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 - Hefaistos

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Science / Re: 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: January 19, 2020, 09:41:58 PM »
Hefaistos,
you cannot over-interprete a predicted lower increase value in the next week than in this week and speculate about a change in the overall growth pattern. The annual increase is depending on the actual value and the value last year. If - like in this case - there was a jump last year, then, of course, the annual increase is lower.
Please check out the Keeling curve at NOAA. Take a ruler to follow the increase of CO2. You will find that this increase is not linear, but slowly accelerating. And so is it in 2020.

We had a discussion in one of the other CO2 threads about the sign of the third derivative of the Keeling curve. For some months now I see signs that we are not on a exponential growth, but linear growth.
2020 will tell.

2
Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: January 19, 2020, 09:31:38 PM »
I think your first graph with the albedo warming potential of the different seas in the Arctic region pretty much proves my point, that there will be no dramatic effects of a BOE.

We may already be seeing the effects of more open water on the weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere. There are some conference talks on YouTube by Jennifer Francis. More open water would mean that the surface temperature won't go down after the Arctic sunset. There would also be much more evaporation. I am afraid that this might throw weather out of whack even more.

I live on 60 N in Sweden, and we certainly see this effect each winter. The real winter weather  starts later, and generally speaking, winters are much milder nowadays. It's not so dramatic, just boring :)
As the Atlantic Ocean is warmer, it does evaporate more during the early winter period. Evaporation means that the warm ocean water cools down as it is brought north by the Amoc, and the dominating SW winds.
Only when the ocean water is cool enough, we get a persistent change in the jet stream that favours a stable winter weather.

3
Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: January 19, 2020, 09:22:17 PM »

Tealight's (aka Nico Sun) graph on potential max AWP vs Actual attached. Significant additional AWP certainly possible likely in the years to come.

I haven't got a spare super-computer(s) (or the science) available to evaluate the climatic impact.

Sure, you can calculate a AWPotential but if there is no sun anyway, it seems a bit theoretical, doesn't it?

4
Science / Re: 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: January 19, 2020, 08:36:10 PM »
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.

 an increase of "only" 2.16 ppm ...
Outlook:
Next week last year averaged at 412 ppm with an extreme intra-day variability. This year it looks much smoother; I expect an annual increase around 1.75 ± 0.25 ppm.

We shouldn't over-interpret this, but these values indicate that we are on a linear patch of CO2 growth path. Not as expected, on an exponential growth path.
My long term forecast: Peak CO2 not later than 2030.

5
Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: January 19, 2020, 07:44:26 PM »
Thanks for those graphs, Geron.
I think your first graph with the albedo warming potential of the different seas in the Arctic region pretty much proves my point, that there will be no dramatic effects of a BOE.

If you take the 3 seas with the greatest AWP, they are Bering, Chukchi and Beaufort. But those 3 seas are already having a local summer 'BOE' in each sea, each summer. So no additional AWP from them if we get an overall BOE in the Arctic.

As for non-summer BOE, we have very little AWP due to the lack of insolation.

I find it hard to see that we will be, as you claim "greatly enhancing the existing climate change from increasing AWP".

6
Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: January 19, 2020, 05:56:04 PM »
---
This would cause a steep rise in the Arctic's Albedo Warming Potential from its record high in 2019, greatly enhancing the existing climate change from increasing AWP (and open water vs ice-cover).

The sea ice minimum is in mid September or so, thus the first BOE would also happen in September, most likely. Assuming that the first instances of the BOE will be 'light'.
But what about insolation in September? Already very low, thus not so much effect on Albedo.
Thus, I believe 'small' BOE's wll not have that big an effect on climate change as you postulate.

7
wdmn, can you give a reference to that figure, please!

8
Per the attached image from the linked Scripps website, it certainly looks to me like through January 15, 2020 that atmospheric CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa are still following RCP 8.5:

Which needs to be mentioned on this site over and over and over again. Too many people here make comments about how we will be OK, using RCP 4.5 even when we have little hope of following this path.

Yes, if you look through the binoculars the wrong way, you might see a figure like that.

On a smaller scale, it's more than evident that we are NOT on RCP 8.5 any more - see the graphs provided by Ken Feldman upthread, and that we seem to have left the exponential increase in the Keeling curve as well.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Same goes for graphs.

That said, it doesn't imply that we'll necessarilly be ok.

9
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: January 15, 2020, 10:22:21 PM »

Very interesting. Cloud cover is not everything of course, and in the Arctic, low-lying fog is quite common and probably not counted as cloud. I wonder if anybody is qualified to claim anything about changes in fog prevalence in the Arctic?

Also it'd be interesting to see if humidity has changed (or rather, the total amount of water vapor - which I presume has increased).

Hi binntho,
here are some plots from the Reanalyzer, it's snow depth, TPW and precipitation. All year.
Snow depth is a bit down, TPW is a bit up.

