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 - wdmn

Pages: [1] 2 3
Policy and solutions / Re: Lessons from COVID-19
« on: Today at 05:22:52 AM »
I didn't like it on "Unsorted". It should be here!  ;)

The Era of the Virus

Captain Paul Watson: "With the Era of the Virus upon us, without urgent changes to our habits and lifestyle, combined with climate change, we will see more events such as this outbreak occur. But there is hope. Everyone can play a part to solve this problem. Listen to me here explain more on this..."

Science / Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« on: April 06, 2020, 09:07:26 PM »
With the actual values of CO2, CH4, N2O and SF6 for December 2019 (see the posts in the individual threads) there is an annual increase (Dec 2019 vs. Dec 2018) of 3.16 ppm CO2 eq (20 y) or 2.99 ppm CO2 eq (100 y).
This increase is mainly driven (2.69 ppm) by CO2 itself.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Tides
« on: April 02, 2020, 09:16:16 AM »
waves on the ocean are not pressure waves.
Pressure waves travel through the medium not on top of it. Sound is a pressure wave.
The wave motion on a body of water is not a tide. The motion of water on the surface is a displacement wave. The displacement wave moves water up and down but does not move water towards the shore or away from the shore.

waves are a transference of energy not matter. Yes the move the matter locally but not very far and the net affect is not motion.

Tides flow in increasing the local water depth. This is not a wave it is a large increase in the amount of water in a region. It is caused by gravity but it is the moons gravity that causes a bulge in the ocean on the side closest to the moon and a deficit elsewhere.

This disagreement can be summed up as

1.wave does not equal tide

2.wave is movement of energy

3.tide is movement of water.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: March 30, 2020, 02:53:22 AM »
Thank you as usual uniquorn.
To anyone who thinks nothing unusual has happened re Fram export, I recommend to play the animation and not focus on Fram itself, where a trickle from the northeast can be seen all winter, but on some random ice shape below the pole. One can see how the ice moves in a random walk fashion for several months, mostly moving nowhere with a slight southern drift. But then starting around mid-February a big sweep comes along, and the ice from the pole moves all the way to the Fram finish line, a distance of more than 1000 km IIRC. This is significant volume gone, and an important piece of the Arctic's defenses against the melting season.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: March 29, 2020, 08:42:49 PM »
nothing out of the ordinary
One thing that is different, or that I haven't seen before, is the large leads that have developed since feb15 making their way around north greenland so early in the season. With >80km/h winds forecast on apr1 we are likely to see them open up more.
Kaleschke SIC leads, oct1-mar29

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: March 29, 2020, 01:27:33 PM »
As the ocean warms, marine species relocate toward the poles

Since pre-industrial times, the world's oceans have warmed by an average of one degree Celsius (1°C). Now researchers report that those rising temperatures have led to widespread changes in the population sizes of marine species. The researchers found a general pattern of species having increasing numbers on their poleward sides and losses toward the equator.


"The main surprise is how pervasive the effects were," says senior author Martin Genner, an evolutionary ecologist at the University of Bristol. "We found the same trend across all groups of marine life we looked at, from plankton to marine invertebrates, and from fish to seabirds."


The findings show that large-scale changes in the abundance of species are well underway. They also suggest that marine species haven't managed to adapt to warmer conditions. The researchers therefore suggest that projected sea temperature increases of up to 1.5°C over pre-industrial levels by 2050 will continue to drive the latitudinal abundance shifts in marine species, including those of importance for coastal livelihoods.

"This matters because it means that climate change is not only leading to abundance changes, but intrinsically affecting the performance of species locally," Genner says. "We see species such as Emperor penguin becoming less abundant as water becomes too warm at their equatorward edge, and we see some fish such as European seabass thriving at their poleward edge where historically they were uncommon."

The findings show that climate change is affecting marine species in a highly consistent and non-trivial way. "While some marine life may benefit as the ocean warms, the findings point toward a future in which we will also see continued loss of marine life," Genner says.


Article is OA

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: March 29, 2020, 05:50:12 AM »
Juan - r u OK ?
I'm fine. Thank you for asking! And thanks, wdmn and Stephan for the posts!
Sorry that I missed my post yesterday.

[ADS NIPR VISHOP (JAXA)] Arctic Sea Ice Extent.

March 28th, 2020:
     13,559,443 km2, a drop of -19,954 km2.
     2020 is now the lowest on record.   :P
     In the graph are the today's 20 lowest years.
     Highlighted the 4 years with September lowest min (2012, 2019, 2016, 2007) & 2020.

Science / Re: The Science of Aerosols
« on: March 21, 2020, 03:42:00 AM »
S E A   R E S E A R C H   S O C I E T Y ' S   A P P E A L   T O
T H E  G O V E R N M E N T S  W O R L D - W I D E  :


Global Circulation Models (GCMs) are computer models of the world's atmosphere based on observations and assumptions if there are no direct information available. World emissions shutdowns are a novel opportunity to learn about how climate system responds under different circumstances that cannot be normally experimentally checked. It is vitally important for the world's governments not to shut down meteorological measurements. Indeed, efforts must increase to use opportunity to test and search regional responses of the highly unusual situation. World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and national meteorological organisations must quickly come up with new research proposals to gain every possible bit of information as this helps to understand how world's climate will respond as the world moves towards ZERO emissions. It is a tremendous tragedy if this unique opportunity to find more about how our atmosphere operates is lost. We do not foresee many situations like this rising when large world regions turn their lights off one after another. Modelling SO2, N2O, O3, CFC, CO2, CH4, CO shut downs.

Sponsors, please look at serious proposals to make research offers right now!
Let's make something positive happen out of this coronavirus calamity.

Veli Albert Kallio
Vice President, Sea Research Society
Environmental Affairs Department

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: March 14, 2020, 11:38:12 AM »
I was worried about coronavirus with regards to food supplies, but now I think it might be a slight alleviating factor in this regard.
- The collapsing oil price disincentivises the use of foodstuffs as biofuels, and also makes fertiliser, food transport and various other farming related activity cheaper.
- The reduction in particulate emissions in countries in lockdown should help crop growth, livestock health etc.
- Assuming we do, sadly, see millions of deaths worldwide, we can also expect to see a small commensurate dent in food consumption.
Maybe. But these kind of interaction webs are complicated and often unintuitive so it could go either way.

