Global warming discussion IV

[stanfr]

Yet the Washington Post takes a quote from Roy Spencer ???

Despite his penchant for hyperbolic statements RS articles are well sourced and explained. The breakdown of seasonal boundaries is obvious to many given the weather extremes.

Here is what RS said:

“It’s the very picture of weather weirding due to climate change. Something that would absolutely not happen in a normal world,” he wrote. “Something, that if it continues, basically threatens seasonal integrity.”

“Like many extreme events resulting from human-forced climate change — this co-mingling of upper level airs from one Hemisphere with another is pretty fracking strange,” Scribbler explained

These are blatantly false, and uninformed, statements. They do great damage to those of us who take AGW seriously. If he had taken the time to research a topic which apparently he was clueless about, he would have known that
cross-equatorial flow in upper-air streamline analysis is a relatively common occurrence. Let's not give the denialists an easy ball to swing out of the park.

 

[Trakar]

Here is what RS said:

“It’s the very picture of weather weirding due to climate change. Something that would absolutely not happen in a normal world,” he wrote. “Something, that if it continues, basically threatens seasonal integrity.”

“Like many extreme events resulting from human-forced climate change — this co-mingling of upper level airs from one Hemisphere with another is pretty fracking strange,” Scribbler explained

These are blatantly false, and uninformed, statements...

No, they are subjective hyperbole of a type that frequently occurs in personal discussions about a passionately shared perspective. Not appropriate as an official, qualified and nuanced professional opinion in academia, but it's a blog post, not a treatise submitted for editorial or peer review.

 

[macdoc]

I have one AGW proponent on another forum who keeps belittling the "crisis aspect" by claiming this was all foretold by the 1990 IPCC projections.

I could not find any IPCC projections that got us over 1C before 2016.

Anyway - he implies that because it was projected ....it's all "under control" ...the powers that be have a handle on this......which I think is far from reality.

Uncharted territory more like ......that cold spot in the Atlantic plus the hyper warm Arctic is an ongoing monster weather generator plaguing the UK.
Charting temps are one thing .....passive, bland.
Charting outcomes of the extremes quite another ....real damage....huge economic consequences for some regions.

It's like someone musing about the steady drop in barometric pressure - ignoring the cyclone behind it.

I AM glad to see more attribution from climate scientists and more agressive ...we were right ...attitude.

This cannot be allowed to settle into some hohum another record ....mindspace.

This is still one of the most effective ads

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVwEdeOyi54 6 years on.

 

[macdoc]

Some of the numbers on Greenland melt are astonishing....trillion tons of ice gone....are we in overload here with dire stats emerging.

 

[Trakar]

Presumably this has been seen and noted...

"Evidence for climate change in the satellite cloud record"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature18273.html

Clouds substantially affect Earth’s energy budget by reflecting solar radiation back to space and by restricting emission of thermal radiation to space1. They are perhaps the largest uncertainty in our understanding of climate change, owing to disagreement among climate models and observational datasets over what cloud changes have occurred during recent decades and will occur in response to global warming2, 3. This is because observational systems originally designed for monitoring weather have lacked sufficient stability to detect cloud changes reliably over decades unless they have been corrected to remove artefacts4, 5. Here we show that several independent, empirically corrected satellite records exhibit large-scale patterns of cloud change between the 1980s and the 2000s that are similar to those produced by model simulations of climate with recent historical external radiative forcing. Observed and simulated cloud change patterns are consistent with poleward retreat of mid-latitude storm tracks, expansion of subtropical dry zones, and increasing height of the highest cloud tops at all latitudes. The primary drivers of these cloud changes appear to be increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and a recovery from volcanic radiative cooling. These results indicate that the cloud changes most consistently predicted by global climate models are currently occurring in nature.

(Full access to paper available at: http://www.nature.com/articles/natu...i5A=&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com )

An interesting last paragraph from this letter:

The expansion of subtropical dry zones results in less reflection of solar radiation back into space. As the cloud tops rise, their greenhouse effect becomes stronger. Both of these cloud changes have a warming effect on climate. Our results suggest that radiative forcing by a combination of anthropogenic greenhouse gases and volcanic aerosol has produced observed cloud changes during the past several decades that exert positive feedbacks on the climate system. We expect that increasing greenhouse gases will cause the cloud trends to continue in the future unless offset by unpredictable large volcanic eruptions,

companion reference:
"Empirical Removal of Artifacts from the ISCCP and PATMOS-x Satellite Cloud Records"
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JTECH-D-14-00058.1

 

[macdoc]

Saw that...certainly fits with the desertification of S Europe and expansion of the climate zones toward the poles.

Have not seen much on the climate sensitivity issue lately. Deniers seem to be in scarcer supply ...of course there are always a breeding population of republicans..

 

[macdoc]

Even the lowest plants are doing us in

Algae are melting away the Greenland ice sheet
'Black and Bloom' project explores how microorganisms help to determine the pace of Arctic melting.