If you want some specific month or range of months, you can select that.
I checked TPW for October - April also, and it's significantly up, see last attachment. So maybe gives some input to the issue of 'fogginess'.

You can also respecify what area you want to include. Their 'Arctic' goes all the way down to 60 N, but you can choose another latitude as you like.

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: January 15, 2020, 10:18:13 PM »

Here is a plot showing the opposite of what is claimed about increasing cloudiness.

That looks to be a yearly tally. What about seasonally?

I used to live in a city in BC which is ranked as one of the sunniest in Canada. But it's simultaneously one of the cloudiest - in the winter.

Here is the cloud cover for October - April.
You can select any period you want at the Reanalyzer.

Same impression, cloudiness is down.

11
Consequences / Re: The WAVY Jet Stream
« on: January 15, 2020, 04:21:50 PM »
I think it was the year the QBO refused to reverse (2014?) that we saw our Polar Jet cross the equator and end up over S. Africa?

I wonder how long it takes for our hemisphere to flip from a 3 cell configuration to a single cell configuration (with jet streaks at points around the hemisphere?)?

Won't happen for the whole hemisphere.
If it happens, it will be only over the oceans.

12
Consequences / Re: The WAVY Jet Stream
« on: January 15, 2020, 04:20:05 PM »
What's up with the jet stream? We've only got 1 in the northern hemisphere with a second one coming in from the southern hemisphere. This is crazy!

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/equirectangular=-178.23,0.15,407

Nothing crazy, happens each year.

13
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: January 14, 2020, 11:21:02 PM »
Interesting.

What are the best ways to see cloudiness in the arctic?

https://climatereanalyzer.org/reanalysis/monthly_tseries/

Here is a plot showing the opposite of what is claimed about increasing cloudiness.

14
Science / Re: The Science of Aerosols
« on: January 14, 2020, 09:46:31 PM »

Did the question about a possible spike in warming from reduced aerosols with the reduction in fossil fuel burning come up?  If so, what was the answer?

Yes, I actually asked about Hansen et al.'s 2013 paper on aerosol masking, and the effect that immediately stopping production of sulfates via oil/coal/etc. Dr. Haywood said he respected Dr. Hansen, but believed that the warming effect would not be as great or as rapid as Hansen described. Additionally, Dr. Haywood said that sulfates would be replaced with other aerosols that occur naturally, the names of which escape me.

The reduction of anthropogenic aerosols won't happen that fast.
Yes, the world is getting off the coal, but we have another two decades of oil burning on the same levels as today.
My hypothesis: the reduction in aerosols (+ve effect) will be matched by a reduction in FF emissions (-ve effect) so that the net warming effect from GHG will remain on the same level.
GHGs remain in the atmosphere decades to millennia.
Aerosols remain in the atmosphere days to months.

My point was that the reduction of aerosols will take considerable time, on a scale of multiple decades. And a lot will happen with GHG emissions during that time, which is a counterbalancing effect.

Another point is that aerosols have mostly a local or regional effect, whereas GHG have a global effect. Aerosols are estimated to increase for some years to come in e.g. SE Asia.

The main GHG is water vapor, and it remains in the atm. for a few days only during the hydrological cycle. The theory says that when aerosols are reduced, we get less cloudiness, thus less water vapor. And less cooling effect.

However this is theory, in practice we have seen examples of the opposite effects. As in this research:
"Response of the atmospheric hydrological cycle over the tropical Asian monsoon regions to anthropogenic aerosols and its seasonality" by Takahashi et al, 2018, show that:
"The results show that, as a whole, the Asian monsoon precipitation is reduced by the increase in aerosol loading during boreal summer and winter. This decrease in precipitation corresponds to a decrease in precipitable water due to the cooling in surface air temperature (SAT), mainly over adjacent oceans. The cooling is explained by the sum of the direct and indirect effects of aerosols. A modulation of the Walker circulation occurs, which can be explained by the east-west horizontal SAT gradient over the tropics due to the spatially heterogeneous increase in aerosols. "

https://progearthplanetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40645-018-0197-2



15
Science / Re: The Science of Aerosols
« on: January 14, 2020, 04:01:32 PM »

Did the question about a possible spike in warming from reduced aerosols with the reduction in fossil fuel burning come up?  If so, what was the answer?

Yes, I actually asked about Hansen et al.'s 2013 paper on aerosol masking, and the effect that immediately stopping production of sulfates via oil/coal/etc. Dr. Haywood said he respected Dr. Hansen, but believed that the warming effect would not be as great or as rapid as Hansen described. Additionally, Dr. Haywood said that sulfates would be replaced with other aerosols that occur naturally, the names of which escape me.

The reduction of anthropogenic aerosols won't happen that fast.
Yes, the world is getting off the coal, but we have another two decades of oil burning on the same levels as today.
My hypothesis: the reduction in aerosols (+ve effect) will be matched by a reduction in FF emissions (-ve effect) so that the net warming effect from GHG will remain on the same level.

