1970s. Hope someone with more credentials can pitch in.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2019, 08:43:44 PM by oren »

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4531
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 907
  • Likes Given: 1301
Re: Magnitude of future warming
« Reply #102 on: September 23, 2019, 08:43:07 PM »
Google to the rescue.

Quote
How the oceans absorb carbon dioxide is critical for predicting climate change
Air-sea gas exchange is a physio-chemical process, primarily controlled by the air-sea difference in gas concentrations and the exchange coefficient, which determines how quickly a molecule of gas can move across the ocean-atmosphere boundary. It takes about one year to equilibrate CO2 in the surface ocean with atmospheric CO2, so it is not unusual to observe large air-sea differences in CO2 concentrations. Most of the differences are caused by variability in the oceans due to biology and ocean circulation. The oceans contain a very large reservoir of carbon that can be exchanged with the atmosphere because the CO2 reacts with water to form carbonic acid and its dissociation products. As atmospheric CO2 increases, the interaction with the surface ocean will change the chemistry of the seawater resulting in ocean acidification.

Evidence suggests that the past and current ocean uptake of human-derived (anthropogenic) CO2 is primarily a physical response to rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Whenever the partial pressure of a gas is increased in the atmosphere over a body of water, the gas will diffuse into that water until the partial pressures across the air-water interface are equilibrated. However, because the global carbon cycle is intimately embedded in the physical climate system there exist several feedback loops between the two systems. For example, increasing CO2 modifies the climate which in turn impacts ocean circulation and therefore ocean CO2 uptake. Changes in marine ecosystems resulting from rising CO2 and/or changing climate can also result in changes in air-sea CO2 exchange. These feedbacks can change the role of the oceans in taking up atmospheric CO2 making it very difficult to predict how the ocean carbon cycle will operate in the future.
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Carbon+Uptake

Quote
Ocean Acidification: The Other Carbon Dioxide Problem
Fundamental changes in seawater chemistry are occurring throughout the world's oceans. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) from humankind's industrial and agricultural activities has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The ocean absorbs about a quarter of the CO2 we release into the atmosphere every year, so as atmospheric CO2 levels increase, so do the levels in the ocean. Initially, many scientists focused on the benefits of the ocean removing this greenhouse gas from the atmosphere.  However, decades of ocean observations now show that there is also a downside — the CO2 absorbed by the ocean is changing the chemistry of the seawater, a process called OCEAN ACIDIFICATION.
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification


Florifulgurator

  • New ice
  • Posts: 69
  • Virtual world alter ego of Martin Gisser
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: Magnitude of future warming
« Reply #103 on: September 23, 2019, 08:51:25 PM »
I would guess sequestration is also dependent on ocean CO2 level.
Yes. The other elephant in the room.
Like with thermal inertia there is also CO2 mixing inertia of oceans. Carbon sequestration is a job for centuries.
Google image search on my avatar image gives "wood". In fact it is the lower part of David Hilbert's tombstone.

Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 842
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: Magnitude of future warming
« Reply #104 on: September 23, 2019, 09:33:49 PM »
Again, I am far from knowledgeable on this subject, but I would guess sequestration is also dependent on ocean CO2 level, which has probably risen since the 1970s. Hope someone with more credentials can pitch in.

The sequestering is dependent on the partial pressure of the gas in the atmosphere and dissolved in the ocean.  Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and dissolved in the ocean will strive to maintain equilibrium.  A change in one will lead to a change in the other.  Much of the gas that has been emitted into the atmosphere has already dissolved into the ocean.  This process with continue towards equilibrium.

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4531
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 907
  • Likes Given: 1301
Re: Magnitude of future warming
« Reply #105 on: September 23, 2019, 10:37:35 PM »
KK, I know that you strive hard to prove that things are better than they seem, a commendable goal when sincere, but I feel that in this case you are wrong. As the CO2 is equilibrated into the ocean, its rate of oceanic uptake slows down, in opposition to the way you describe it and to the math you presented above.

Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 842
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: Magnitude of future warming
« Reply #106 on: September 23, 2019, 11:00:57 PM »
Oren, that would be the case if the equilibrium was fast and the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 was short.  These calculations are based on the premise that the lifetime is long, and the equilibrium is slow.  I am not the expert on the atmospheric lifetime of CO2, but am using the conclusions of others.  However, if the premise of a long lifetime is correct, then the ocean will continue to sequester CO2 for quite some time.  I am a chemist, not a biologist, so I cannot comment as readily about terrestrial sequestration.

sidd

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4975
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 378
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Magnitude of future warming
« Reply #107 on: September 24, 2019, 06:20:41 AM »
It is true that ocean surface water will sequester CO2 at a rate proportional to difference of CO2 partial pressure between atmosphere and surface ocean.  Absent anything else, this rate will slow down as the difference goes to zero.

But ofcourse there are many,many anything elses. Carbonate equilibrium is one. Coccolithophores are another. The latter will dwindle as pH goes up reducing deep ocen sequestration. That's just one of the million feedbacks we are beginning to understand.

So i am not sanguine that the land and ocean sequestration we see today will continue. I am concerned about land sinks even more than ocean. It is increasingly clear that land sinks may easily turn into sources.

At present, half our fossil C emissions are sequestered by "natural" processes. If those take a hit, keeling curve will go up faster, as will radiative imbalance, warming and ecosystem impact.

sidd


Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 842
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: Magnitude of future warming
« Reply #108 on: September 24, 2019, 01:22:33 PM »
Land and ocean sequestrations that are based on physical properties will not change as CO2 concentrations rise.  This is straight-forward chemistry.  These natural processes will not change.  The one process that may change is the biological sequestration.  Deforestation has added significantly to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.  Fortunately, this has been recognized and efforts have been made to restore the forests (for habitat restoration purposes also).  This has fared much better than efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. 

In the U.S., 26% of the forests were cut down by 1910 - mostly for agriculture.  Since then, the forested area has increased slightly (about 2%).  Europe has had much higher levels of deforestation, with some estimates at ~90%.  In recent years, thes temporal forests have been making a comeback, with reforestation efforts increasnig forested lands in both Europe and Asia.  Unfortunately, trends in tropical Africa and South America have countered these efforts.  Still, there is hope in reforestation efforts, which would increase land sequestration of carbon dioxide.  Hence, it seems more likely that sinks would increase in the coming years, rather than decrease.

https://ourworldindata.org/forests

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6762
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1672
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Magnitude of future warming
« Reply #109 on: September 24, 2019, 02:17:54 PM »
Future of land & ocean sinks

Everything changes all the time. Nothing is constant.

Below is some data about recent changes in the Southern Ocean uptake of CO2, currently increasing but for how long?

Elsewhere I found and lost a paper on that Ocean sinks work in 2 ways, on the chemical process discussed below, and biological processes - mostly by small organisms - e.g. algae. Photosynthesis traps carbon, organisms die, carbon trapped in the ocean floor sediments. Mankind is not being kind to life in the oceans.

As for the land sinks, planting trees by one part of mankind, destroying forests by another. Permafrost? Tundra?

Who knows what the net effect of all these changes will be.

__________________________________________________________
https://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-solve-ocean-carbon-sink-puzzle

Scientists solve ocean ‘carbon sink’ puzzle

Quote
A new study, published in Nature, finds that recent changes in circulation patterns in the world’s oceans are playing a key role in how much CO2 they take up.

Weakening circulation patterns have boosted how much CO2 the oceans absorb since the 2000s, the researchers say, but there’s no guarantee that this will continue into the future.
 


the amount of CO2 that the oceans absorb isn’t constant. In the 1990s, ocean CO2 uptake dropped off, before increasing again in the 2000s. Recent research shows that the Southern Ocean was central to these changes.

The Southern Ocean is the most prolific of the oceans for carbon storage – accounting for approximately 40% of the global ocean CO2 uptake. In the 1990s, strengthening winds circulating around Antarctica affected ocean currents and brought carbon-rich water to the surface. This meant the ocean was less able to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere.

In the 2000s, the winds continued to strengthen, yet the CO2 uptake in the Southern Ocean rebounded. This, combined with increasing CO2 uptake in other oceans, suggested to scientists that there was, ultimately, another factor affecting the ocean carbon sink.

