Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - anthropocene

Pages: [1]
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: August 07, 2020, 01:45:06 AM »
Copernicus is in for July 2020.

"Global temperatures were much above average in July 2020. The month was:

    0.49°C warmer than the 1981-2020 average for July;
    the third warmest July in this data record;
    cooler by 0.07°C than July 2019, the warmest July;
    cooler by 0.04°C than July 2016, the second warmest July."

Consequences / Re: Global Dimming - The aerosol masking effect
« on: August 07, 2020, 01:41:50 AM »
Copernicus is in for July 2020.

"Global temperatures were much above average in July 2020. The month was:

    0.49°C warmer than the 1981-2020 average for July;
    the third warmest July in this data record;
    cooler by 0.07°C than July 2019, the warmest July;
    cooler by 0.04°C than July 2016, the second warmest July."

What differences from July 2019 and July 2016 does NCEP record? I make it: -0.14degC cooler than 2019 and -0.2degC. cooler than 2016 ( I can't be sure whether these are the same as the data that you post because no links were provided.

Anyway - the thread topic is discussing what masking effect aerosols may have on continuously increasing temperatures from AGW. Why would you use model reanalysis numbers to base the discussion on when real world physical temperature measurements are available (if you can wait a few days for the collation for monthly figures to be published)?

So temperatures in the first half of 2020 have been almost record breaking with only slightly positive ENSO numbers. So there could be a signature of less aerosols due to covid-19 causing a temperature increase but the evidence is by no means compelling. I'm willing to be convinced either way - if somebody can provide real evidence to support their theory.

Science / Re: Solar cycle
« on: July 13, 2020, 02:38:28 PM »
Confirming what wehappyfew has just posted:

Hefastios;  You are confusing irradiance with forcing.

THIS IS SHOWN IN FIGURE 2 OF THE LINK WHICH YOU PROVIDED. On the left-hand side is amplitude of solar irradiance (eye-balling the graph about 1.6 watts/m^2   and on the right hand side is the forcing: 0.25 watts/m^2). Hansen et al have done the conversion for you. It says " Left scale is the energy passing through an area perpendicular to Sun-Earth line. Averaged over Earth's surface the absorbed solar energy is ~240 W/m2, so the amplitude of solar variability is a forcing of ~0.25 W/m2."

 Either you are not understanding what is presented, not reading it all or wilfully cherry-picking quotes from scientific papers to make it look like they support what you say.  (Not for the first time either).

Also Figure 3 provides the GHG forcing (approx. 3 watts/m^2). So approx 12 times the amplitude  of a (unusually large?) solar cycle.

As you say yourself - OHC and surface temperatures are almost irrelevant side-effects ( ;-) ) of what happens at the TOA interface. So why do you complicate the discussion with these points? It could be taken as an attempt at a gish-gallop.

Either accept the points made by wehappyfew (and Hansen et al) or provide evidence to refute it and support your point.


To get back to the OP of this thread, if there is to be multiple meters of SLR this century, this implies an average per year of multiple cm per year, which has not happened. What is the SLR for the last twelve months and how does that compare to the average over the last decade? Do you expect them to go up in a curve? Or do you expect a rise of a cm a month for a decade? How would the change in current SLR happen to get such a huge rise in this century?

Hi Tom,

The tyranny of exponential growth. Let's take current SLR at 3mm/year. And a doubling time of 15 years (suggested by Hansen) - possibly optimistic given 6-fold increase in Antarctica in the last 30 years. In 75 years - 5 doublings produces 96mm/year in 2095. 96cm/decade = near enough 1m/decade by end of century. So MISI and MICI are interesting concepts and potentially have a large impact on SLR and need investigating but to a large extent are a diversion from the main problem. Another issue is only reporting SLR up to 2100. From the above this would be approx 1.75m SLR by 2100. That's OK to manage you say. But in 10 years after 2100 there would be another 2m SLR. In the decade after that potentially another 4m. I haven't seen any evidence suggesting that exponential growth would stop. What height wall do you build in 2100? A 2m high wall which will be useless in 10 years time. Let's make it 4m high then. That massively increases the cost and that will still be defunct in 20 to 30 years time. Answer: You don't build the wall at all. Like with covid-19, never play with exponential growth.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: June 07, 2020, 09:36:24 AM »
Somebody able to find the error in the following? What am I missing or does this mean that we've already gone flying past Paris goal of  "pursuing" 1.5 degC above pre-industrial?

( "pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels" - )


- "with a global temperature 0.63°C above that for 1981-2010"
- "0.63°C should be added to these values to relate recent global temperatures to the pre-industrial level defined in the IPCC Special Report on “Global Warming of 1.5°C”. The average temperature for the twelve months to May 2020 is close to 1.3°C above the level. "
- ENSO is currently neutral so current global temps aren't impacted by El Nino warming although Nino 3.4 region has been slightly above zero for most of the last 12 months: (See:
- global temperature is currently increasing at a rate of 0.183degC/decade: (from Tamino
-  On top of this is the delayed heating of the atmosphere from the heating lag mainly caused by heat stored in the oceans. This article puts the full length of delay at 40 years ( Even being optimistic and saying that the full effect of the equivalent of 20 years of GHG emissions is yet to reach the atmosphere that's an additional 2 x 0.183 = 0.36degC.
- So total global temp. increase above pre-industrial already baked in is 1.3degC + 0.36degC = 1.66degC - blowing past Paris climate goal which even now is being "pursued"  (unless massive removal of GHG can take place in the very near future which appears to be fantasy at this moment in time).