16
This Caldwell paper is a very good find.

Based on my reading of earlier work from his team, I can see now why E3SM has the highest ECS and TCR since they have been on the cutting edge of tropical cloud constraints.   Looks like they also have better sea ice modeling.  It is a little surprising that the higher resolution didn't increase sensitivity.

Yes, the Caldwell paper gives good insights into these very advanced GCM modelling efforts.

As we have discussed ECS values here in this thread, it's interesting to note that: "Since we cannot afford to run the fully coupled HR /High Resolution/ model for the hundreds of years necessary to compute transient or equilibrium climate sensitivity,..." (quote from section 6),
and they resort to calculate the lambda coefficient instead. It allows one to compute the effective net feedback from the change in TOA radiative imbalance ΔFTOA caused by forcing global‐average surface temperature Tglob, ave to change as a constant lambda. Well, at least it's assumed to be a constant in the short run, whereas no one knows how it behaves in the long run. What they find is that "The direct effect of increasing resolution causes a slight strengthening of λ, indicating stronger resistance to temperature change and therefore weaker climate sensitivity". The more true HR model has a lower ECS than the LR one, (the latter one is used for CMIP6).

These models are incredibly complex, always run on supercomputers, and the High Resolution version is so computationally demanding that they cannot afford to run essential tests for tuning, and a run to extract ECS from the model is also "unaffordable".

The LR version of E3SM displays a rather suspicious behaviour when it comes to GSTs, as demonstrated in the attached figure. Looks like it's rigged to run cool until 1995 or so, and then it's set off on a very steep trajectory. Surely, this indicates high ECS and TCR values, but should we trust them when model behavior is so apparently wrong?

If you read the Caldwell paper you also understand that the LR version is substandard, as the HR version "is sufficient to capture the most energetic motions in the ocean, which are poorly represented in standard resolution coupled climate models."

This is perhaps the most essential aspect of GCMs: they are unable to model the most energy intense climate processes, i.e. the hydrological cycle and esp. deep convection in the tropics. From this point of view, the HR version reported in the Caldwell paper is a step forward, and it's a deep pity that model complexity makes it rather unusable due to computational costs.

See my Reply #1668 above.

17
Consequences / Re: Places becoming more livable
« on: January 09, 2020, 03:56:27 PM »
...
 As for the tropics: they will have serious problems.

I strongly doubt that statement about the tropics - do you have some scientific evidence for that?
I think that deep convection handles most imbalances in the tropics. The serious problems will be in the subtropics.

18
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: January 05, 2020, 02:06:08 PM »
Is there so much ice in the Arctic this year that there is no need for the freezing season stuff anymore?
Please, get back on topic.

19
Arctic sea ice / Re: The Fast Transition
« on: January 04, 2020, 07:55:31 AM »
From the same paper as in previous post, with the "surprising" results from CERES with a negative trend of Earth Energy Imbalance as well as a negative trend of Ocean Heat Content Time Derivative :

"The Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) shows a trend of −0.16 ± 0.11 W/m2dec. The decreasing trend in EEI is in agreement with a decreasing trend of −0.26 ± 0.06 W/m2dec in the Ocean Heat Content Time Derivative (OHCTD) after 2000.
The OHCTD over the period 1960–2015 shows three different regimes, with low OHCTD prior to 1982, rising OHCTD from 1982 to 2000, and decreasing OHCTD since 2000. These OHCTD periods correspond to periods of slow/rapid/slow surface temperature rise [16,17], to periods of strong La Ninas/El Ninos/La Ninas [14,18], and to periods of increasing/decreasing/increasing aerosol loading [19,20]. "

Figure 15. Purple curve: running yearly mean EEI. Green line: linear fit to running yearly mean EEI. Blue curve: 10 year running mean OHCTD. Orange curve: piecewise linear fit to OHCTD.

20
Arctic sea ice / Re: The Fast Transition
« on: January 04, 2020, 07:38:32 AM »
Greater role for Atlantic inflows on sea-ice loss in the Eurasian Basin of the Arctic Ocean
Arctic sea-ice loss is a leading indicator of climate change and can be attributed, in large part, to atmospheric forcing. Here, we show that recent ice reductions, weakening of the halocline, and shoaling of the intermediate-depth Atlantic Water layer in the eastern Eurasian Basin have increased winter ventilation in the ocean interior, making this region structurally similar to that of the western Eurasian Basin. The associated enhanced release of oceanic heat has reduced winter sea-ice formation at a rate now comparable to losses from atmospheric thermodynamic forcing, thus explaining the recent reduction in sea-ice cover in the eastern Eurasian Basin. This encroaching “atlantification” of the Eurasian Basin represents an essential step toward a new Arctic climate state, with a substantially greater role for Atlantic inflows.
...

"Decadal Changes of the Reflected Solar Radiation and the Earth Energy Imbalance" by Dewitte , Clerbaux and Cornelis.

