Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[chubbs]

IPCC scientists have recently updated the state of the climate system through 2022. Its turning out to be an interesting decade. Chart below shows human induced warming, which is calculated from observed temperatures; and man-made forcing estimates on a per decade basis. After a period of relative stability from roughly 1990 to 2015, man-made climate forcing and global temperatures are increasing at a more rapid rate. The recent forcing increase is mainly due to air pollution control in China and other developing countries, as global CO2 emissions are leveling off.

Below is the closing para from the paper:

"This is a critical decade: warming rates are at their highest historical level and 1.5 °C global warming might be expected to be
reached or passed within the next 10 years. Yet this is also the decade that global greenhouse gas emissions could be expected
to peak and begin to substantially decline. The indicators of global climate change presented here show that the Earth’s energy
imbalance has increased to around 0.9 W m–2, averaged over the last 12 years. This means that there are large energy flows
into the climate system and rates of human induced warming will remain high as greenhouse gas emissions remain high.
Nevertheless, these warming rates do not need to be locked in as rapid emission decreases could halve warming rates over the
next 20 years (McKenna et al. 2021). Table 1 shows that although global greenhouse gas emissions are at a long term high,
they are beginning to stabilize, giving some hope that over time the indicators of global climate change presented here can
track a real-world change in direction"

https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2023-166/essd-2023-166.pdf

[Typhoon Tip]

5 hours ago, chubbs said:

IPCC scientists have recently updated the state of the climate system through 2022. Its turning out to be an interesting decade. Chart below shows human induced warming, which is calculated from observed temperatures; and man-made forcing estimates on a per decade basis. After a period of relative stability from roughly 1990 to 2015, man-made climate forcing and global temperatures are increasing at a more rapid rate. The recent forcing increase is mainly due to air pollution control in China and other developing countries, as global CO2 emissions are leveling off.

Below is the closing para from the paper:

"This is a critical decade: warming rates are at their highest historical level and 1.5 °C global warming might be expected to be
reached or passed within the next 10 years. Yet this is also the decade that global greenhouse gas emissions could be expected
to peak and begin to substantially decline. The indicators of global climate change presented here show that the Earth’s energy
imbalance has increased to around 0.9 W m–2, averaged over the last 12 years. This means that there are large energy flows
into the climate system and rates of human induced warming will remain high as greenhouse gas emissions remain high.
Nevertheless, these warming rates do not need to be locked in as rapid emission decreases could halve warming rates over the
next 20 years (McKenna et al. 2021). Table 1 shows that although global greenhouse gas emissions are at a long term high,
they are beginning to stabilize, giving some hope that over time the indicators of global climate change presented here can
track a real-world change in direction"

https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2023-166/essd-2023-166.pdf

That is really interesting ...

You know, this hearkens back to a discussion Liberty' and I had many tens of pages ago, in either this thread or some other one in this sub-forum ... something like two or three years ago at this point, pertaining to a kind of "whiplash effect" -

The cleaner air ( smoke discharge from increases in wild fire frequency, world over, notwithstanding ) isn't exactly the same, but perhaps there is some usefulness, as a loose analogy, to demonstrate the 'elasticity' of the Earth's systems.  Basically, for decades of warming the Earth's vast multiplex of compensating ( more or less ...) forces have been adapting to the warming world ... Suddenly, the ability to warm is removed:   those adaptive forces don't merely turn off... Then what? 

The whiplash effect is more of a slow moving repulse scenario/idea.  Sure.  But the aspect above, where the aerosols that cause all kinds of problems ..are reduce rather quickly, and now the sun shines stronger, ... greenhouse gasses are absorbing more LW rad, and that exposes the real potential for heating. In general it shows how supplanted factors get suddenly exposed and become more dominant.

It's sort of similar. 

By the way... the following type of article has been getting  published with increasing frequency around the world. https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/27/world/meteorologists-conspiracy-harassment-abuse-climate-intl/index.html

It's somewhere between rage inspiring and just flat out comical - perhaps "predictable" is apropos. 

[ChescoWx]

Beware those who change historical data in any experiment....we have rewritten 1930 and 1999 weather history

[bdgwx]

2 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Beware those who change historical data in any experiment....we have rewritten 1930 and 1999 weather history

As documented clearly on the GISS website GISTEMP did not begin making the corrections for the time-of-observation change bias, instrument package/shelter change bias, etc. until 1999. The graph on the left contains the biases while the one on the right is biased corrected. See Hansen et al. 1999. Also read Vose et al. 2003, Hubbard & Lin 2006, Menne & Williams 2009, Williams et al. 2012, and Hausfather et al. 2016. 