It may be dispiriting but if this is the case then I think an honest assessment that this is the current situation is better than ignoring it.

With it being 29M versus the GFS 2M temps wont that typically cause a cool bias I'm situ?

Unless an inversion keep the lowest reaches of the atmosphere stratified.

But that is still 84 feet difference roughly

I have always argued and will continue to argue that the main cause is temperature inversion. The ice creates its own micro-climate, especially close to ground (ice) level. Friv, this is why the waves of "torches" of hot air temps hitting the ice which you regularly forecast never cause the amount of ice melt expected. A large proportion of the warm air will just be forced upwards away from the ice by the area of blocking colder air sat on the ice surface.

As further evidence for this I present the importance of melt ponds - especially early in the melting season. Melt ponds will tend to generate local sources of rising thermals which will cause the temperature inversion to break down. Therefore a large amount of melt ponds early in the melt season encourages more snow and ice melt and makes the ice more susceptible to invasions of warm air. 

My proposition is that the weather forecasting tools (e.g. GFS) do not properly take this inversion into account when presenting 2m temperature values.


Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: November 06, 2019, 05:01:30 PM »
Copernicus has October 2019 as warmest October (only by 0.01degC over 2016 October).

2015 I believe you meant?

Yes 2015 - thanks for the correction.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: November 06, 2019, 04:47:10 PM »
That is one reason the US is so deep in denial. It has had the least warming of just about any land area, and actually has had, if anything, more snow.

So true.  No only that, but temperatures in the U.S. have moderated overall, with increased winter low temperatures and decreased summer high temperatures.  Hence, it is part denial and part approval for the better weather.

I wish you'd stop posting these falsehoods. Summer high temperatures may have increased more slowly than winter lows but they're still increasing (from 1960s) - this is not the same as decreasing. The dustbowl anomaly causing the unusual spike of 1930s and particulates warp results from before the 1960s. Unlike the dustbowl, the current increase in maximums is here to stay and will only get worse. And how many people can remember the 1930s or even 1960s? For most people maximum temps have been going up most of their lives.

The rest / Re: Climate change activists should not fly
« on: April 22, 2019, 10:48:27 PM »
I was maybe over provocative on my previous post. For some it can be an infuriating subject. I've been on demos against climate change and been vilified for taking a bus to get there (it was hired and full and so just about as efficient as it could be). For some people any excuse will be taken to undermine the message.     

The discussion may be slightly at cross purposes because the discussion is covering two different ideas at the same time. On one side is persuasion - a logical argument which can change peoples minds and behaviours. It should (and does in the case of climate change) stand on its own independent of who is presenting it and what their carbon footprint is.
What Tom seemed to have in mind was influence. Not necessarily outright discussing climate change but changing views and behaviours of others purely by what they do. I can't think of a well-known global personality who influences views on climate change. Until there is a multi-national CEO or political leader who gets to the top with a minimal carbon footprint (e.g. not flying) etc. and continues that when they get there, then I don't see how else it will happen. Of course at a more local level there are influencers operating all the time on the small scale: Commuting by bike, working close to home etc. In many cases climate change may not be the main reason for the life choices they've made but they will still be exerting an influence on others around them.
In any case global personalities and the influence they do or don't bring to the climate change debate won't have much impact on the final result. Persuasion is by far the most critical lever in this battle.

And I'll leave you with another counter-example to the original statement. Sir David Attenborough, long time natural history presenter and national treasure. Most probably has a huge carbon footprint built up over the years but can't think of anybody people will have trust in and will listen to more: 


The rest / Re: Climate change activists should not fly
« on: April 17, 2019, 02:01:12 AM »
You have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. When activists fly around the world but say we have to cut carbon emissions, it send the message that you have to sacrifice but I don't. Activists for civil rights were thrown in prison, attacked by police dogs, tear gassed, etc. and have mostly triumphed. Activists for climate change too often are do what I say, not what I do and have mostly failed.

Most probably a trolling question but I'll bite - and back on topic.

1) What gives you the right to define what is the correct behaviour of others and what is not allowed? What if a climate scientist is vegetarian, doesn't drive and uses only renewable energy at home? Are they allowed to fly then? Is the quality of their work a factor in what  CO2 emissions they're allowed to produce? Can that be applied to all workers? - I doubt that would be popular.  What about the energy consumed by running the climate models their work is likely to be based on - should all the model results be calculated with pen and paper? When started down this road where is the line drawn?

2) The statement supports the fallacy that the problem of climate change can be solved by personal choice. This is not true - the only way to make the fundamental changes required is by systemic change. It is often stated that the only way to change the established order is to be part of the establishment. By using other transport to air travel they would be setting themselves as 'other' - which automatically reduces their influence. 