Abstract: Decadal changes of the Reflected Solar Radiation (RSR) as measured by CERES from 2000 to 2018 are analysed. For both polar regions, changes of the clear-sky RSR correlate well with changes of the Sea Ice Extent. In the Arctic, sea ice is clearly melting, and as a result the earth is becoming darker under clear-sky conditions. However, the correlation between the global all-sky RSR and the polar clear-sky RSR changes is low. Moreover, the RSR and the Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) changes are negatively correlated, so they partly cancel each other. The increase of the OLR is higher then the decrease of the RSR. Also the incoming solar radiation is decreasing. As a result, over the 2000–2018 period the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) appears to have a downward trend of −0.16 ± 0.11 W/m2dec. The EEI trend agrees with a trend of the Ocean Heat Content Time Derivative of −0.26 ± 0.06 (1 σ) W/m2dec.

Over the 2000–2018 period the Arctic clear-sky RSR shows a decreasing trend of −0.13 W/m2dec.

Figure 8. Arctic clear-sky RSR compared to Arctic SIE. Purple curve, left scale: Clear-sky RSR contribution of zone from 60∘ N to 90∘ N. Green curve, right scale: Arctic SIE.


https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/6/663/htm#

21
Science / Re: Solar cycle
« on: December 25, 2019, 11:10:20 PM »
What!? No Maunder minimum?

22
... the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, which are currently largely dominated by special interest groups like the fossil fuel industry.  ...
ASLR

What's the evidence for your claim (bolded by me)?

23
AbruptSLR, you keep showing how AR5 is underestimating consequences of AGW. Is this because these results are new, and were not available when AR5 was prepared? Is there any other reason that the UN would sugarcoat things?

I think we must keep in mind that ASLR mainly writes about extreme right tail risks that are unlikely to occur, and are not part of the mainstream assessment of climate risk that we find in AR5.
Ken Feldman wrote in Reply #1903 on ASLR's contributions:

"Many of your posts take very speculative or extreme projections and imply that they're definitely going to occur.  I think readers of this forum should be told when you point out extreme right tail risks that the conditions for those events occurring haven't yet been met.

Also, you tend to completely ignore facts that make the extreme right tail risks unlikely to occur.  Case in point, renewables have been less expensive than coal for almost two years now.  Investments in new coal plants have plummeted and retirements of coal power plants have accelerated.  Coal use is projected to peak within a few years and then rapidly decrease afterwards.  Even thought that's been pointed out, you seem to think that we'll still be on the RCP 8.5 scenario when there is no other source of greenhouse gas emissions that can make up for the missing coal emissions."

And in Reply #2036 on why it is getting more unlikely that we will see disaster scenarios materialise as we are clearly off RCP 8.5 already:
"He ignores the fact that most of the highly speculative and sensationalist disaster scenarios he writes about are based on the RCP 8.5 emissions scenario which assumes that renewables will be more expensive than fossil fuels through the 21st century when if fact, renewables are now cheaper than coal."

To this, I'd like to ad that we now also see more aggressive climate policies implemented in leading countries. E.g. the EU halving GHG emissions by 2030 and achieving climate neutrality by 2050. And this is not just talk, it is already materialising in form of regulations and national policies, e.g. in Germany and Sweden and Norway etc.

24
The linked reference discusses how a late-summer cyclonic rain event accelerated ice surface melt and ice flow velocities in 2011, and concludes: "Given that the advection of warm, moist air masses and rainfall over Greenland is expected to become more frequent in the coming decades, our findings portend a previously unforeseen vulnerability of the Greenland ice sheet to climate change.

... We find that extreme surface runoff from melt and rainfall led to a widespread acceleration in ice flow that extended 140 km into the ice-sheet interior. We suggest that the late-season timing was critical in promoting rapid runoff across an extensive bare ice surface that overwhelmed a subglacial hydrological system in transition to a less-efficient winter mode. Reanalysis data reveal that similar cyclonic weather conditions prevailed across southern and western Greenland during this time, and we observe a corresponding ice-flow response at all land- and marine-terminating glaciers in these regions for which data are available. Given that the advection of warm, moist air masses and rainfall over Greenland is expected to become more frequent in the coming decades, our findings portend a previously unforeseen vulnerability of the Greenland ice sheet to climate change."

Greenland topography limits this risk, as most of the ice sheet is above 1000 meters altitude, meaning that almost all precipitation will be in frozen form. Except for a few very hot days in the summertime.
Same argument regarding Atmospheric Rivers, see Reply #2327.

25
Quote from: Human Habitat Index link=topic=2205.msg240991#msg240991
...However, we find that the current generation of climate models simulate negligible solar radiation trends over the last half‐century, suggesting that they have underestimated the cooling effect that aerosol particles have had on climate in recent decades. Despite this, climate models tend to reproduce surface air temperature over the time period in question reasonably well. This, in turn, suggests that the models are not sensitive enough to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, with important implications for their ability to simulate future climate.
Quote
Compensatary error - amazing.

