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 - wolfpack513

Pages: [1] 2
1
Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: January 19, 2020, 04:27:05 AM »
Previously!

27 frames, monthly increments, click to play.

2
Science / 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: January 12, 2020, 04:33:11 PM »
Last year next week had an average of 411.7 ppm. Extrapolating the actual values will result in a 2.3 ± 0.3 ppm increase. From mid January on the values generally rise much higher than in late autumn or December.

I got the weekly value last year wrong (I took the average value of the week later and did not carefully look at the scale of the y-axis - sorry). Therefore my Sunday evening CO2 posting begins with an excuse.

Week beginning on January 5, 2020:     413.37 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:             409.94 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:          388.21 ppm
Last updated: January 12, 2020

The annual increase stays above 3.4 ppm. This is no good news for this year. It has just begun - and unfortunately with this massive increase.
The high variability of the last weeks has disappeared. The values are much more in line, daily and hourly averages.
We have the same CO2 level than in April last year. This means we are three months before schedule.

Outlook:
Last year next week had an average of 410.7 ppm. Extrapolating the actual values will result in a 2.3 ± 0.3 ppm increase. From mid January on the values generally rise much higher than in late autumn or December.

3
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: January 06, 2020, 05:24:48 PM »
Looking for 5-year periods (e.g. 2015-2019) with each year hotter than all years previous to that 5-yr. pd., I see the early 1940's maybe.

4
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: January 03, 2020, 09:30:19 AM »
Mathematically you would round to match the target.

If the range is 2.5 to 2.9 the 2.91 is rounded to 2.9.

5
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: January 01, 2020, 07:38:58 PM »
I always presumed you were rounding to the nearest tenth.  Or else, 'no choice for 2.900...01 to 2.9999...9.'

6
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: December 05, 2019, 07:46:17 PM »
Quote
  The CO2 growth rate lags ENSO.  the peaks in CO2 growth rate lag Niño 3.4 by ~4-6 months.
As does the  Atmospheric Response to ENSO.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442-16.9.1391
The Nature and Causes for the Delayed Atmospheric Response to El Niño

7
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: December 05, 2019, 02:00:20 PM »
But what does that mean? It tells us that the 3.4 region lags global CO2 by about 5 month?

8
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: December 03, 2019, 09:57:01 PM »
If you correct for ENSO, 2019 could finish above 2016 but actual anomalies that's not going to happen.

Here's the running 10-month for BEST which includes October 2019.  Look how much lower this year is compared to the peak in 2016.  Even if November & December 2019 beat 2016 it still wouldn't be enough.

On other data indeed gap more. But second place is almost guaranteed.

https://twitter.com/Climatologist49/status/1201613435097600000

Quote
The Jan-Nov period was the 2nd warmest on record (see map). The Contiguous U.S. (Lower 48) is in the coolest 1/3 of all years.


9
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: November 20, 2019, 09:14:20 PM »
Tamino finds statistically significant acceleration in one dataset (Copernicus, which is actually a reanalysis, so not as strong a finding as it would be if the others were finding it too) and others not that far away from it.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2019/11/08/global-temperature-update-6/#more-10959

10
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: November 17, 2019, 08:42:20 PM »
Next week last year averaged at 408.8 ppm, a high jump compared to this week last year. Therefore it is very likely that the annual increase will be reduced to about 1.5 ppm.

It is time for my weekly update of Mauna Loa CO2 concentrations.
Week beginning on November 10, 2019:     410.25 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:                   408.91 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:                385.76 ppm
Last updated: November 17, 2019

The increase was even smaller than I expected. This is by far the lowest annual growing rate since I started posting it. But I have to disencourage those who think this is a change in trend. This week was extraordinary because of the high jump atmospheric CO2 made last year.

Last year next week came in at around 408.5 ppm. Extrapolating the actual values into the future the growth rate will increase back to 2.0 ppm.

Apart from Monday this week there was no further daily average below 410 ppm. But the last two days saw some hours with less than 410 ppm. In fact, the last two days were so noisy that no daily average was published.

11
I have repeated noted that El Nino events drive more warm CDW into the Amundsen Sea Embayment where it temporarily accelerates basal ice mass loss from key ice shelves and accelerates the retreat of grounding lines.  In this regard, the linked reference provides more evidence that continued global warming will increase both the frequency and intensity of El Nino events; which is bad news for the stability of the PIIS, the TEIS and the Thwaites Ice Tongue, in the coming decades:

Bin Wang et al. (October 21, 2019), "Historical change of El Niño properties sheds light on future changes of extreme El Niño", PNAS,  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1911130116

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/10/15/1911130116

Significance
How the magnitude of El Niño will change is of great societal concern, yet it remains largely unknown. Here we show analysis of how changing El Niño properties, due to 20th century climate change, can shed light on changes to the intensity of El Niño in the future. Since the 1970s, El Niño has changed its origination from the eastern Pacific to the western Pacific, along with increased strong El Niño events due to a background warming in the western Pacific warm pool. This suggests the controlling factors that may lead to increased extreme El Niño events in the future. If the observed background changes continue under future anthropogenic forcing, more frequent extreme El Niño events will induce profound socioeconomic consequences.