3) What is the point of the question - it only makes any sense if some sort of action is taken. What would that be? Discount any science published by scientists that take flights? Sounds very Stalinist.

4) You say you're prolife? How many orphans have you fostered and/or adopted? Less than 10? - then I can discount all your views then can I ? - you're not walking the walk enough.

5) Even asking the question implies that scientists are aiming to persuade public opinion - no, they are producing science based on the scientific method. Public opinion and policies should be based on the scientific facts - scientist's job is to educate, not persuade. This is a key difference between scientists and civil rights activists.

Some advice:  You've recently joined the forum and  make posts and provocative statements randomly across the forum. It's equivalent to walking into a room full of strangers in which a long, sometimes ridiculous, sometimes enlightening discussion has been going on for years between a group of acquaintances and  immediately talking over everybody disrupting the conversation. Observe, read and slowly increase participation after gaining a grasp of the tone and rhythm of the threads - you never know you may learn something.

But don't say the population predictions and RCPs are useless. At the moment they're the best there is and many decisions and plans will be being made based on them. 

They ARE useless and the fact that decisions and plans will be made using them is precisely why we are supremely screwed. You just admitted in your post that the climate is screwed yet you still give credence to notions that the UN projections have some value EVEN THOUGH THEY IGNORE CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS.

A gross mis-representation of what I said: UN population estimates we were talking about were to 2050. The statement about climate was about later this century. If you believe that climate will have an impact on population by 2050 then to get a measure of how much that may be you need to know the baseline of estimated population without climate impacts. QED: UN population estimates are not useless.   Mis-representation of what other people say, constantly raising new extreme statements before the old extreme statements can be discussed in any detail and no data or scientific evidence to back up statements made. I'll let everybody else draw their own conclusions.

I live in Chicago...mid 90's through the weekend with high air conditioning...will do fine.

In times gone by, we had no air conditioning to cope with 90-degree temperatures, and we coped.

Sorry, pressed post too soon:

Wow so much either a lack of appreciation of the conditions in the past or lack of empathy. How much of each I don't know - you decide. How to respond depends on what you take as "times gone by" (Time isn't split into two parts, the now and a homogeneous past ), what is meant by "we" and what is meant by "coped" 

1) Well no, on average, people wouldn't have had to cope with 90-degree temperatures so often. And on average the humidity wouldn't have been so high. Most importantly they wouldn't have had to suffer high temperatures for so long - which is the big killer - and they wouldn't have had to cope with such high temperatures at night which means there is little recovery period. 

2) A lot depends on how far you go back. For this topic it is fair to take pre-industrialisation as one time period. Here people had more flexibility in work so if it was too hot they could move or do something else or do nothing.  In southern Europe they still have siestas although they are less common and shorter than previously. Stupidly, Anglo-Saxons have migrated to warm environments e.g. southern USA but not picked up this culture. Also buildings/caves etc. were cooler: Remember warmer in cold usually means cooler in heat so best location for most extremes. Thick stone walls and small windows tends to be cool.  We could design our buildings that way but it would most likely be a lot more expensive - are you willing to pay the price - both economically and aesthetically? Maybe we won't have a choice.

3)  Post-industrialisation: Well, either you succumbed to the heat, in which case they literally stepped over your lifeless body and got somebody else keen for the work. I'd like to think we place a higher value on human life now. Or you grinned and bore it - but the stress placed on the body (along with all the other stresses) meant you were lucky to make it to 50.
Even in recent  western history, in many ways it was easier to cope. A short commute walking or cycling to work. Large, cool offices - typewriters don't generate much heat. In the heat of the day, many streets would be deserted - everybody would either be at work, school or at home. Now the movement is constant, sitting in traffic jams delivering packages, take-aways etc. usually on a tight deadline and no chance for a break. 

4) of course it depends who is meant by the "we". In the past, if you were the upper-middle or higher classes then of course you could stand the heat. It's easy if you don't have to do anything or there is a servant there constantly waving a fan or providing cool drinks. And in summer they generally moved to cooler climes e.g. the Raj in India going to the foothills of the Himalayas and Russian court going to St Petersburg.  Commonly this is where we get our history from so of course, stress from heat isn't mentioned much.   

Antarctica / Re: 3 trillion tons of Antarctic ice lost since 1992
« on: June 16, 2018, 02:31:25 PM »
So the article at:  states that the mass loss is now 3 times what was estimated in 2012. I.e. the measure in 2012 was wrong by a factor of 3. The article at and the graph state that the melting is 3 times faster than what it was in 2012. One of those is misleading at best.

Also, when the Hansen paper came out there was plenty of discussion about time for doubling rates of ice melt from Antarctica and Greenland. iirc the consensus was 15 to 20 year doubling rates were bad enough, anything approaching 10 was pretty catastrophic. We've now got a measured tripling rate of 5 years? Even if this is an outlier measurement and the average increase in melting is less than this, say doubling rate of every 7 years these seems to be doomsday scenario for sea-level rise. Why aren't people making more of this? 

Pages: [1]