The authors discuss alternative hypothesis at the end of the paper.
Among them that GCMs are unable to correctly model cloud feedback and the deep convection in the hydrological cycle.

As they say: "CMIP5 models do not adequately represent the climate impact of aerosol changes and that their biased surface temperature trends are thus most easily explained by a lack of aerosol cooling, which is in turn imperfectly compensated through a general underestimation of climate sensitivity."

Not good. GCMs are unreliable as forecasting tools
You could also say: GIGO

26
The rest / Re: Russia, Russia, Russia
« on: December 18, 2019, 09:31:17 AM »
As we have discussed Browder at some length in this thread, it is interesting to see how Der Spiegel blows the fake story that Browder invented about Magnitsky.
Der Spiegel is one of Germanys leading newspapers and has the highest journalistic standards. Browder now screams to the high skies and tries to complain to the newspaper and also to higher bodies, to no avail:
"Der Spiegel, one of Germany’s major news media outlets, is refusing to be intimidated. In a lengthy piece dealing with the incident, it brushed off the investor’s complaints as having “no basis.” The weekly once again went through each and every detail of its original report, providing further evidence supporting its conclusions, including the transcripts of various documents it relied upon."

They call Browder a 'fraudster'.

https://www.rt.com/news/476138-spiegel-browder-magnitsky-inconsistencies-story/

27
Policy and solutions / Re: Greta Thunberg's Atlantic crossing
« on: December 15, 2019, 01:17:57 PM »
Watch the video. It is clear what she means. Unfortunate use of words maybe. Shit happens.

She obviously meant we sould corner them into a position where they have to make decisions not killing them.

Confirmed by your favourite Swede)

28
Hefaistos,
Can you clarify what you mean?
...
I agree about the urgency of climate policies to avoid the 'tipping points'. But I think that:
i. The capitalist market forces already strongly favouring renewables due to pure price competitiveness; and
ii. The kind of aggressive climate policies now implemented by the EU and some other OECD countries;

will be quite sufficient to avoid those tipping points in reasonable time, say 40 years. I think we already left the exponential growth of CO2, and that we are now in linear growth. In as little as 5-10 years I hypothesize that we will see flat CO2 growth.
...
and
...
I agree about 350 as a good goal.
I think we're getting out of CO2 growth pretty soon (5-10 years), and we will see a stable decline starting well before 2050.
In one post you indicate CO2 growth will be flat within 5-10 years.  I presume this means neither acceleration nor deceleration - if one year's increase is 1.0 ppm, the next year's increase is also 1.0 ppm.  (This is certainly an improvement on the current acceleration of CO2 growth.)

In the next post you indicate CO2 growth will end within 5-10 years.  I'm pretty sure this means we will have reached peak atmospheric CO2 concentrations.   (This would be good news indeed.)
...

All this is a bit speculative, but I do see some positive things happening. If we take Sweden as an example, our GHG emissions have been declining for 15 years already. Last year we had a 1.8% decline, in spite of strong economic growth.
Not enough, but we will have a larger decline in coming years, due to new policies being implemented and a lot of investments in renewables.
A few days ago we got really positive news from the EU, with aggressive new climate policies aiming for CO2 neutrality 2050. This covers several big OECD countries. I'm confident we will see these policies implemented, and that all of EU will see a growing decline in GHG emissions.

Looking at the Keeling curve, there are some signs that we already have left the exponential growth phase and entered a linear growth phase. Yes, I think we will see peak CO2 in less than 10 years. Strong declines in OECD countries will be paired with growth in developing countries, but the market forces will prevail and favour the renewables and causing disinvestment in FF.

29
I just wanted to point out the more basic relationships in terms of heat storage. 'We' tend to focus a bit too much on what's going on in the atmosphere and 'forget' about the more important role that the Ocean plays in long-term climate change.

But that 99% state was probably always true it just does not prevent radical changes on the surface as we know from history.

You cannot use it to feel safe imho.

In post 2210 you state: I hypothesize that we only need say 30-40 years (1 investment cycles of e.g. power generation installations, or 2 investment cycles for e.g. car production) to get off enough of the fossil fuels to save the world without too much climate change drama.

This is rather abstract and it ignores the climate drama we already have.
---
Lets say it takes 40 years to hit the emission target. Fine. No drama except:
Arctic ice might very well die in that time frame (see When will the Arctic go ice free)
Maybe in the summer time. Which will be reversible. I strongly disagree that we will 'ever' get an equable climate.

Quote
...
There is only one mechanism for reversing the ice loss and the damage to the permafrost.
 
We have to reduce CO2e to below the point that triggered those responses.
So below the value of 2003. Probably decades before that.

350 would not be a bad goal. (And since we need to modernize it due to our ever increasingly interesting mix of gasses lets say this is CO2e)

Anything beyond that triggered these responses that will move the world out of our comfort zone

...

I agree about 350 as a good goal.
I think we're getting out of CO2 growth pretty soon (5-10 years), and we will see a stable decline starting well before 2050.