The rest / Re: Article links: drop them here!
« on: March 12, 2020, 04:19:20 PM »
And now to something completely different!

Joshua Abraham Norton (February 4, 1818 – January 8, 1880), known as Emperor Norton, was a citizen of San Francisco, California, who proclaimed himself "Norton I, Emperor of the United States" in 1859. In 1863 he took the secondary title of "Protector of Mexico" after Napoleon III invaded the country. Norton was born in England but spent most of his early life in South Africa. He sailed west after the death of his mother in 1846 and his father in 1848, arriving in San Francisco possibly in November 1849.

Norton initially made a living as a businessman, but he lost his fortune investing in Peruvian rice to sell in China due to a Chinese rice shortage. He bought rice at 12 cents per pound from Peruvian ships, but more Peruvian ships arrived in port which caused the price to drop sharply to 4 cents. He then lost a lawsuit in which he tried to void his rice contract, and his public prominence faded. He re-emerged in September 1859, laying claim to the position of Emperor of the United States.[8] Though Norton received many favors from the city, merchants also capitalized on his notoriety by selling souvenirs bearing his name. "San Francisco lived off the Emperor Norton," Norton's biographer William Drury wrote, "not Norton off San Francisco."

Norton had no formal political power; nevertheless, he was treated deferentially in San Francisco, and currency issued in his name was honored in the establishments that he frequented. Some considered him insane or eccentric, but citizens of San Francisco celebrated his imperial presence and his proclamations, such as his order that the United States Congress be dissolved by force and his numerous decrees calling for the construction of a bridge and tunnel crossing San Francisco Bay to connect San Francisco with Oakland.

On January 8, 1880, Norton collapsed at the corner of California and Dupont (now Grant) streets and died before he could be given medical treatment. Upwards of 30,000 people lined the streets of San Francisco to pay him homage at his funeral. Norton has been immortalized as the basis of characters in the literature of Mark Twain, Robert Louis Stevenson, Christopher Moore, Morris and René Goscinny, Selma Lagerlöf, and Neil Gaiman.

Link >>

It is regrettable that the economist Martin Weitzman died last year as without his 'fat-tail' climate change economic analysis it is not likely that the 2015 Paris Agreement would have adopted its formal goal of staying well below 2oC GMSTA and preferably to stay below 1.5oC GMSTA.  While it is good that his work did result in the formal adoption these goals for limiting climate change; since the time that he published his works on this topic the 'fat-tail' has become fatter but decision makers still belittle these increasingly likely right-tail catastrophes by pretending that tipping points are not real and that mankind can always reverse future climate impacts by eventually limiting anthropogenic GHG emissions at some point in the future.  Unfortunately, such pretenses are not real, and considering the higher ECS values projected by CMIP6 and the positive ice-climate feedback mechanisms not fully evaluated by CMIP6, it is my opinion that we should stay well below 1.5oC GMSTA, and a man like Martin Weitzman may have been capable of conveying that matter to current decision makers as his earlier works were able to impact the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Title: "The Man Who Got Economists to Take Climate Nightmares Seriously"

Extract: "This is the hallmark of traditional cost-benefit analysis: Figure out the benefits of keeping the climate stable, compare that to the costs of preventing change, and then determine which policies make the most sense.

Weitzman used technical math to make the case that climate change is different because what’s most likely to happen doesn’t matter as much when there’s a possibility of total catastrophe. “Even when you have a low probability of a highly consequential event, those consequences—when they’re of a significant enough magnitude—can really overwhelm your thinking,” said Richard Newell, chief executive of the research nonprofit Resources for the Future and a former Weitzman teaching assistant.
Weitzman’s analysis was influential in helping convince global diplomats to adopt a goal for limits on warming—1.5 and 2 degree Celsius—in the 2015 Paris Agreement. Robert Stavins, director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program, said the Paris targets may not have passed “an economic analysis, unless you take account of Weitzman’s fat tails.”
“His fat-tail story in many ways was the story,” Wagner said, “of how those uncertainties could potentially drive everything. He called it the Dismal Theorem. The burden of proof is on those who think that those risks don’t matter. It’s not the other way around.”
Newell said one of Weitzman’s biggest accomplishments was “challenging historical orthodoxy concerning long-term discounting, and doing so in a way that has had direct influence on government policy.” President Barack Obama’s team cited Weitzman’s work in technical material supporting its cost estimates for each metric ton of emitted C02."

The linked article indicates that as currently presented, China's Belt and Roads Initiative (BRI) is projected to reduce China's direct carbon footprint but to significantly accelerate GHG emissions from associated countries, resulting in a net acceleration of GHG emissions globally:

Title: "The potential climate consequences of China's Belt and Roads Initiative"

Extract: "China’s Belt and Road Initiative is big. Really big. Potentially the most ambitious and widespread international infrastructure development effort ever, involving rail lines, highways, power plants, pipe lines, ports, and more.

What China is selling is the China development model, which was energy-intense, no holds barred,” says Jennifer Turner, director of the China Environment Forum at the Woodrow Wilson Center. “But China’s not taking their war on pollution on the road even though that could be an opportunity.”

So while China is on track to meet its climate goals under the Paris agreement ahead of schedule, analyses undertaken by a number of government-backed interests, NGOs, and academic organizations worldwide point to direct and indirect environmental impacts – almost all of them harms – from BRI. The projects involve everything from land use to wildlife and habitat disruption to water concerns to mineral extraction to industrial effects to pollution.

But nothing engenders more concern than how the Chinese are using BRI to perpetuate the use of coal and other fossil fuels – pretty much everywhere BRI touches, except inside China itself. And that means increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

But other China experts see things more in economic terms for China itself – now facing a slowdown. They say China is looking for markets for its resources – coal among them – and jobs for its own population.

Putting those factors together with the genuine Chinese decarbonization effort at home and the result in some cases has been literally to transfer China’s oldest, dirtiest, and least efficient coal technology to its BRI partners and provide a workforce to go with it. Cambodia is one place that got a disassembled coal plant from China and had it re-assembled.

“China has ostensibly nullified their own goodness,” Turner says of that nation’s compliance with the Paris agreement.

And in that nullification, China’s BRI has locked in fossil fuels and their climate-altering greenhouse gas emissions, not for years, but for decades."

Science / Re: Global Forest Watch
« on: March 02, 2020, 09:31:15 AM »
Evaluation of primary vs secondary rainforest on Australia's east coast. No paper provided as this is original research, just felt like posting after the data had been punched through Rstudio.