Beware those who don't acknowledge and make an attempt to correct for biases in historical data in any experiment...

 

[wkd]

As a person that doesn't have a scientific background in the complicated controversy concerning climate change I can only say that the ecological environment has been different than it was say 20 years ago. I am really hopeful that this is a nornal variation in climate, but until I see a reversal in the trend,  I won't be convinced that the use of CO2 producing energy is not a negative to our longtime future.

[Typhoon Tip]

This is an interesting paraphrase/study...  

https://phys.org/news/2023-05-emissions-pandemic-climate-reveals.html

It's in deference to an actual article written in "npj Climate and Atmospheric Science" , which is contained ...

The gist covers the effectiveness of 'greenhouse effect masking,' caused by in situ aerosols. The 2.x year reduction in global industrial emissions during the Pandemic, exposed a reality that without aerosol, the heating potential is greater. 

It quickly generates an argument in my mind that ( among others...) about the dangers of "shock reduction" ... You know, as a metaphor ( and 'think' we've brought this up in here many many songs ago, anyway - ) it reminds me of an alcoholic checking into a rehab. Detox can't happen all at once, because the shock can kill.

[TheClimateChanger]

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

This is an interesting paraphrase/study...  

https://phys.org/news/2023-05-emissions-pandemic-climate-reveals.html

It's in deference to an actual article written in "npj Climate and Atmospheric Science" , which is contained ...

The gist covers the effectiveness of 'greenhouse effect masking,' caused by in situ aerosols. The 2.x year reduction in global industrial emissions during the Pandemic, exposed a reality that without aerosol, the heating potential is greater. 

It quickly generates an argument in my mind that ( among others...) about the dangers of "shock reduction" ... You know, as a metaphor ( and 'think' we've brought this up in here many many songs ago, anyway - ) it reminds me of an alcoholic checking into a rehab. Detox can't happen all at once, because the shock can kill.

You have to wonder what effect all of this smoke is having from these supercharged, anthropogenic wildfires? Smoke has a massive cooling effect, absorbing, and to some extent, reflecting incoming solar radiation, while mostly transparent to outgoing longwave radiation. There are also a number of studies showing a significant indirect cooling impact through cloud brightening. The smoke particles and aerosols act as cloud condensation nuclei. Since they are more abundant, you wind up with clouds that contain more droplets and are, therefore, brighter or more reflective; however, the droplets are smaller and less apt to produce rainfall. There is also a direct drying effect by limiting convection through cooling of the near surface layer, while warming the air aloft. Both of these would impact surface convection, and through warming aloft, there's probably an impact even on elevated convection. 

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like the smoke has really ramped up globally since about the mid 2010s. We have even seen a number of significant pyroCb events which can loft the smoke and aerosols into the lower stratosphere where they can have a much longer residence time similar to volcanic emissions. You don't see this latter effect with ordinary industrial pollution.

[etudiant]

4 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

You have to wonder what effect all of this smoke is having from these supercharged, anthropogenic wildfires? Smoke has a massive cooling effect, absorbing, and to some extent, reflecting incoming solar radiation, while mostly transparent to outgoing longwave radiation. There are also a number of studies showing a significant indirect cooling impact through cloud brightening. The smoke particles and aerosols act as cloud condensation nuclei. Since they are more abundant, you wind up with clouds that contain more droplets and are, therefore, brighter or more reflective; however, the droplets are smaller and less apt to produce rainfall. There is also a direct drying effect by limiting convection through cooling of the near surface layer, while warming the air aloft. Both of these would impact surface convection, and through warming aloft, there's probably an impact even on elevated convection. 

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like the smoke has really ramped up globally since about the mid 2010s. We have even seen a number of significant pyroCb events which can loft the smoke and aerosols into the lower stratosphere where they can have a much longer residence time similar to volcanic emissions. You don't see this latter effect with ordinary industrial pollution.

Is the wildfire impact enough to off set the reductions in smoke from the various anti pollution initiatives?

It would help to get some real world data as to the reductions, measured at various particulate sizes, in atmospheric pollution.