The new study says the reason lies in circulation patterns in the top 1,000m of the world’s oceans.

‘Missing piece of the puzzle’
The water in our oceans is constantly on the move. In the upper layers of the ocean there are several driving forces responsible, explains lead author Dr Tim DeVries, an assistant professor in oceanography at the University of California. He tells Carbon Brief:

“The [circulation patterns] are driven by winds and by ‘buoyancy forcing’ – which means changes in the density of surface waters due to changes in their temperature (heating/cooling) or salinity (adding/removing freshwater).”

Using observed data, the researchers built a computer model to simulate these circulation patterns in the upper ocean. They ran their model to analyse the exchange of CO2 between the ocean and atmosphere over recent decades.

They found that in the 1990s, the ocean circulation patterns were “more vigorous” and coincided with a big dip in CO2 uptake. From around 2000, the circulation patterns then weakened, bringing a rebound in CO2 uptake.

The simplified diagram below illustrates the effect these “overturning” circulation patterns have.

Stronger ocean overturning – as seen during the 1990s – brings more carbon-rich water up from the deeper ocean, the researchers say. When this water reaches the surface it releases CO2 into the atmosphere (see a). More vigorous overturning also means the ocean takes up more CO2 from the atmosphere (b), but not as much as the extra CO2 released.

As the bottom half of the diagram shows, weaker overturning in the 2000s reduces both the amount of CO2 released to the atmosphere (c), and what is absorbed again (d). Overall, this increases how much CO2 the ocean takes up.
"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)

Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 842
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: Magnitude of future warming
« Reply #110 on: September 24, 2019, 03:42:33 PM »
Very nice gerontocrat.  The only constant in life is change - Heraclitus.

That said, we cannot predict what changes will occur.  In the absence of a known change, we assume a constant to minimize potential errors.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6762
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1672
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Magnitude of future warming
« Reply #111 on: September 24, 2019, 05:19:11 PM »
So I took the data from NOAA & elsewhere from 1980 to 2018 on Global CO2 ppm & Emissions.

I converted CO2 ppm change to GT change, and from that got the GT sunk in GT & as % of emissions. I then made 10 year trailing averages as the yearly data is so spiky.

Hence the attached graph. The data shows a % and GT drop and then a rise sort of in line with what the science papers are saying about variations due to ocean circulation.

But the main conclusion remains the same, CO2 captured by the sinks increased as emissions increased.

So my question remains the same - will CO2 captured by the sinks decrease as emissions decrease? (or in another way- how sensitive is the chemical process that exchanges CO2 from air to ocean to small changes in CO2 ppm?)


https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40641-018-0104-3
Quote
Models project that when net CO2 emissions are positive, but start to decline, the land and ocean carbon sinks will begin to weaken and take up less CO2 . Note that these responses may not be driven entirely by CO2 forcing as other factors such as a changing climate also affect the strength of these sinks. At some point, as net CO2 emissions decline, carbon sink uptake will exceed emissions input and the atmospheric CO2 concentration will begin to decline.

"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)

Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 842
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: Magnitude of future warming
« Reply #112 on: September 24, 2019, 05:55:28 PM »

So my question remains the same - will CO2 captured by the sinks decrease as emissions decrease? (or in another way- how sensitive is the chemical process that exchanges CO2 from air to ocean to small changes in CO2 ppm?)


My answer is not directly.  I stand behind my claim that CO2 captured is a function of the concentration in the atmosphere, not the amount emitted.  When the captured amount exceeds the emitted amount, then the atmospheric concentration will decrease.  That will subsequently lead to decreased capture. 

Hence, it is indirectly related to emitted CO2, as decreasing emissions will eventually result in decreased atmospheric concentration, and consequently decreased capture.

Of course, this cannot be proven until emissions begin to decrease.

JMP

  • New ice
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 41
Re: Magnitude of future warming
« Reply #113 on: September 24, 2019, 09:44:56 PM »
Hello all.  Love this thread.  It has been fascinating to follow.