Units are natural log transformed biomass (tonnes) per hectare. i.e. e^5.444 tonnes/hectare.

Data collected at ten 20 m x 20 m plots at the secondary forest site (site 1), and ten 20 m x 20 m plots at the primary rainforest site (site 2). Trees only included if diameter at breast height was greater than 10 cm.

At site 1 (~40 years after clearance, unrestricted growth, passive management), the aboveground biomass was found to be 5.4440 units.

At site 2, aboveground biomass was found to be 1.2051 units greater than the secondary rainforest AGB (P value = 3.96e-07).

Tree biomass is approximately half carbon. The carbon sequestered at site 1 is approximately 231 tonnes per hectare after 40 years. Compared to 772 tonnes of carbon per hectare at site 2.

Planting trees won't save us. It will help more than leaving land fallow. But good lord, it will not save us.

Edit: Looking back at my Rstudio inputs, natural log was supposed to be used not log base 10. Adjustments have been made. Still massive difference between Primary and secondary rainforest. Sorry for the mistake.

Edit again: My adviser laughed at me

20-foot waves may be coming to the Great Lakes due to approaching winter storm
Lake Ontario could get waves of up to 20 feet near its center, Guy said. Waves as tall as 10 feet could form on Lakes Huron and Erie, peaking on their southern shores.
Meantime, blizzard warnings are posted in New York, just south of Buffalo and north of Syracuse, where 2 to 3 feet of snow combined with 40- to 50 -mph winds will make for whiteout conditions.

Travel will be nearly impossible, he said.
Increased snowfall this season in the region owes in part to low ice coverage on the Great Lakes, as moisture continues to feed precipitation, Guy said. The lakes this week are 9% covered in ice, compared with a typical 42% average coverage, he said. That's the lowest on record since 1973. ...

I thought that some people would like some color commentary on ice-rafted debris, IRD, in action:

Title: "21 February 2020 Ice Rafted Debris - Virtual Base Camp / Thwaites Offshore Research"

Extract: "Disappointingly, the object I saw would only be thought of as a treasure by a very small subset of the population (although a substantial number of people on this ship would consider themselves part of that subset). It is something called Ice Rafted Debris - small rocks and bits of sediment that get trapped in a glacier as it scours (or scrapes) the face of a continent, and are then carried off to sea by the chunk of ice into which they become frozen. When we take long cores of sediment from the bottom of the ocean, we often find pebbles buried many meters deep, and the explanation for them is that they were dropped by an iceberg floating above - former ice rafted debris that gets dumped when its raft melts. This piece was unusually large and it is hard to imagine where it came from and where it will end up. Eventually, the ice holding it will melt and this large boulder (or still, maybe, treasure chest) will sink to the bottom of the Amundsen Sea, likely never to be seen again. Fortunately, I got a decent picture to remember it by."

I provide a better reference citation for my Reply #2128.

Forster, P.M., Maycock, A.C., McKenna, C.M. et al. Latest climate models confirm need for urgent mitigation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 7–10 (2020).

The image from the linked reference confirms that if one is worried about crossing potential tipping points in the next few decades (as I am) that it would be a good idea to immediately start reducing methane (and other GHG) emissions:

Title: "Demonstrating GWP*: a means of reporting warming-equivalent emissions that captures the contracting impacts of short- and long-lived climate pollutants" by Lynch et al. (2020).

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: February 20, 2020, 06:40:42 PM »
Amazing photos!

Great shot. How high are those ice cliffs?
Difficult to measure from a distance of about 500m, which is as near as we're going. However, in places we see the bottom of the ice face at about 400 m depth in water column sonar data. Based on a freeboard calculation this implies a cliff height of around 50 m.

Science / Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
« on: February 19, 2020, 09:54:31 PM »

Preindustrial 14CH4 indicates greater anthropogenic fossil CH4 emissions

Atmospheric methane (CH4) is a potent greenhouse gas, and its mole fraction has more than doubled since the preindustrial era1. Fossil fuel extraction and use are among the largest anthropogenic sources of CH4 emissions, but the precise magnitude of these contributions is a subject of debate2,3. Carbon-14 in CH4 (14CH4) can be used to distinguish between fossil (14C-free) CH4 emissions and contemporaneous biogenic sources; however, poorly constrained direct 14CH4 emissions from nuclear reactors have complicated this approach since the middle of the 20th century4,5. Moreover, the partitioning of total fossil CH4 emissions (presently 172 to 195 teragrams CH4 per year)2,3 between anthropogenic and natural geological sources (such as seeps and mud volcanoes) is under debate; emission inventories suggest that the latter account for about 40 to 60 teragrams CH4 per year6,7. Geological emissions were less than 15.4 teragrams CH4 per year at the end of the Pleistocene, about 11,600 years ago8, but that period is an imperfect analogue for present-day emissions owing to the large terrestrial ice sheet cover, lower sea level and extensive permafrost. Here we use preindustrial-era ice core 14CH4 measurements to show that natural geological CH4 emissions to the atmosphere were about 1.6 teragrams CH4 per year, with a maximum of 5.4 teragrams CH4 per year (95 per cent confidence limit)—an order of magnitude lower than the currently used estimates. This result indicates that anthropogenic fossil CH4 emissions are underestimated by about 38 to 58 teragrams CH4 per year, or about 25 to 40 per cent of recent estimates. Our record highlights the human impact on the atmosphere and climate, provides a firm target for inventories of the global CH4 budget, and will help to inform strategies for targeted emission reductions9,10.

With NASA GISS vs 1750, 1.24+0.2, we were pretty much at 1.5 degrees last year, and even closer in 2016 (short by only 0.02 degrees). Reporting that may have helped focus policy makers mind's a bit better.

The spread between the five data sets was 0.15°C with both the lowest (1.05°C) and the highest (1.20°C) being more than 1°C warmer than the pre-industrial baseline.

Modern temperature records began in 1850. WMO uses datasets (based on monthly climatological data from Global Observing Systems) from the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and the United Kingdom’s Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom. 

It also uses reanalysis datasets from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts and its Copernicus Climate Change Service, and the Japan Meteorological Agency.  This method combines millions of meteorological and marine observations, including from satellites, with models to produce a complete reanalysis of the atmosphere. The combination of observations with models makes it possible to estimate temperatures at any time and in any place across the globe, even in data-sparse areas such as the polar regions.