Without some baselines, it is difficult to generate a robust thesis.

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[TheClimateChanger]

14 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

 

Looks like June will be another record breaker:

[Typhoon Tip]

The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration announced that the carbon dioxide level measured in May in Hawaii averaged 424 parts per million. That's 3 parts per million more than last year's May average and 51% higher than pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm. It is one of the largest annual May-to-May increases in carbon dioxide levels on record, behind only 2016 and 2019, which had jumps of 3.7 and 3.4 parts per million.

"To me as an atmospheric scientist, that trend is very concerning," said NOAA greenhouse gas monitoring group leader Arlyn Andrews. "Not only is CO₂ continuing to increase despite efforts to start reducing emissions, but it's increasing faster than it was 10 or 20 years ago."

 

Nothing's going to happen until the wealthy can't eat -

[rclab]

5 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration announced that the carbon dioxide level measured in May in Hawaii averaged 424 parts per million. That's 3 parts per million more than last year's May average and 51% higher than pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm. It is one of the largest annual May-to-May increases in carbon dioxide levels on record, behind only 2016 and 2019, which had jumps of 3.7 and 3.4 parts per million.

"To me as an atmospheric scientist, that trend is very concerning," said NOAA greenhouse gas monitoring group leader Arlyn Andrews. "Not only is CO₂ continuing to increase despite efforts to start reducing emissions, but it's increasing faster than it was 10 or 20 years ago."

 

Nothing's going to happen until the wealthy can't eat -

Good afternoon Tip. Remembering Soylent Green, I’m sure they’ll find a way. Stay well, as always ……

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[Typhoon Tip]

26 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

 

It echoes the 2021 heat bomb ... not coincidentally in my mind. 

I don't believe the two have desperate causality.  The background causing both may be of the same, in other words.  

[TheClimateChanger]

On 6/1/2023 at 7:24 PM, etudiant said:

Is the wildfire impact enough to off set the reductions in smoke from the various anti pollution initiatives?

It would help to get some real world data as to the reductions, measured at various particulate sizes, in atmospheric pollution.

Without some baselines, it is difficult to generate a robust thesis.

It’s like the earth is fighting back. Enhanced pollution controls briefly allowed the skies to clear. I remember thinking to myself about 10 years ago how cool it was to see blue skies during a summer heat wave. In the 90s and earlier, summer weather was always described as hazy, hot and humid, as if haze was some immutable characteristic of the atmosphere whenever the temperature climbed. Now, the full impact of the sun is being allowed to scorch the anthrogenically heated and dried groundcover and it’s just going up in flames. Air quality is now seemingly worse than ever. It used to be a northwest flow would clear out the haze and bring crisp blue skies - now it brings in filthy, suffocating air. I think May set a new record for aerosol optical depth, so it would seem to me that the new anthropogenic super fires are producing more aerosol than we’ve reduced through pollution controls.

[TheClimateChanger]

Been hearing of a heat wave in Puerto Rico, so figured I'd take a quick dive into the data.

Easily the hottest start to June on record in San Juan:

[TheClimateChanger]

Despite its location in the tropics and right next to the ocean, San Juan is warming at about 3.5F per century. The current normal annual temperature of 80.9F was never reached in any year prior to 1972. Last year, the mean temperature was 80.9F, which is considered to be "normal" today, but was 23rd warmest (out of 124 years) and warmer than any year prior to 1972.

[TheClimateChanger]

Average coldest monthly minimum low temperature in the warm season by decade, at Lansing, MI:

[TheClimateChanger]

Iowa meteorologist Chris Gloninger steps down after receiving threats - The Washington Post

[chubbs]

Big melt and runoff event forecast for Greenland the first week of July. The melt season started very slowly this year; but, has ramped in the past week as NAO+--->NAO-. Melt and run-off are forecast to reach record levels by the end of the week. We'll see.

https://www.climato.uliege.be/cms/c_5652668/fr/climato-greenland

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[SnoSki14]

7 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

 

I was dumb enough to read some of the responses. The stupidity is astounding on Twitter. 

[csnavywx]

We're not yet to the point where we need to worry with WBTs. You need T/Tds of 100/85 or 115/80 type temps to hit dangerous levels (>31C WBTs) and 115/90 or thereabouts for true, hard habitability limits. 100/85 seems reachable in a few select areas for brief times, but Tds of near 90 don't seem possible yet.