Alexandra Witze
15 July 2016

Jason Edwards/NGC
Algae that live on snow and ice produce a kaleidoscope of colours.
Researchers are fanning out across the Greenland ice sheet this month to explore a crucial, but overlooked, influence on its future: red, green and brown-coloured algal blooms. These darken the snow and ice, causing it to absorb more sunlight and melt faster.

The £3-million (US$4-million) Black and Bloom project aims to measure how algae are changing how much sunlight Greenland’s ice sheet bounces back into space. “We want to get a handle on just how much of the darkness is due to microbes and how much to other physical factors”, such as soot or mineral dust, says Martyn Tranter, a biogeochemist at the University of Bristol, UK, and the project’s principal investigator.

http://www.nature.com/news/algae-are-melting-away-the-greenland-ice-sheet-1.20265

 

[macdoc]

Trakar ...a poster in another forum is claiming the collective we ...climate scientists...have a firm handle on what will unfold over the next decades.

He claims we will not get into 1.5-2C before 2050 or so and is sorting of pattinghis readers on the head and saying "not to worry, we know what's coming"...

I do not think we have any sort of the kind of confidence he claims ....this alone contradicts his claim.

quote]The rate at which the earth's temperature has been rising eased slightly in the past decade, but temperature is still increasing; calling the slowdown a “pause” is false.
New calculations by the author indicate that if the world continues to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, global warming will rise to two degrees Celsius by 2036, crossing a threshold that will harm human civilization.
To avoid the threshold, nations will have to keep carbon dioxide levels below 405 parts per million.[/quote]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/

but of course he could be relying on undeveloped technologies for his prognostication

http://www.skepticalscience.com/experts-assess-feasibility-neg-emissions.html

My position is we DON'T have a handle on this they way he portrays.....we don't even know climate sensitivity as yet.....
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2016/reconciling-estimates-of-climate-sensitivity/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/10/climate-response-estimates-from-lewis-curry/

And from what I have seen in casual reading ...evidence seems to support the higher values of TCR over the last while.

Thoughts???

 

[Trakar]

Saw that...certainly fits with the desertification of S Europe and expansion of the climate zones toward the poles.

Have not seen much on the climate sensitivity issue lately. Deniers seem to be in scarcer supply ...of course there are always a breeding population of republicans..

Hopefully cleaning up the lead in the drinking water in this nation will gradually reduce the population of conservatives in our nation, but with climate change, and the associated climb in poverty and disease,...it's a losing battle.

 

[Trakar]

Trakar ...a poster in another forum is claiming the collective we ...climate scientists...have a firm handle on what will unfold over the next decades.

He claims we will not get into 1.5-2C before 2050 or so and is sorting of pattinghis readers on the head and saying "not to worry, we know what's coming"...

I do not think we have any sort of the kind of confidence he claims ....this alone contradicts his claim...

In my consideration, you have a better handle on this material and the underlying science, than he appears to. That said, his statements are largely in accord with the 20+ year old reports and mainstream science understandings he is using as references. What he doesn't seem to understand is that the evidence and the science understandings have grown and evolved over the last 20+ years and his understandings are as dated as the sources he is referencing.

 

[macdoc]

Yeah ....I really did not want to bring him up to speed so was dismissive just as he was dismissive of the reports that the level of warming was not expected even taking El Nino into consideration.

I don't care except some others accepted his "it's okay IPCC has it covered".
BTW - when is the next report?

The good news is the amazing drop in coal use and growth in renewables - especially solar 2.99 cents per kw hour unsubsidized .....my worry is that its too late to avoid a significant new equilibrium that will certainly alter coastlines and biomes big time.

 

[Pixel42]

June was yet another record breaking month.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201606

Warmer to much-warmer-than-average conditions dominated across much of the globe's surface, resulting in the highest temperature departure for June since global temperature records began in 1880. This was also the 14th consecutive month the monthly global temperature record has been broken—the longest such streak in NOAA's 137 years of record keeping. The June 2016 combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces was 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average, besting the previous record set in 2015 by 0.02°C (0.04°F).

Six record warm monthly global temperatures during the first half of 2016 resulted in the highest global land and ocean average temperature for January–June at 1.05°C (1.89°F) above the 20th century average, besting the previous record set in 2015 by 0.20°C (0.36°F).

 

[Trakar]

Yeah ....I really did not want to bring him up to speed so was dismissive just as he was dismissive of the reports that the level of warming was not expected even taking El Nino into consideration.

I don't care except some others accepted his "it's okay IPCC has it covered".
BTW - when is the next report?

The good news is the amazing drop in coal use and growth in renewables - especially solar 2.99 cents per kw hour unsubsidized .....my worry is that its too late to avoid a significant new equilibrium that will certainly alter coastlines and biomes big time.

I believe there is a special report due out in 2018, but I'm not sure exactly when the AR6 sections are due out, I know the IPCC Sixth bureau has been elected, and I believe the working groups are supposed to release their reports 2020-21. But that's about as much as I can say with fair degree of confidence without looking it up.