For ease of reference I re-post my Reply #724, which is relevant to this topic:

I note that Hawkins et al (2017) defines the pre-industrial baseline to be from 1720-1800 for determining GMSTA, and indicates that as both the CMIP5 and the AR5 projections were baselined to the 1896-2005 baseline (see first image that gives various AR5 baselines), one needs to add between 0.55 and 0.80C (which has a mean value of 0.675C) to the published CMIP5 and AR5 projections values to get correct values for GMSTA.

As the second image from the second linked article by Clive Best indicates that the mean value of the CMIP5 runs for RCP 8.5 in 2040 is about 1.7C, this implies that referenced to pre-industrial for RCP 8.5 (which is less aggressive than SSP5-Baseline) GMSTA in 2040 would be about 2.375C (which is above Mid-Pliocene conditions):

Ed Hawkins et al. (2017), "Estimating Changes in Global Temperature since the Preindustrial Period", BAMS,

Abstract: "The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process agreed in Paris to limit global surface temperature rise to “well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels.” But what period is preindustrial? Somewhat remarkably, this is not defined within the UNFCCC’s many agreements and protocols. Nor is it defined in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) in the evaluation of when particular temperature levels might be reached because no robust definition of the period exists. Here we discuss the important factors to consider when defining a preindustrial period, based on estimates of historical radiative forcings and the availability of climate observations. There is no perfect period, but we suggest that 1720–1800 is the most suitable choice when discussing global temperature limits. We then estimate the change in global average temperature since preindustrial using a range of approaches based on observations, radiative forcings, global climate model simulations, and proxy evidence. Our assessment is that this preindustrial period was likely 0.55°–0.80°C cooler than 1986–2005 and that 2015 was likely the first year in which global average temperature was more than 1°C above preindustrial levels. We provide some recommendations for how this assessment might be improved in the future and suggest that reframing temperature limits with a modern baseline would be inherently less uncertain and more policy relevant."

Extract: "We have examined estimates of historical radiative forcings to determine which period might be most suitable to be termed preindustrial and used several approaches to estimate a change in global temperature since this preindustrial reference period. The main conclusions are as follows:

1.   The 1720–1800 period is most suitable to be defined as preindustrial in physical terms, although we have incomplete information about the radiative forcings and very few direct observations during this time. However, this definition offers a target period for future analysis and data collection to inform this issue.
2.   The 1850–1900 period is a reasonable pragmatic surrogate for preindustrial global mean temperature. The available evidence suggests it was slightly warmer than 1720–1800 by around 0.05°C, but this is not statistically significant.
3.   We assess a likely range of 0.55°–0.80°C for the change in global average temperature from preindustrial to 1986–2005.
4.   We also consider a likely lower bound on warming from preindustrial to 1986–2005 of 0.60°C, implying that the AR5 estimate of warming was probably too small and that 2015 was the first year to be more than 1°C above preindustrial levels."


Title: "A comparison of CMIP5 Climate Models with HadCRUT4.6" January 21, 2019 by Clive Best

Caption for the second image: Model comparisons to HadCRUT4.6. Spaghetti are individual annual model results for each RCP. Solid curves are model ensemble annual averages.

Science / Re: Global Forest Watch
« on: February 13, 2020, 08:32:15 AM »
China forests show increase in soil carbon: doi: 10.5194/bg-17-715-2020

open access

" eight permanent forest plots, which represent boreal (1998–2014), temperate (1992–2012), subtropical (1987–2008), and tropical forest biomes (1992–2012) across China. SOC contents increased significantly from the 1990s to the 2010s, mostly in the upper 0–20 cm soil depth, "

" averaged SOC stocks increased significantly from 125.2±85.2 Mg C ha−1 in the 1990s to 133.6±83.1 Mg C ha−1 in the 2010s across the forest plots, with a mean increase of 127.2–907.5 kg C ha−1 yr−1. This SOC accumulation resulted primarily from increasing leaf litter and fallen logs, which accounts 3.6 %–16.3 % of above-ground net primary production"

and soilC increases as deep as they studied, down to 100cm:

"We further compared SOC stocks of the whole soil profile between 1990s and 2010s at a depth of 0–40 cm in the boreal site, 0–60 cm in the subtropical site, and 0–100 cm in the temperate and tropical sites (Fig. 3). The SOC stocks of all sampling sites in the 2010s were higher than those in the 1990s"

"SOC accumulation rates in the subtropical and tropical sites were relatively higher than those in the boreal and temperate sites (Fig. 3). The greatest increase in SOC stock occurred in the subtropical evergreen old-growth forest (907.5±60.1 kg C ha−1 yr−1), and the least in the temperate deciduous oak forest (127.2±25.3 kg C ha−1 yr−1; Table S3)"

"The SOC stocks within the top 20 cm increased by 2.4–12.6 Mg C ha−1 across the forests during the past 2 decades, with an annual accumulation rate of 332.4±200.2 kg C ha−1. If all soil horizon profiles were included, the soils may have been found to have sequestered 3.6 %–16.3 % of the annual net primary production across the investigated sites, and the averaged accumulated rate (421.2 kg C ha−1 yr−1) may have been more than one-half of the vegetation C uptake rate (702.0 kg C ha−1 yr−1) in China's forests"


Science / Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« on: February 11, 2020, 01:10:55 AM »

Does it say that somewhere on the NOAA site?

My understanding from reading the site was that they're first calculating RF for each GHG using numbers from lab experiments/models, and then they convert RF to CO2eq? They are able to do this because they have ppm CO2 and RF, so going from RF to ppm COe would be pretty simple. It seems to me they don't use a GWP multiplier at all, as Ken suggested earlier...

2017 to 2018 rise for CO2 was 2.39ppm, which produced an increase in radiative forcing of 0.031
- 0.031 / 2.39 = radiative forcing per CO2 ppm = 0.01297

2017 to 2018 rise for NH4 was 8.27ppb = 0.00827ppm, which produced an increase in radiative forcing of 0.003
- 0.003 / 0.00827 - radiative forcing per NH4 ppm = 0.36276

An NH4 ppm produces a radiative forcing approximately 28 times that of a CO2 ppm, the 100-year equivalent amount according to the UN IPCC in 2011. The more recent 100-year value is 36. The 20-year value is 86 (direct forcing only).