So... I got to wondering and looked up some stuff.  My first question was about the finite-ness of the oceans and wondered if that might be a limiting factor. The information I found (as one might expect) says that this is a complex subject and still too little is known but, but, but....  :o   :o   :o 

Alarmingly also this:
Quote
As long as atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to rise, the oceans will continue to take up CO2 .
However, this reaction is reversible. If atmospheric CO2 were to decrease in the future, the oceans will start releasing the accumulated anthropogenic CO2 back out into the atmosphere. [emphasis mine]

http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html#ixzz60TMnjmHg

Although, it does go on to say:
Quote
The ultimate storage place for anthropogenic CO2 must be reactions that bind the CO2 in a manner that is not easily reversed. Dissolution of calcium carbonate in the oceans, for example, is a long-term storage place for CO2 . As the oceans continue to take up anthropogenic CO2 , it will penetrate deeper into the water column, lowering the pH and making the waters more corrosive to calcium carbonate. The problem is that carbonate dissolution typically occurs in the deep ocean, well removed from the anthropogenic CO2 taken up in the surface waters. In portions of the North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans, however, anthropogenic CO2 may have already penetrated deep enough to influence the dissolution of calcium carbonate in the water column.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2019, 10:01:23 PM by JMP »

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4531
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 907
  • Likes Given: 1301
Re: Magnitude of future warming
« Reply #114 on: September 24, 2019, 11:10:55 PM »
Quote
My answer is not directly.  I stand behind my claim that CO2 captured is a function of the concentration in the atmosphere, not the amount emitted.  When the captured amount exceeds the emitted amount, then the atmospheric concentration will decrease.  That will subsequently lead to decreased capture.  
KK you insist on ignoring the other factor, ocean surface concentration. The uptake of CO2 by the ocean in the near term is proportional to the atmospheric concentration less the ocean surface concentration (including the slower downward flux from the ocean surface to the deep ocean).  But the ocean surface concentration is a function of the past emitted CO2. Thus scrubbing of the CO2 from the atmosphere will be dependent on slower processes (assuming emissions stop at some point).
I expect that as a chemist this really should be crystal clear to you. The ocean surface equilibrates fast, and has already swallowed a lot of CO2, so further fast uptake is dependent on further increase in atmospheric partial pressure.

Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 842
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: Magnitude of future warming
« Reply #115 on: September 24, 2019, 11:53:56 PM »
Quote
My answer is not directly.  I stand behind my claim that CO2 captured is a function of the concentration in the atmosphere, not the amount emitted.  When the captured amount exceeds the emitted amount, then the atmospheric concentration will decrease.  That will subsequently lead to decreased capture. 
KK you insist on ignoring the other factor, ocean surface concentration. The uptake of CO2 by the ocean in the near term is proportional to the atmospheric concentration less the ocean surface concentration (including the slower downward flux from the ocean surface to the deep ocean).  But the ocean surface concentration is a function of the past emitted CO2. Thus scrubbing of the CO2 from the atmosphere will be dependent on slower processes (assuming emissions stop at some point).
I expect that as a chemist this really should be crystal clear to you. The ocean surface equilibrates fast, and has already swallowed a lot of CO2, so further fast uptake is dependent on further increase in atmospheric partial pressure.

The gas exchange at the surface is but one aspect of the entire planetary sequestration process.  The mixing of the surface waters with the deep ocean takes much longer, as does calcification and other terrestrial sinks.  We have been operating under the assumption that planetary equilibrium is a slow process, and the atmospheric carbon dioxide lifetime is long.  Are you arguing for a fast equilibrium and short lifetime? 

Hefaistos

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 440
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: Magnitude of future warming
« Reply #116 on: September 25, 2019, 07:45:04 AM »
The gas exchange at the surface is but one aspect of the entire planetary sequestration process.  The mixing of the surface waters with the deep ocean takes much longer, as does calcification and other terrestrial sinks.  We have been operating under the assumption that planetary equilibrium is a slow process, and the atmospheric carbon dioxide lifetime is long.  Are you arguing for a fast equilibrium and short lifetime?