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[Typhoon Tip]

15 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

 

Humans are too much so constrained only by what they can directly observe. 

“…the biggest problem with humanity's acceptance ( though that's changing, finally - still not fast enough) was always the abstracted nature of climate change.  It simply doesn't directly appeal to the physical senses. If you tell a person to move off the train track because you happen to know a train is coming around the bend very soon, the person doesn't react to move off the track. No. They first hesitate to observe the approaching locomotive - then, they might move depending upon the result of confirmation. However, obviously if they are warned to move off the track while the train is clearly visible and is audibly unmistakable, they don't wait to gather in their senses in the matter they move f- off with certain haste.  Humanity is like that with climate change.  We're in this ominous period of looking around and listening, trying observe a phenomenon that only until quite recently ... was utterly unknowable beyond climate statisticians and advanced predictive modeling ..etc.

[Bhs1975]

We're not yet to the point where we need to worry with WBTs. You need T/Tds of 100/85 or 115/80 type temps to hit dangerous levels (>31C WBTs) and 115/90 or thereabouts for true, hard habitability limits. 100/85 seems reachable in a few select areas for brief times, but Tds of near 90 don't seem possible yet.

Persian gulf.




.

[csnavywx]

4 hours ago, Bhs1975 said:

Persian gulf.




.

Yep, lived there for a while. Wouldn't wish that malaise on anyone and a few hours of exposure can kill you. 40 minutes of that nearly put me in heat exhaustion once. Most outdoor work is done at night as a result. And - essentially -- they are reliant on air conditioning at times. One of my favorite tells to see if it was safe to go out during the bad times of the year (Jul-Sep) was to look out my window and see if any locals were walking around in traditional garb. If not, I stayed put.

They're adapted for it -- so the shit won't really hit the fan on this angle until we start seeing these kinds of conditions spread beyond the usual spots.

[donsutherland1]

Record-setting heat and concurrent heatwaves in the U.S. Southwest, Europe, and China has incinerated climate change denial narratives. With the climate change denial movement's rotten anti-science belief system melting from the hot reality of blistering heatwaves that they can no longer deny, they are busy flooding social media with false narratives in a desperate but futile pursuit of salvation from he laws of physics. The below example illustrates how some are trying to use bits of fact taken wildly out of context to deceive readers:

Notice the focus on regional heatwaves. The heatwaves are no longer being denied. The intent is to compartmentalize the heatwaves as local phenomena. What's omitted--and it's a material omission--is the overall picture. Global temperatures are running at record highs through July 19. As a result, July 2023 is solidly on course to become the warmest July on record and likely warmest month on record on a global basis.

The ongoing suffering of people caught in the withering heatwaves means nothing to those desperately seeking to deny reality. Their deliberate efforts to mislead e.g., in this case through the combination of select facts and a material omission, are appalling. Those efforts reflect a perspective that the victims of the extreme heat are expendable in the larger quest to construct a false reality. In the end, that indifference reflects badly on those pushing the disinformation, even as their disinformation discredits their capacity to discuss topics of weather and climate.

 

[raindancewx]

I don't understand the point in using heat waves or cool snaps as a climate change argument either way. We had a severe cold snap in most of the West in June, and now we're seeing a severe heat wave. I say "severe" but in truth our highs and lows even in the greatest heat waves in the Summer are only actually 8-12 degrees above average for periods of 2-3 weeks. There are signs already that August will be a much wetter/cooler month, probably still warm, but nothing like July. So the Summer isn't even going to finish too warm for the West really.

Using an exceptional two-three week period as an example of the devastation of climate change is idiotic. Most people know that over a longer period, 3 months, 6 months, a year, the temperatures are still only slightly warmer than before. As long as that is true, climate change is an annoyance and will continue to be so for most people. Nothing more, nothing less. It's more akin to a bicycle running down the train tracks than a locomotive. If you truly had existential threat permanently in the Southeast or Southwest you wouldn't see 70% of US population in the areas that are hottest, FL, SC, TN, GA, NC, AZ, TX, for the past few decades.

Climate change is the science of averages, so playing the heat wave game cuts both ways. If we're playing the average game, shouldn't we be more shocked at how warm the East has been? Last I checked, we got too much water in the cold season, and now the heat is burning it off essentially for the West. Are we really pretending a Summer that's running -1F net for AZ half way through is the worst thing ever?