2. The icebergs in the downstream southern shear margin for the PIIS appear to be free to float into the open ocean; which, would leave adjoining portion of the PIIS susceptible to accelerated future calving events (possibly initiated a MR1 and/or MR2); which are not considered in any of the CMIP6 model projections.


Your probably already have, but could you post a link to where we might look at the CMIP6 model projections as they relate to the PIIS?

Thank you!


Noting that ISMIP6 is associated with CMIP6, see the first linked reference and the second liked website for updates on this matter:

Seroussi et al. (2019), "initMIP-Antarctica: an ice sheet model initialization experiment of ISMIP6", The Cryosphere, 13, 1441-1471;

Abstract: "Ice sheet numerical modeling is an important tool to estimate the dynamic contribution of the Antarctic ice sheet to sea level rise over the coming centuries. The influence of initial conditions on ice sheet model simulations, however, is still unclear. To better understand this influence, an initial state intercomparison exercise (initMIP) has been developed to compare, evaluate, and improve initialization procedures and estimate their impact on century-scale simulations. initMIP is the first set of experiments of the Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project for CMIP6 (ISMIP6), which is the primary Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) activity focusing on the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Following initMIP-Greenland, initMIP-Antarctica has been designed to explore uncertainties associated with model initialization and spin-up and to evaluate the impact of changes in external forcings. Starting from the state of the Antarctic ice sheet at the end of the initialization procedure, three forward experiments are each run for 100 years: a control run, a run with a surface mass balance anomaly, and a run with a basal melting anomaly beneath floating ice. This study presents the results of initMIP-Antarctica from 25 simulations performed by 16 international modeling groups. The submitted results use different initial conditions and initialization methods, as well as ice flow model parameters and reference external forcings. We find a good agreement among model responses to the surface mass balance anomaly but large variations in responses to the basal melting anomaly. These variations can be attributed to differences in the extent of ice shelves and their upstream tributaries, the numerical treatment of grounding line, and the initial ocean conditions applied, suggesting that ongoing efforts to better represent ice shelves in continental-scale models should continue."

See also, and the attached image:

Extract: "This page describes the experimental protocol for the ISMIP6 projections that target the upcoming IPCC AR6 assessment. Due to the delay in CMIP6 climate simulations, the initial set of ISMIP6 simulations are based on CMIP5 projections. As CMIP6 model outputs become available, ISMIP6 will include simulations based on these new models.

Antarctic ice shelf fracture
Surface melting can trigger ice shelf collapse (for example, the Larsen B ice shelf in the Antarctic Peninsula). This mechanism is separate from cliff-collapse, but is a precursor to cliff-collapse. Although the mechanisms for Larsen B-style ice shelf collapse are still poorly understood, ISMIP6 provides dataset for ice shelf collapse in the form of a time dependent mask (Fig 4). These datasets were derived from CMIP5 near surface air temperature (tas) following the method described in Trusel et al. (2015), which results in annual surface melt. For ISMIP6, Luke Trussel prepared the bias corrected annual surface melt, which were used to generate the masks. Ice shelves are assumed to collapse following a 10 year period with annual surface melt above 725 mm (Trusel et al., 2015). Some experiments require to model ice shelf collapse and the ISMIP6 masks provided should be used in this case. For the other experiments, ice shelf collapse should not be included.

Models are free to decide on the appropriate method to simulate tributary glaciers' behavior following the collapse of ice shelves. As the masks were derived from observations, the observed ice shelf may not always corresponds to an ice shelf in the ISM. In the event that the ice shelf collapse mask corresponds to a region which an ISM considers to be grounded (ice sheet), the collapse should not be imposed. Similarly, in the event that applying the mask results in "iceberg" or regions of floating ice shelf that are now detached from the ice shelf, these floating part of the ice should be removed as well.

The datasets can be obtained from: s"

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: February 10, 2020, 04:09:59 AM »
Next East Africa Locust Swarms Airborne in 3 to 4 Weeks, UN Warns

The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) warned Sunday that nymph (baby) desert locusts maturing in Somalia's rebel-held backcountry, where aerial spraying is next to unrealizable, will develop wings in the "next three or four weeks" and threaten millions of people already short of food.

Once in flight and hungry, the swarm could be the "most devastating plague of locusts in any of our living memories if we don't reduce the problem faster than we are doing at the moment," said UN humanitarian chief Mark Lowcock.

The locusts were now "very hungry teenagers," but once mature, their progeny would hatch, generating "about a 20-fold increase" in numbers, warned Keith Cressman, FAO locust forecasting officer.

Swarms, which left damage across parts of Ethiopia and Kenya in December, could also put Uganda, South Sudan, Eritrea and Djibouti at risk, making it the worst such situation in 25 years, the FAO said.

East Africa already has 19 million people facing acute food insecurity, according to the regional inter-agency Food Security and Nutrition Working Group (FSNWG).

... "There is a link between climate change and the unprecedented locust crisis plaguing Ethiopia and East Africa."

"Warmer seas mean more cyclones generating the perfect breeding ground for locusts. This is getting worse by the day," said UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.

He also recently reiterated his belief that ECS is most likely 2.8-3C.

For those wondering, the temperature anomaly given in ASLR's post previous to this one can be converted to a pre-industrial baseline by adding 0.63C -> ~1.24C.

For those who forget, I again provide the attached image from Hansen & Sato 2012; where it is clear that Hansen uses ECS to mean the fast feedback mechanisms only, and that ice-climate feedbacks need to be added on top of that value in order to get the total effective ECS value.

Science / Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« on: February 03, 2020, 09:15:04 PM »
I don't believe the below graph has been posted yet and seems essential to the topic of this thread.

Assuming I'm reading this graph right we are well above RCP 8.5 at this point for CO2eq, as we are already above 450ppm CO2eq according to all of the numbers presented in this thread...

Also, I still haven't figured out how you get from ppb in CH4 to ppm in CO2eq if it's not using the GWP multiplier (some posters in this thread have claimed that GWP is not for atmospheric CO2 concentrations).

Keep in mind that the RCPs also include aerosols and land use (albedo) changes which have a cooling effect.  We've only been comparing the greenhouse gases on this thread. 

To get to a CO2eq you can take the measured concentration of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and calculate it's radiative forcing.  Then you can convert to CO2eq by finding the amount of CO2 that would have the same radiative forcing.  So you can get around the whole GWP 20 vs GWP 100 argument.

I comprehend that our actions should be informed by the extreme right tail risks. I just wonder how it is best to go about doing that?