This topic is covered in AR5, WG1, chapter 9. Here is figure 9.26 on p. 793 showing the ocean part, the upper panel.
"With few exceptions, the CMIP5 ESMs also reproduce the large-scale pattern of ocean–atmosphere CO2 fluxes, with uptake in the Southern Ocean and northern
mid-latitudes, and outgassing in the tropics. However, the geographical
pattern of simulated land–atmosphere fluxes agrees much less well
with inversion estimates, which suggest a larger sink in the northern
mid-latitudes, and a net source rather than a sink in the tropics
." (p. 794)

In the figure we see another clear positive bias in how models estimate the atmosphere to ocean fluxfor such a long period as 1960-2005.

Figure byline to 9.26 Ensemble-mean global ocean carbon uptake (top) and global land carbon uptake (bottom) in the CMIP5 ESMs for the historical period 1900–2005. For comparison,
the observation-based estimates provided by the Global Carbon Project (Le Quere et al., 2009) are also shown (thick black line). The confidence limits on the ensemble mean are
derived by assuming that the CMIP5 models come from a t-distribution. The grey areas show the range of annual mean fluxes simulated across the model ensemble. This figure
includes results from all CMIP5 models that reported land CO2 fluxes, ocean CO2 fluxes, or both (Anav et al., 2013).

mdoliner

  • New ice
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Magnitude of future warming
« Reply #117 on: September 25, 2019, 08:02:11 PM »
Does anybody know the math that connects an amount of warming to a level of greenhouse gases? Heat leaves the planet only through long wavelength radiation, and the amount of such radiation is a function of T4. Since ice melts using heat without raising temperature, the heat imbalance should last until the ice is gone. This is modified by the inefficiency of heat movement, but the ice will eventually melt, cooling the planet and reducing radiation, thus restoring the imbalance between energy in and energy out. It seems to me once this gets going it will continue until the ice is gone.

There is one posssible modification, albedo change. Open water has a lower albedo and so absorbs more radiation than ice. But open water also radiates more heat than ice. These two effects balance when the sun is roughly 13° or lower. Would the extra open water in the arctic be a negative or positive feedback?

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1040
  • 0Kg CO2, 35 KWh/wk,130L H2O/wk, No heating
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 6854
Re: Magnitude of future warming
« Reply #118 on: September 25, 2019, 08:41:57 PM »
I think that you'll find all the math in the models. There is not one single 'math' in this I think.

I would suggest studying Paleo climate data. That gives a good indication of the conditions in a balanced atmosphere. Right now of course, we don't have a balanced atmosphere. Our exceptionally large anthropogenically forced rate-of-change has no Paleo comparison.

Maybe you'll find this interesting:

On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature
by Adolf Stips, Diego Macias, Clare Coughlan, Elisa Garcia-Gorriz & X. San Liang

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691
(whole article)
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
   Simple: minimize your possessions and be free and kind    It's just a mindset.       Refugees welcome

mdoliner

  • New ice
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Magnitude of future warming
« Reply #119 on: September 25, 2019, 09:52:32 PM »
Thanks for the reply. I looked at that article. It is concerned with showing a correlation between warming and CO2, but my question is why would it stop at say, 1.5°, when there is still ice to keep the temperature down while more heat is absorbed.

sidd

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4975
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 378
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Magnitude of future warming
« Reply #120 on: September 25, 2019, 11:19:30 PM »
For discussion on ice, albedo, radiative forcing, see Hansen's "Climate Change and Trace Gases".

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha02210k.html

sidd

mdoliner

  • New ice
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Magnitude of future warming
« Reply #121 on: September 26, 2019, 08:26:41 PM »
This too offers no justification for saying that the process will stop at, say 1.5 degrees. In the paleorecord warming reversed primarily because of rock weathering, which captured CO2. But that is a slow process (about a gigaton per year), not fast enough for the present situation. Again, since ice melts without raising temperature, and long wave radiation energy emission is a function of temperature, the imbalance should continue until the ice is gone or almost gone.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2019, 08:33:57 PM by mdoliner »

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1040
  • 0Kg CO2, 35 KWh/wk,130L H2O/wk, No heating
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 6854
Re: Magnitude of future warming
« Reply #122 on: September 27, 2019, 04:19:44 AM »
<snip>
the imbalance should continue until the ice is gone or almost gone.