30
'We' tend to focus a bit too much on what's going on in the atmosphere and 'forget' about the more important role that the Ocean plays in long-term climate change.

Hefaistos, I think many on this forum/thread have learned a lot from scientists like Jim Hansen. Have you seen his latest commentary? See:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2019/20191211_Fire.pdf

Do you think he 'forgets' about the more important role of the ocean? Or does he indicate mainstream climate science has maybe even under-estimated the role of the ocean, both in the longer and also the shorter term?

Lennart, thanks for referring that paper by Hansen. It's a long, personal rant, but an interesting read!
Hansen's model(s), that he has published in several papers since 2005, is in my opinion not accepted science. The latest paper is: "Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 C global warming could be dangerous" (open source)

He speculates that exponentially increasing ice losses primarily from the Antarctic will cause the AMOC/SMOC to shut down within a few decades, which will trigger more large-scale climate changes. But this is just a modelling excercise, based on incomplete theories, and totally insufficient data, especially from the ever important Southern Ocean. The ocean array data on AMOC show that it is strengthening, not weakening. We know very little about those very long term processes in the ocean. And we aren't yet able to adequately model deep convection in the tropics, where most of energy transfer takes place. Etc.etc., just to point out that we shouldn't get panic because of some computer simulations that is essentially GIGO.

Quote
Also see what he says there about the role of the market versus instruments like fee & dividend. Do you agree with him about the urgency of such policies? Or do you believe the market will solve this crisis in time all by itself? And two generations may well be too long to prevent a cascade of tipping points, so how can 'we' minimize this risk?

I agree about the urgency of climate policies to avoid the 'tipping points'. But I think that:
i. The capitalist market forces already strongly favouring renewables due to pure price competitiveness; and
ii. The kind of aggressive climate policies now implemented by the EU and some other OECD countries;

will be quite sufficient to avoid those tipping points in reasonable time, say 40 years. I think we already left the exponential growth of CO2, and that we are now in linear growth. In as little as 5-10 years I hypothesize that we will see flat CO2 growth.

On EU policies: Nearly every major aspect of the European economy is to be re-evaluated in light of the imperatives of the climate and ecological emergency, according to sweeping new plans set out by the European Commission.

"As well as bidding to lead the world on climate action, with a proposed target of net-zero carbon by 2050 and halving emissions by 2030, the EU will delve far more deeply into the root problems that contribute to carbon emissions and pollution."

One example is here in Sweden, where carbon emissions are in decline for several years now, and where climate policies are getting ever more aggressive. E.g. a ban on sale of new ICE cars from 2030.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/11/european-green-deal-will-change-economy-to-solve-climate-crisis-says-eu

31
There are also ocean beds that need to warm with the changing bottom ocean temps. Earth is not just ocean + air. Melting ice takes a lot of energy, providing a cooling effect. There's water in the atmosphere, upper atmosphere heat exchange etc.
To me warming the Earth is much more complex than you picture it. Maybe I misunderstand you.

I agree with your conclusion about inertia. If the ocean stratifies, there will be less ocean inertia and the atmosphere will warm faster.

Nanning, all what you say is of course correct!
I just wanted to point out the more basic relationships in terms of heat storage. 'We' tend to focus a bit too much on what's going on in the atmosphere and 'forget' about the more important role that the Ocean plays in long-term climate change.

32

And again, oceans store more than 99% of earth's thermal energy.

The first reference confirms that the oceans absorbs only 93% of the Earth's Energy Imbalance (not 99%);

What we're talking about here, is the ocean as a dynamic system for heat storage. As with all dynamic systems we have state variables and flow variables. The 93% of energy that the ocean absorbs, that you refer to  ASLR, is a FLOW variable.
What I was refering to is the STATE variable, how the total thermal energy on earth is distributed between atmosphere and ocean.
The specific heat capacity of ocean water is around 4000 J/kg/K
The specific heat capacity of air is around 1000 J/kg/K
The mass of the hydrosphere, i.e. mainly the ocean water is 1.4×1021 kg
The mass of the atmosphere is 5×1018 kg

Multiplying out we thus have a ratio of about 4000 to 1 in the state variable (heat capacity).
Conclusion: The ocean stores well above 99% of the 'total energy' on earth. This applies in a steady state situation where heat transfer between ocean and atmosphere are in balance. (I don't claim that we are in a steady state now.)
Or, we can conclude that the time taken to transfer heat in the atmosphere is extremely short compared to the time to transfer heat in the ocean.
Or, we can conclude that the ocean gives the climate system incredible inertia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrosphere
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

33
Nearly every major aspect of the European economy is to be re-evaluated in light of the imperatives of the climate and ecological emergency, according to sweeping new plans set out by the European Commission on Wednesday.