I believe the last IPCC report was clear on how to go about doing this.

1. Cut human CO2 emissions 40% by 2030.
2. Eliminate all human CO2 emissions by 2050.

Anything less than this and we are in serious trouble. What we are currently doing (CO2 emissions for 2019 set a new record, beating the previous record set in 2018.) and we are truly fucked.

To partially respond to wdmn's point/question:

While the biggest part of my input for this thread will be to continue to clarify the nature of the current right-tail climate risks (which in coming decades may shift to become the most probable case); I appreciate that facing our true situation also entails some characterization of how to address related issues (which typically should be addressed in more detail in the 'Policy and solutions' folder).  In this regard, anthropogenic climate change is caused by human behavior; which evolved in a world where we (collectively) were never up against the limits of Earth Systems to absorb our messes.  Furthermore, human evolution was driven by the tenets of the 'Red Queen hypothesis' essentially where hosts and parasites engaged in an evolutionary 'arms race' to effectively stay in the same relative place as stated by the Red Queen in Lewis Carroll's 'Through the Looking-Glass', where she said: "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."

Title: "Red Queen hypothesis"

Now as human culture largely isolated people from being eaten by wild predators since the beginning of the Holocene, the Red Queen hypothesis (w.r.t. human behavior) has been dominated by conflict between different human groups (inter-human competition) to create a 'prisoner's dilemma' which temporarily rewards 'free-riders' (say like the Trump Administration) at the expense of better group cooperation (say like globalism).

Thus, to make better progress in the battle against climate risk, I would recommend that interested parties:

1. Develop strategies for holding free-riders/parasites politically at bay say by emphasizing the reality of the 'mutually assured' destruction nature of right-tailed climate risks in coming decades (such as the interactions of: Beaufort Gyre, MICI, methane emissions from thermokarst lakes, etc. see the attached image; however, I would change the coloring and range of the various Earth Systems tipping mechanisms).

2. Apply Nash Equilibrium (& Abductive Reasoning) logic to develop future radiative forcing cases for CMIP7 that better evaluate pathways/scenarios comparable to SSP3- 7.0, that seek to improve the common good even in the face of international-competition/chaos.  For example, say by NGOs marrying internet-based mass education with microloans to third world populations in order to minimize 'opportunity costs' and instead realizing the potential of third world populations to leapfrog fossil fuel based socio-economic systems.


First, it is useful to realize/remember that effectively everyone lives in a Markov Blanket (bubble) including scientists, yourself and myself, and thus understand/appreciate only part of the big picture.  This is one reason that George W. Bush could get away with stating that: "There is good science and there is bad science" (see the first linked article); because effectively all individuals typically view good science as something that reinforces their Markov Blanket, while they view bad science as something that disrupts their Markov Blanket.  When viewed in this way, only each individual can change their own Markov Blanket; and while others can provide an enriched information environment to facilitate refining ones own Markov Blanket; such others cannot be held responsible for changing your (or the global society's) Markov Blanket.

Title: "Abuses of Science: Case Studies - Examples of political interference with government science documented by the UCS Scientific Integrity Program, 2004-2009"

Second, in my opinion, the scientific method is not a thing but rather it is a continuous/iterative process (see the first image) to search for a better/more-refined understanding of the truth rather than something that reinforces a given Markov Blanket.  However, today the global socio-economic system is dependent upon a Markov Blanket that has been engineered (using the engineering method, see the second image) largely based on the exploitation of the environment; without appropriately addressing the impacts of pollution (including GHG emissions) and other disbenefits.

Third, with this as background one can appreciate that Hausfather & Peters are promoting their Markov Blanket by implying that good science can err on the side of least drama (ESLD) in order to get decision makers to act [thus discounting right-tail risks not only such as RCP 8.5 (Watts/sqm) assumptions about fossil fuel use (especially coal use) but also radiative forcings and feedbacks not included in consensus science models, such as: unexpectedly high negative aerosol forcing, unexpectedly high deforestation, permafrost degradation, ice-climate feedbacks, etc.].

Fourth, greenwashing CMIP6 model projections with high values of ECS under SSP5 8.5 (Watts/sq m) by discounting both RCP 8.5 (Watts/sq m) and SSP5 8.5 (Watts/sq m) so as not to alarm people can be counter productive for many different reasons including:

- It can slow effective action to the point that many non-linear feedbacks and some tipping point cascades are activated.

- It can promote the implementation of adaptive measures that are ineffective and/or counterproductive.

- It can contribute to a backlog of ESLD science findings that future AR versions will blend with new findings; which will effectively slow the rate of refinement of advice given to decision makers.

- It can contribute to the belief that typically slow response feedback mechanisms can be relied upon to give society time to correct its current poor behavior; while in fact typically slow response trigger points such as the Thwaites Ice Tongue (see the third image) and the Beaufort Gyre may have already crossed over into tipping points that cannot be reversed by either cutting emissions and/or implementing solar geoengineering.


Edit: I also note that if the WAIS were to collapse abruptly in the coming decades, the impact on the global socio-economic system would likely be sufficient to abruptly reduce anthropogenic aerosol emissions; and if this were to happen the net positive radiative forcing would increase abruptly.

Policy and solutions / Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« on: January 30, 2020, 08:09:37 PM »
Yesterday Glen Peters and Zeke Hausfather published a comment in Nature making their case as to why RCP8.5 is not BAU and why it is extremely unlikely that we will follow it:

Love this article.  Thanks for posting it.

Another excerpt:
Happily — and that’s a word we climatologists rarely get to use — the world imagined in RCP8.5 is one that, in our view, becomes increasingly implausible with every passing year5. Emission pathways to get to RCP8.5 generally require an unprecedented fivefold increase in coal use by the end of the century, an amount larger than some estimates of recoverable coal reserves6. It is thought that global coal use peaked in 2013, and although increases are still possible, many energy forecasts expect it to flatline over the next few decades7. Furthermore, the falling cost of clean energy sources is a trend that is unlikely to reverse, even in the absence of new climate policies7.

Assessment of current policies suggests that the world is on course for around 3 °C of warming above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century — still a catastrophic outcome, but a long way from 5 °C7,8. We cannot settle for 3 °C; nor should we dismiss progress.