Abstract
El Niño’s intensity change under anthropogenic warming is of great importance to society, yet current climate models’ projections remain largely uncertain. The current classification of El Niño does not distinguish the strong from the moderate El Niño events, making it difficult to project future change of El Niño’s intensity. Here we classify 33 El Niño events from 1901 to 2017 by cluster analysis of the onset and amplification processes, and the resultant 4 types of El Niño distinguish the strong from the moderate events and the onset from successive events. The 3 categories of El Niño onset exhibit distinct development mechanisms. We find El Niño onset regime has changed from eastern Pacific origin to western Pacific origin with more frequent occurrence of extreme events since the 1970s. This regime change is hypothesized to arise from a background warming in the western Pacific and the associated increased zonal and vertical sea-surface temperature (SST) gradients in the equatorial central Pacific, which reveals a controlling factor that could lead to increased extreme El Niño events in the future. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) models’ projections demonstrate that both the frequency and intensity of the strong El Niño events will increase significantly if the projected central Pacific zonal SST gradients become enhanced. If the currently observed background changes continue under future anthropogenic forcing, more frequent strong El Niño events are anticipated. The models’ uncertainty in the projected equatorial zonal SST gradients, however, remains a major roadblock for faithful prediction of El Niño’s future changes.

12
Consequences / Re: Sea Level Rise and Social Cost of Carbon
« on: September 25, 2019, 05:22:41 PM »
KK, cities are not points. One part of a city may be a hundred feet above sea level, and another neighborhood may be seven inches above sea level.

13
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: September 19, 2019, 04:38:24 AM »
Thanks for the info and correction wolfpack513 :).

14
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: August 22, 2019, 04:03:31 PM »
So the acceleration is 0.2 per decade?
Acceleration units must have /t^2.
In this case it's 0.2C/century/decade.


Which I think would imply a 10% growth rate in the rate of increase, per decade, yes? Something like this:
Decade   Rise
2020           0.20
2030           0.22
2040          0.24
2050           0.27
2060           0.29
2070           0.32
2080           0.35
2090           0.39
2100           0.43

So, starting somewhat arbitrarily at 1.0 C over "baseline", and applying a 0.2 C/decade increase, increasing at 10% per decade, would give a temperature rise of something like this:


15
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: July 29, 2019, 05:24:39 PM »
Something goes on at Mauna Loa Institute. Such a large number of days without measurements or with "unavailable" averages. Hope their support from Trumpistan's government was not cut...

The reason for data gaps has been explained stop stirring the pot for no reason.

16
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: July 24, 2019, 01:10:24 AM »
Thanks for the clarification.

17
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: May 19, 2019, 01:58:32 PM »
Here all all lines wolfpack513 mentioned. The main difference I see is not the fall from the Niño temperatures but rather the far larger rise that occured in 2014-16 and began even before the Niño started, in 2014.

18
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: May 17, 2019, 03:14:31 PM »

Something I continue to highlight is that the drop off after the 2015-2016 super Niño was much less than previous Niño's: 2010, 1998, etc.



Actually, looking at your chart, the drop off after 2010 was smaller (a bit more than 0,1 C) and after 1998 was about the same (somewhat more than 0,2 C) as after 2016 (cca 0,2 C).

It is your green line that is obviously misplaced as it seems that the trend is not linear in nature.

So the problem is not with the dropoff (as it is absolutely similar to previous ones), but with the trend


19
Policy and solutions / Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« on: November 05, 2018, 06:38:25 AM »
You intended to write per litre, wolfpack? The lowest prices I found was around three dollars per gallon. But I think I got you point, I wouldn't mind doubling our prices (16,51kr/l diesel was the lowest here last week and not an average price) but also realize that most people here are still not there yet, if they ever will...

20
Policy and solutions / Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« on: November 05, 2018, 04:38:43 AM »
Gas prices in California is just below a dollar per litre (~9kr) if a certain search engine is correct? We are just below 1,8 here (~16kr). Diesel was 16,51kr last week at a local station.

21
Science / Re: 2018 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: November 02, 2018, 06:12:53 AM »
Thank you wolfpack!  I really appreciate all the work you put into keeping us informed on these numbers, and your graphs are very helpful.   

22
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: October 20, 2018, 08:29:05 AM »
Good lord.  the GFS 10 day rockets up in the latter half to +0.9C global, relative to 1979-2000 with arctic zone anomalies up to +5.8C

James Hansen always seems to go out on a limb and then pluck a golden fruit

23
Science / Re: ECS is 2.5
« on: October 18, 2018, 09:46:51 PM »
Ned,

I absolutely applaud your efforts to highlight the relationship between CO2 and temp, instead of time vs temp. The scatter plot is spot on. I have used the same graph many times when putting denier trolls in their place.

That said, your data do not support your calculation. Specifically, the RCP forcing data you linked to show that the ratio between CO2 forcing and total anthro forcing is not now and has not ever been as low as 0.74.

I believe the error comes from failing to account for non-GHG anthro forcings like aerosols, land-use albedo, cloud albedo due to particulate pollution, etc.

From your data source:

Year 1967
Total anthro forcing (col 4) = 0.6985 W/m^2
CO2 forcing (column 8 )    =   0.7989 W/m^2

Ratio = 1.14


Year 2017
Anthro = 2.398
CO2 = 2.061

Ratio = 0.859

A simple average of the ratios at these 2 end points is almost exactly 1.00, not 0.74

Updating your final conclusion with these corrected values gives us an ECS of 3.37

This is a number fully in line with many other estimates, and even more alarming than the already dangerous value of 2.5.


Pages: [1] 2