"As well as bidding to lead the world on climate action, with a proposed target of net-zero carbon by 2050 and halving emissions by 2030, the EU will delve far more deeply into the root problems that contribute to carbon emissions and pollution. For instance, in manufacturing: in previous decades, the EU was content to set targets for recycling rates; under the European Green Deal, regulators would set specific standards on the manufacturing of goods to create a circular economy and phase out unnecessary plastic and other waste before it is created."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/11/european-green-deal-will-change-economy-to-solve-climate-crisis-says-eu

Ursula van der Leyen:
"Our goal is to become the first climate-neutral continent by 2050, slowing down global heating and mitigating its effects. This is a task for our generation and the next, but change must begin right now – and we know we can do it."

34
And again, oceans store more than 99% of earth's thermal energy.

As they always do and still we see all these interesting and sometimes quick changes in the historical record so clearly that cannot be used to argue that future changes can not occur or occur rapidly.

How quick was that, at the quickest?

Given:
i) that renewables already are cheaper than coal for power generation, and soon will be cheaper than natural gas;
ii) that transportation will be based on battery powered vehicles with a ban on new FF cars already in place in 10 years in some countries, and say 20 years in most other OECD countries;
iii) that climate policy is getting ever more active;

I hypothesize that we only need say 30-40 years (1 investment cycles of e.g. power generation installations, or 2 investment cycles for e.g. car production) to get off enough of the fossil fuels to save the world without too much climate change drama.

The brutal forces of the capitalist market mechanism supplemented with more active climate policy incentives will be enough to solve the more burning climate issues.
We don't even need to assume direct CO2 capture/sequestration tech to arrive at such conclusion. I further suppose that this will be the mainstream view of the fortcoming IPCC report (AR6) in 2022.

35
"uncertainty is not our friend"

Indeed!!

I have a feeling that if his doctors told him "The circulation of blood to your brain may be failing rather quickly" then Hef would jump up and down with joy because the 'may' in the warning expressed some uncertainly ! :)

Here's the graph of those blood vessels attached )

From the same article: "Away from the region of watermass transformation, these southward flowing waters are deep, isolated from atmospheric ventilation, and thus store energy and chemical compounds for hundreds of years. This property of the ocean—storing anomalies at depth—gives the ocean a longer memory than the atmosphere, with the potential to influence climate variability on long timescales."

We know not much about what's hidden down there in that ocean memory of earth's historic climate. Changes to the AMOC both herald and drive climate shifts.
I feel good about the results of this research, that AMOC is not in decline, otoh it's been over its 30 year historical average for the last 5 years.
And again, oceans store more than 99% of earth's thermal energy.


36
The linked research provides more evidence that a slowing of the AMOC will lead to increased warming at high latitudes due to abrupt warming during the summer months.  This helps to confirm Hansen's ice-climate feedback projections:


However, the claim that the AMOC is slowing is disputed. Seems that the AMOC slowdown has reversed, and that it has incredibly large variability.
Measured and reported in paper "Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation: Observed Transport and Variability"
Eleanor Frajka-Williams, et al. 2019, pdf attached to this post.

"From first transbasin measurements retrieved at 26◦N by the RAPID array, a number of startling results have emerged (summarized in Srokosz and Bryden, 2015): that the AMOC ranged from 4 to 35 Sv over a single year, had a seasonal cycle with amplitude over 5 Sv, and that the dip in 2009/10 of 30% exceeded the range of interannual variability found in climate models. The international efforts to measure the AMOC in the Atlantic at a range of latitudes have delivered new understanding of AMOC variability, its structure and meridional coherence. In situ mooring arrays form the primary measurements of the large-scale meridional circulation,[/b]."

AMOC has been above its historic mean for the last 5 years or so, see attached graph.

Figure caption: FIGURE 6 | A time series of AMOC transport (MOCρ ) at the OVIDE section (eastern subpolar gyre: Portugal to Cape Farewell) for 1993–2017, constructed from altimetry and hydrography. The gray line is from altimetry combined with a time-mean of Argo velocities; the green curve is low-pass filtered using a 2-year running mean. The black curve is from altimetry and Argo. Red circles are estimates from OVIDE hydrography with associated errors given by the red lines. The mean of the gray curve is given by the black dashed line (Updated from Mercier et al., 2015).

37
Policy and solutions / Re: Greta Thunberg's Atlantic crossing
« on: December 09, 2019, 05:35:10 AM »
Nice interview with Greta in Dagens Nyheter, the leading Swedish daily newspaper.
On her preparations for giving a speech at COP, there will be no more 'emotional stuff':

"Have you written the speech yet?

– No. But I know approximately what it is going to be like.

What is your line of reasoning?

– Apparently I am quite bad at giving speeches. Because what people bring up from the speech in New York is me sitting and saying: ”How dare you? You have stolen my dreams and my childhood” and that is not what I want to communicate. I want to communicate facts. And if you leave out what the rest of the speech is all about, if you only take out three sentences, then that makes me sound like an idiot.

What are you going to say?