 

[macdoc]

Earth keeps breaking heat records after El Nino's departure
2016 is so far 1.5 C warmer than pre-industrial times, limit set in Paris climate agreement
The Associated Press Posted: Jul 20, 2016 10:30 AM ET Last Updated: Jul 20, 2016 10:47 AM ET

7th monthly heat record in row smashed amid international climate meeting
36 per cent of coral reefs on death watch due to global warming, El Nino
India suffering under its worst drought in decades

Record surge in 2016 temperatures adds urgency to climate deal, say scientists
Could record hot years be due to natural variation? Very unlikely
2015 is now the hottest year on record — by far
External Links

NOAA news release: June marks 14 consecutive months of record heat for the globe
NASA news release: 2016 Climate Trends Continue to Break Records
(Note: CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external links.)
Earth's persistent record 2016 heat is now dancing near levels that a world agreement is trying to avoid, U.S. federal scientists said.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Tuesday that globally , June was the 14th straight record hot month, with Earth averaging 16.4 C (61.52 F). That is 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.62 degrees F) warmer than average and a shade above the record set in 2015. The last month Earth wasn't record hot was April 2015.

Scientists said records keep falling because of a combination of man-made global warming and the natural El Nino, a periodic warming of the Pacific that changes weather worldwide and heats the globe. But El Nino ended a couple months ago and the record heat — and record melting of Arctic sea ice — has stuck around.

What's really got federal scientists' attention is the record warm first half of 2016, which comes after two record hot years.

NOAA said the first half of 2016 was 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.36 degrees F) warmer than last year's record.

Paris Agreement limit hit

NASA chief climate scientist Gavin Schmidt said the first six months of the year were not just the warmest on record, by far, but 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 degrees F) warmer than the last two decades of the 19th century. But more importantly, he said 2016 so far is about 1.5 degrees Celsius ( 2.7 degrees) warmer than pre-industrial times.

That 1.5 degrees Celsius mark is key. A December 2015 international pact to control global warming set a goal of avoiding 1.5 degrees Celsius warming above pre-industrial levels. And the agreement says if Earth can't limit global warming to 1.5 degrees, at least it should limit it to 2 degrees (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.

Because El Nino is a factor — Schmidt figured about 40 per cent of the reason 2016 is hotter than 2015 is due to El Nino — 2017 will likely be a bit cooler than 2016. When scientists look at long-term warming since pre-industrial times they don't look at one year, but it's still a pretty noticeable threshold, Schmidt said.

"It's fair to say we are dancing with those lower targets," Schmidt said.

99% chance of record

Schmidt and NOAA climate scientist Jake Crouch said 2016 will likely be the hottest year on record for a third consecutive year. Schmidt said his statistical calculations put the chance of 2016 being record hot at 99 per cent.

Temperature records go back to 1880.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/heat-records-1.3686944

 

[Trakar]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/heat-records-1.3686944

And people wonder why I am so depressed and pessimistic and are confused when I state that I am actually about as optimistic as reality allows me to be.

 

[macdoc]

Yet there is a lot of progress on moving to carbon neutral ....we are just going to have to cope with a very altered climate regime.
We can....the rest of the biome?? not so sure.

 

[Trakar]

Yet there is a lot of progress on moving to carbon neutral ....we are just going to have to cope with a very altered climate regime.
We can....the rest of the biome?? not so sure.

We are not, yet, able to persist, even in relatively small numbers for more than a fairly brief period of time in the absence of an extensive and diverse supporting biome. In such a situation, some of us may last a bit longer than most of us, but that's a mere temporary reprieve, not a pardon.

 

[macdoc]

Have to argue that a bit... humans are pretty durable under minimal biomes such as deserts both cold and hot.
With energy available much is available ...it may not be a desirable existence but it is a viable one.

We are a long way from a 95% biome collapse.

 

[Trakar]

Have to argue that a bit... humans are pretty durable under minimal biomes such as deserts both cold and hot.
With energy available much is available ...it may not be a desirable existence but it is a viable one.

We are a long way from a 95% biome collapse.

In small groups over a span of not more than a limited geological time frame and this still depends upon outside-of-that environment trade and support.

In the Billions or even Millions, in a planetary desert and dead, acidic global oceans, lakes and rivers, for 10s of millennia or more? Whatever comes out of it won't resemble anything we would casually recognize as Human or Earthly.

The Permian extinction event was the last 95% event, but it was slow, relatively glacial in its onset (20-100k/years), and most of the extinctions occurred in the tail of the event. Adaptation and evolution were able to mitigate some of the damages over that time frame. We are currently warming 50-100x faster than the climate change which occurred at the Permian/Triassic boundary

 

[macdoc]

and this still depends upon outside-of-that environment trade and support.

Does it?? I'd argue not at all. Inuit did no trading nor did aboriginals living in the Australian extremes.

We have to anticipate some biome left ....even if a managed one.