If you mean the atmosphere with 'imbalance', then I agree. The oceans will keep warming up, driving ever more imbalance. The paleoclimate records show that CO2 and temperature are closely correlated in a balanced atmosphere. We may be undoing the late pliocene glaciation events if the current or higher CO2 level remains in the atmosphere for a long time. Ice as inertia is temporarily 'saving' us. Governing inertia and human behaviour inertia are 'dooming' us.
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
   Simple: minimize your possessions and be free and kind    It's just a mindset.       Refugees welcome

mdoliner

  • New ice
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Magnitude of future warming
« Reply #123 on: September 27, 2019, 04:35:20 AM »
I mean by imbalance that there will be more heat coming into the earth via insolation than exits via high wavelength radiation.

Simon

  • New ice
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Magnitude of future warming
« Reply #124 on: September 27, 2019, 08:32:29 AM »
Excellent work by Gerontocrat into carbon sinks. However, I am surprised to find the quantity in gigatonne of carbon sunk being on the same axis as percentage sunk given that total emissions are not constant.

Hefaistos

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 440
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: Magnitude of future warming
« Reply #125 on: September 27, 2019, 09:15:33 AM »


On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature
by Adolf Stips, Diego Macias, Clare Coughlan, Elisa Garcia-Gorriz & X. San Liang

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691
(whole article)
'

Thanks Nanning, that is a cool paper!
Employing new methodology of information flow (IF) to test for causation. The issue is that the actual high correlation between rising CO2 levels and increasing surface temperatures alone is insufficient to prove that the increased radiative forcing resulting from the increasing GHG atmospheric concentrations is indeed causing the warming of the earth.
IPCC maintains that ‘detection’ and ‘attribution’ are still regarded as key priorities in climate change research. Correctly so, as GCM models are explicity built on the presumption of such causation, even though they lack fundamental theories and also data on essential things like e.g. water vapor, and aerosols.

Results are unambigious: GHG emissions not only correlate with global warming, they do indeed cause them.

Another very interesting aspect is the regional distribution of the amount of causation: "When analysing the IF from the global anthropogenic forcing to the GMTA (Fig. 3), in the Northern Hemisphere, we identified several regions of significant high causality. For example, IF takes largest values in Europe, North America, and China, densely populated and industrialized areas having shown strong recent warming2. On the other hand there are also regions with high causality like Siberia, the Sahel zone and Alaska that are not that much influenced by human activities. In the Southern Hemisphere, however, this IF distribution displays a most unexpected pattern, with high values in a large swath of the southern Atlantic, South Africa, parts of the Indian Ocean and Australia. This is true for both the total anthropogenic forcing (Fig. 3A) and the radiative forcing caused by CO2 alone (Fig. 3B). Therefore, despite CO2 being a globally well-mixed gas, the IF to surface temperature is regionally very different, showing sensitive areas."

Figure 3 byline: Shown is the spatial distribution of the information flow between the total anthropogenic forcing and the gridded global mean temperature anomalies (GMTA) (A) and the spatial distribution of the information flow between the radiative forcing caused by CO2 and the gridded global mean temperature anomalies (GMTA) (B).

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6762
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1672
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Magnitude of future warming
« Reply #126 on: October 01, 2019, 08:18:55 PM »
Excellent work by Gerontocrat into carbon sinks. However, I am surprised to find the quantity in gigatonne of carbon sunk being on the same axis as percentage sunk given that total emissions are not constant.
It isn't.

Percentages - refer to the right axis (green)
Amounts in GT - refer to the left axis (red).

Revised graph attached with amount left in atmosphere (in GT) added. (Also after rooting around online found a better figure to convert CO2 ppm to CO2 Gigatons - minor change).

Note that as regards percentages of CO2 sunk, the most often quoted figures are 30% Ocean, 26% Land, Total Percent of Emissions captured 56%.

The ten year average on 1980 to 2019 data is never higher than just over 52%.

If 2019 data ends up in line with current estimates, the percent of CO2 captured in 2019 will be only about 42%
"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)