Quantifying underestimates of long-term upper-ocean warming

[Csnavywx]

The five-year moving average for CO2e (now a better measure since aerosols have probably stopped climbing) is a whopping 2.8 ppm/yr, which no doubt will start exerting significant influence if kept up for just a few more years.

[JimD]

...........

I have considered Chinese aerosol reductions to be the impetus of the climate shifts we are seeing in the northern hemisphere since 2011.  However, the effect on the ITCZ and the AMOC with regard to northern hemisphere vs. southern hemisphere aerosol loading is terribly understudied.  Also the effect of point source aerosol loading in east pacific vs. west pacific causing a shift in the pacific surface winds.   This effect on the PDO is unknown, however, I am 100% certain that, if all anthropogenic aerosol emissions were stopped today, within 2 weeks we would experience a .5C jump in surface temperatures and there would be complete agricultural collapse as precipitation belts and heat-wave zones shift.

We are going there only gradually, but when we do, and we will, it will not be pretty.

Interesting.

Thus, in essence, we are talking about what amounts to a global geoengineering effort?  Do we dare stop it?  Do we dare continue it?

If one goes back and reviews all the extensive posts by me and others in the topics related to agriculture production, population levels and related issues we get to the same general point I think.  But with  largely a different set of data.

I have argued for a long time that the data indicates that global agriculture production is going to eventually fall short of demand.  That rapidly rising population, rapidly worsening metrics being driven by climate change, and the deterioration of farm land due to industrial farming practices will all combine to reach a collapse point.  I have argued that the data indicate we cross that Rubicon sometime around mid-century at the latest.

If what you say is correct a reduction in aerosols would bring that forward in time.  So damned if we do and damned if we don't?

The hardest part of trying to put all of what we talk about here into a package is the utter complexity inherent in all the 'moving parts'.  Every time we gain some greater understanding of a significant factor and how it interrelates to the whole ... the picture gets worse. 

And I am criticized as being a pessimist and for advocating against delay and BAU.

[AbruptSLR]

The hardest part of trying to put all of what we talk about here into a package is the utter complexity inherent in all the 'moving parts'.  Every time we gain some greater understanding of a significant factor and how it interrelates to the whole ... the picture gets worse. 

To add to the complexity of your analysis of all the 'moving parts', remember to factor in the consideration that once the wheels start to come off of the bus after 2050, this will give a coalition of relatively strong countries a clear opportunity to use geoengineering to buy at least a few more decades of time.  Furthermore, realize that the projected rapid reduction in primarily Asian anthropogenic aerosols in the next few decades gives the US government a perfect opportunity to calibrate the ACME climate model that the DOE (tied into nuclear bomb research and protocols), so that the USA will have state-of-the-art ability to project the implications of solar radiation management, SRM, and negative emissions technology, NET.

This moving picture can make prognosticating about the correctness and/or timing of any actions (whether pitchforks and torches or carbon fees & dividend plans) to improve our situation rather hazardous, so you should develop a thick skin for any criticism thrown your way.

[jai mitchell]

Anthropogenic aerosols:  Do we dare stop it?  Do we dare continue it?

We will stop it one way or another

do we dare continue it?

If we must, then it is already too late.

[Tom_Mazanec]

Recently, the U.K. Met Office announced a revision to the Hadley Center historical analysis of sea surface temperatures (SST), suggesting that the oceans have warmed about 0.1 degree Celsius more than previously thought. The need for revision arises from the long-recognized problem that in the past sea surface temperatures were measured using a variety of error-prone methods such as using open buckets, lamb’s wool–wrapped thermometers, and canvas bags. It was not until the 1990s that oceanographers developed a network of consistent and reliable measurement buoys.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/scientists-have-been-underestimating-the-pace-of-climate-change/