Science / Re: 2020 CO2 emissions
« on: January 30, 2020, 05:39:17 PM »

The linked article states that direct measurement of the ocean water at the grounding line (measured as part of the ITGC) indicate that the temperature of this water was 2C above freezing; and that the complete findings (from this part of this season's ITGC expedition) will be published in March, 2020:

Title: "Temperatures at a Florida-Size Glacier Alarm Scientists"

The researchers, working on the Thwaites Glacier, recorded water temperatures at the base of the ice of more than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.8 degrees Fahrenheit, above the normal freezing point. Critically, the measurements were taken at the glacier’s grounding line, the area where it transitions from resting wholly on bedrock to spreading out on the sea as ice shelves.

It is unclear how fast the glacier is deteriorating: Studies have forecast its total collapse in a century and also in a few decades. The presence of warm water in the grounding line may support estimates at the faster range.

That is significant because the Thwaites, along with the Pine Island Glacier and a number of smaller glaciers, acts as a brake on part of the much larger West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Together, the two bigger glaciers are currently holding back ice that, if melted, would raise the world’s oceans by more than a meter, or about four feet, over centuries, an amount that would put many coastal cities underwater.

Drilling the hole — about 30 centimeters wide and 600 meters deep, or roughly one foot by 1,970 feet — and collecting the data took about 96 hours in subzero weather. The results of the study are expected to be published in March. The expedition was part of the International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration, a series of research projects aimed at understanding the glacier."

Consequences / Re: Chinese coronavirus
« on: January 28, 2020, 09:20:53 AM »

A snapshot comparing SARS & Coronavirus


Consequences / Re: Effects of Climate Change on the biosphere
« on: January 28, 2020, 07:47:33 AM »
There's a lot more fishing going on than we know about. Here is a tour de force using a famous bird by Weimerskirch et al. :

"Albatrosses fitted with loggers detecting and locating the presence of vessels and transmitting the information immediately to authorities allowed an estimation of the proportion of nondeclared fishing vessels operating in national and international waters of the Southern Ocean. We found that in international waters, more than one-third of vessels had no Automatic Identification System operating"

"at any time, AISs can be switched off, which is likely to be particular common by illegal fisheries ... in many oceanic sectors, nondeclared and illegal fisheries are negatively affecting ecosystems through overexploitation and by catch of nontarget species (11, 12). Among these species, bycatch of albatrosses and petrels is very high, and these are among the most threatened bird species, with hundreds of thousands killed by long- line fisheries every year (13)."

"Since all boats at sea use radar for safety and operational reasons, the ability to detect radar emissions from geolocating loggers provides accurate information on the location of boats. We have developed, with Sextant Technology, and tested between 2015 and 2017, a logger (XGPS) that provides the global positioning system (GPS) location of the fitted animal and simultaneously detects radar emissions (25)."

"Among the 353 detections of vessels, 71.8% had a corresponding AIS signal, but 28.2% had no AIS signal within 30 km. The situation differed between EEZs and international waters. In EEZs, 74.2% of radar events had a corresponding AIS signal within 30 km; i.e., 25.8% of boats detected in EEZ had no associated AIS identification. In international waters, this percentage increased to 36.9%"

"During the study period, no nondeclared fishing vessel was detected in the EEZs of Crozet and Kerguelen, two were detected in the EEZ around Amsterdam, and all detections in the EEZ around the Prince Edward Islands had no AIS. In addition, several vessels were detected with no AIS at the edges of the Kerguelen–Heard EEZ and of the Crozet and Prince Edward EEZ. For at least two cases, some boats had their AIS regularly switched off for long periods. In the EEZ around Crozet and Kerguelen, the fishery is strictly controlled today by authorities using mitigation measure to reduce seabird mortality to very low numbers (30, 31)"

"In the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) zone and in international waters, at least half of the radar detections over several hours, correspondingto typical vessels in fishing operation, had no AIS associated. Most detections occurred in subtropical waters, where large Asiatic fisheries operate targeting tuna (32). Typically, the fleets are located through clusters of vessels with AIS, but with irregular AIS transmissions and incomplete information on the identity of vessels. It is in these areas of tuna fisheries where AISs are often not transmitted that a significant number of radar detection occurred with no AIS (Fig. 5)."

" In our case, adult wandering albatrosses appear to be excellent sentinel species, since they are very attracted by fishing vessels and can detect them at 30-km distance."

doi: 10.1073/pnas.1915499117

Read and weep. I attach fig 5. And some extracts from a famous poem.

"At length did cross an Albatross,
Thorough the fog it came;
As if it had been a Christian soul,
We hailed it in God's name."

"'God save thee, ancient Mariner!
From the fiends, that plague thee thus!—
Why look'st thou so?'—With my cross-bow
I shot the Albatross. "

"Ah! well a-day! what evil looks
Had I from old and young!
Instead of the cross, the Albatross
About my neck was hung."


Science / Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« on: January 27, 2020, 05:48:08 PM »
Well all of these measures are helpful I think it's important to consider the CO2e assuming a higher multiplier.

RF is a great measure (and reminds us to account for negative forcings), but most people have been trained to think in terms of a doubling of CO2 concentration, and all the modelling is done around ECS and TCR. We need to know how close we are to doubling, (or how long ago we doubled) to start making sense of how much risk we've already exposed ourselves too, I think... Otherwise why do we keep looking at CO2 concentration? We should just be looking at RF.

First, while it may be the case that this thread was created to focus on CO2e as calculated as a well mixed gas, and on the increasing emissions of methane and nitrous oxide; I note that CMIP6 models do consider scenarios with increasing methane and nitrous oxide emissions (such as SSP5) which provide projections of GMSTA that are relatively high in the coming decades (see the first attached image).

Second, the CMIP6 projections significantly underestimate the RF from ice-climate feedback mechanisms (say from a release of relatively warm & fresh water from the Beaufort Gyre in the next decade, or so, triggering a collapse of significant portions of the WAIS via the bipolar seesaw mechanisms) as indicated by the second attached image (see the gold curve assuming a 5-year doubling time).  Which this indicated increase in RF from such large freshwater hosing events might only last for a few decades, that period of time might be sufficient to push the NH atmosphere into an equable pattern before 2100.

I plan to stop posting in this thread after this post (so as not to highjack the main focus) but I think that it is important to realize that RF threat from ice-climate feedback is real (the already large amount warm fresh water still accumulating in the Beaufort Gyre will be released before too long) and is not fully accounted for by any consensus climate model projection.