– I don’t give speeches so that I in some magical way will talk world leaders into realizing that I am right and they are wrong. My long term goal is that the gap between what science is saying and what is actually being done is made so clear that it can no longer be ignored. So now I am not going to give them any emotional stuff. Now they will get real content. "

https://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/greta-thunberg-in-exclusive-interview-the-hope-lies-in-the-fact-that-people-dont-know-what-is-going-on/

38

...
The study found that one million years ago in the ocean surrounding Antarctica, the summer ocean temperature was on average 5°C (±1.2°C) warmer than today.

"Using the data, the ice sheet simulation indicates a complete collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet with additional melting of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet resulting in sustained global sea-level rise of centimetre to decimetres per decade."
...
We show that the Paris Agreement target temperature of 1.5°C is sufficient to drive runaway retreat of the WAIS.

Sorry, I don't follow this argument. The Southern Ocean is supposed to warm with 5 °C within a GST rise of only 1.5 °C. How many millenia is that supposed to take?

There is nothing simple with the Southern Ocean. Some parts show depth temperature inversion, some not.
"Southern Ocean mixed‐layer depth from Argo float profiles" by Dong et al.
"This common thermally stabilized stratification makes up 76% of the total Argo profiles in our study region. The rest of the profiles experience temperature inversions //24%// because of the influence of salinity. Temperature inversions are common within and near the boundaries of the ACC, and they are frequently found in the Argo profiles (Figure 1b and 1c). Depending on the location and time of year, temperature inversions show different vertical structures. "
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006JC004051

The Southern Ocean is cooling, not warming. Surface temperatures cool, and there is some warming on deeper levels. How much is unclear.

39
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: December 03, 2019, 12:19:35 PM »
Wolfpack,
thanks for your posts on Mauna Loa CO2.
I have a question on how you make the polynomials in the latest figures
In Reply #279 on October CO2, you have fitted what seems to be a second degree polynomial.
In the November graph you have a polynomial of a higher degree, obviously.
How many months of data go into the polynomials?
Which data do you use, daily, weekly or monthly?
Is there any particular reason that you changed the degree of the polynomial?

40
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: December 01, 2019, 10:43:41 PM »
Why do you think it might safe us?

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

41
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: December 01, 2019, 01:55:41 PM »

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

But all this was not really my point. I bring this up, because 'alarmists' tend to forget about the incredible energy inertia we have with the Ocean.

42
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: December 01, 2019, 01:15:43 PM »
My reply came in #330:
No. It's primarily the sun that heats the ocean, not the atmosphere.
Everything else is pretty much secondary to the direct insolation effect.

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

43
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: December 01, 2019, 12:10:50 PM »
Quote from: Hefaistos
The atmospere is not heating the oceans

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

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

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

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

44
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: December 01, 2019, 12:03:07 PM »
Indeed tor
We can expect both deeper droughts  combined with more extreme rainfall events when it does rain.

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

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

45
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: December 01, 2019, 11:53:38 AM »
The atmospere is not heating the oceans. Climate processes are OTOH dominated by the oceans.


and

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

is kind of contradictory, don't you think?
 

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

Quote
There is nothing "ultra rapid" about these processes

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

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

46
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: December 01, 2019, 11:41:18 AM »
I don't know why Hefaistos keeps posting sea surface temperature of the southern ocean for ocean heat content .
They are not the same thing.


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

47
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: December 01, 2019, 01:14:09 AM »
...
The climate will need just a moment to respond to this massive and shockingly sudden insult before it stabilizes. Before that can fully happen we must first stop emitting warming gases.

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

...
Sam

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/role-ocean-tempering-global-warming

48
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: November 30, 2019, 08:26:03 AM »




Thanks Kiwi, really good graph.
I looked up the paper where it is to be found
http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/homogenization2015/background.html

There is also a nice presentation by the author:
https://youtu.be/xjIb3G5PFTw?t=46

49
Walking the walk / Re: Terra Preta / Biochar - Theory and Practice
« on: November 29, 2019, 02:40:08 PM »
"This dark material: the black alchemy that can arrest carbon emissions "

"While scientific research has established the benefits of biochar in theory, deploying it in a way that makes a real difference is a challenge. One of its most obvious uses is in tree planting, which is poised to become a major activity in the UK over the coming years.
...
 Dr Saran Sohi leads the UK Biochar Research Centre in Edinburgh which is injecting biochar made from forestry residue such as bark around tree roots as part of a tree-planting project near Loch Ness. “It really does seem to offer some quite marked benefits in terms of tree health, early stage growth and nutrient management,” says Sohi. “Turning this particular part of the tree into biochar allows the nutrients to be returned to the forest sites in the process of replanting.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/29/this-dark-material-the-black-alchemy-that-can-arrest-carbon-emissions

50
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: November 29, 2019, 02:18:50 PM »
I am reminded (from many years ago) of a politician in the UK saying "the rate of acceleration of the increase in unemployment has declined" - from which he justified seeing "the green shoots of growth".

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

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

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

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10