Science / Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« on: January 25, 2020, 02:47:16 PM »
Stephan, could you please post your calculation and the numbers you used?

You mention different factors for GHG's but there is only 1 column in your table. I would have expected several CO2e numbers based on those factors.

Your CH4 seems much too low.
I have done it like this:
dec2020 CO₂ 412 ppm                 =   412    ppm
sep2019 CH4    1.8705 ppm * 85 =  158.99 ppm (85)
                          1.8705 ppm * 28 =    52.37 ppm (20)
dec2020 N₂O      0.332 ppm * 264 =   87.6 ppm

Total CO2e  equivalent                        -------- +
                                                      658.6  ppm CO2e (85)
                                                      552.0  ppm          (20)

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: January 24, 2020, 09:09:08 AM »
IDK, Stephan. I don't see any joint on the SAR anymore, but of course, you can't really see it due to the low resolution.

Here is a rough overlay with the latest high-resolution picture. Click to play.

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: January 24, 2020, 08:32:33 AM »
Holy moly. :)

Science / Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« on: January 22, 2020, 08:15:37 PM »
The Carbon Clock** gives us 7 years, 11 months and 9days of carbon budget left to get to 1.5o, based on emissions at 1,331 tons/second, 42.97 GT per year..

However, the latest estimate of emissions from The Carbon Project give 2019 emssions @ 43.1 GT per annum, i.e. 1,367 tons/second.

This gives us 7 years, 8 months and 26 days of carbon budget left to get to 1.5o, i.e. over 2 months less left for the (mythical?) 1.5o target..

And given recent years Global Temperature increases,  I, among others, have some doubts about that remaining Carbon Budget.

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: January 19, 2020, 04:27:05 AM »

27 frames, monthly increments, click to play.

I'm sorry, but what el Cid said was extremely inaccurate. He compared D-O events with the very slight temperature swings of the Holocene.  That is absolute madness.

This image better compares the variability during D-O events and Holocene variability. The variability is in a different league. An image of the temperature variability over Greenland for the last 2000 years.

The true analogue for a D-O event is a BOE. When that happens the temperature in the NH will shoot up 10-15 C during summer, ending the world as we know it, just like a D-O event would have done. Except that we also have industrial waste and abandoned nuclear reactors

Science / Re: The Science of Aerosols
« on: January 15, 2020, 01:21:58 AM »
this is a good and recent one, the values quoted are slightly lower than what I cited but they are based on 15 year period averages and are ocean heat content not EEI  I thought there was some recent work showing higher EEI values but don't see it at the moment.

Science / Re: The Science of Aerosols
« on: January 15, 2020, 01:09:50 AM »
Also this.... "the climate and extreme event responses to a removal of anthropogenic aerosols, from a world with around 1.5°C GHG‐dominated warming. Global surface temperature is predicted to increase by 0.7°C (multimodel mean, model range is 0.5–1.1°C), while the land surface warms by 1.0°C (model range 0.7–1.6). As sulfate is the dominant aerosol surface temperature driver for present‐day emissions"

Science / Re: The Science of Aerosols
« on: January 15, 2020, 01:05:57 AM »
Maybe this paper can help straighten things out a bit?

Their conclusion is that a 35-80% reduction in human emissions would cause a 1 C rise in temp.

And it looks like they don't include BB in their calculations.

Science / Re: The Science of Aerosols
« on: January 14, 2020, 02:59:05 AM »
In regards to the paper posted above, I should note that it's unclear as to whether this study treats aerosols in the same way as AR5, i.e. this study includes "natural" aerosols such as sand and salt, whereas AR5 seems to only include anthropogenic aerosols in its -0.9 w/m2 forcing.

The AR5 forcing parameters can be found here:  The direct aerosol forcing includes anthropogenic and natural aerosols (like mineral dust) and they include the indirect forcing in the total cloud effect forcing parameter which combined comes out to about -0.9 W/m^2. 


I'd note that your estimate of 1.2C above pre-industrial levels is within the 95% confidence interval range.  1 C is the most likely result.  Note that since "pre-industrial" isn't precisely defined anywhere, there is a range of baselines that people use as "pre-industrial".

Don't accuse people of gas-lighting just because you disagree with them. Look at the evidence they use to support their arguments.

It's not his estimate. If you click on his link and scroll down, then you can see that he is quoting from  the copernicus european scientists.

Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: January 11, 2020, 02:17:53 AM »
So considering the biblical tale about the promise to Abraham to multiply his descendants as the sand on the seashore, maybe this should be a hint to Abraham's alleged progeny to halt this mindless compund multiplying?

None of this accounts for Faero, which is warming that has already occurred but is being masked. The new paper given by JM above says Faero = -1.45 w/m2. What does that mean in degrees C? maybe 0.8C?

That would mean we're at 2C of warming now: 2 + 1.2 = 3.2C by 2080. So 3.2C would have occurred by the time we double co2. That's already as high as ECS assumed by AR5 and by James Hansen (referring to paleo).

roughly yes however the near term forcing from black carbon and (the gorilla in the room) CH4 will go down somewhat as emissions go down along with aerosol emissions, so there will be some mitigation of the future warming also depending on how effective the carbon sink operates going forward.  The carbon cycle alone has enough uncertainty to blow out any future warming prediction by over +/- 1.0C

Permafrost / Re: Permafrost general science thread
« on: December 19, 2019, 03:24:16 PM »
Thanks for the articles.

Earlier but related publication by Farquharson

We find that observed maximum thaw depths at all sites are already regularly exceeding modeled future thaw depths for 2090 under IPCC RCP 4.5. Our data show that very cold permafrost (<−10 °C) at high latitudes is highly vulnerable to rapid near‐surface permafrost degradation due to climate change.

Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« 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.

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: October 25, 2019, 10:44:38 PM »
The most frightening part is the bigger iceberg close to the calving front circled in black. I'd like to call it "cork". It has turned around counterclockwise in the last 6 weeks by approx. 10°. The smaller calving events (see postings earlier this day) have further exposed it to the sea. If it is lost, then the "zone of destruction" (circled in yellow) will be directly touched by open water. One of the icebergs in this area has turned over since Sep 14 (circled in blue, east of the "cork"). So there must be already thin sea ice covered sea between the bergs which allows them to turn over. New or widened cracks are marked in red.
Question to the experts: Have cracks of that size ever been observed so far upstream of the PIIS?

See attached picture.

Pages: [1] 2 3