This month’s open thread for climate science topics. Not sure about you, but we are still reading the details of the IPCC report. We are watching the unfolding hurricane season with trepidation, with particular concern related to the impacts of compound events (and not just those associated with climate), and anticipating another low, if not record, Arctic sea ice minimum.
PS. At some point this month we will be switching Internet service providers, so don’t be surprised if there are some oddities as we switch everything over.
UAH TLT has been posted for August with a global anomaly of +0.17ºC, this down a little on the July’s anomaly of +0.20ºC, with August the 3rd highest monthly anomaly of the year-to-date. 2021 UAH TLT monthly anomalies for 2021-so-far sit in the range -0.05ºC to +0.20ºC.
August 2021 was the 7th warmest August on the UAH record, behind August 1998 (+0.39ºC), 2016 (+0.32ºC), 2020 (+0.30ºC), 2017 (+0.29ºC), 2019 (+0.26ºC) & 2010 (+0.21ºC).
August 2021 sits =78th on the highest all-month monthly anomaly list.
The first two-thirds of 2021 comes in as 9th warmest Jan-Aug on the UAH record and the coolest Jan-Jul since 2015. For 2021 to snatch 2015’s 7th place in the full-year rankings would require UAH’s Sept-Dec 2021 to average +0.23ºC or more.
Of course the last few months of 2015 were boosted by the strong 2015-16 El Niño while July-August of 2021 have reached a similar global warmth despite the continuing La Niña conditions. The ENSO forecasts suggest a strengthening of the La Niña through the end of 2021 but this would likely impact 2022 global temperatures rather than 2021.
…….. Jan-Aug Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.45ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 1st
1998 .. +0.44ºC … … … +0.35ºC … … … 3rd
2020 .. +0.37ºC … … … +0.36ºC … … … 2nd
2010 .. +0.27ºC … … … +0.19ºC … … … 6th
2019 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.30ºC … … … 4th
2017 .. +0.22ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 5th
2002 .. +0.11ºC … … … +0.08ºC … … … 9th
2018 .. +0.10ºC … … … +0.09ºC … … … 8th
2021 .. +0.09ºC
2015 .. +0.09ºC … … … +0.14ºC … … … 7th
2007 .. +0.08ºC … … … +0.02ºC … … … 13th
2005 .. +0.07ºC … … … +0.06ºC … … … 10th
2014 .. +0.03ºC … … … +0.04ºC … … … 12th
A strengthened La Niña through the back-end of 2021 will presumably increase the chances of an energetic Atlantic hurricane season. It has already shown its mettle with ACE for the year to end-of-August reaching 43.7, the 6th highest ‘by-end-of-August’ value since 2000. And the NHC-NOAA shows September beginning with Storm Larry projected to reach major hurricane strength out in mid-Atlantic by Friday.
National Ignition Facility at LLNL makes progress in quest to achieve fusion:
https://www.llnl.gov/news/national-ignition-facility-experiment-puts-researchers-threshold-fusion-ignition
Genosse…
Did you ever learn about Fata Morgana?
It is an old moslem and arab tale, probably known through Averroes Ibn Rushd of the western Arabs in Cordoba, with his learnt roots from the late Univeristy of Alexandria, that burnt!”
But Averroes “& al were able to secure and to bring further a lot of that Gypsy and Greek wisdom from Alexandria via Cordoba onto the School of Bologna in Italia, and thus secured to the aftermath.
Morgane was. a wicked, evil , and dangerous witsch.
Who led naive and stupid men into temptation.
In then mornings in that arid landscape, where there were severe shortage ow water and everyone thrivintg for it,…..
…she fore-showet for them quite pure water just 100 steps out in the sandy deserts and they rushed out for it.
But when they came there, it was only dry sands………… But look, only 100 or 200 steps further,……. clean and pure water. anew……..
And thus it went on under the ever rising and burning sun in the morning hours… until it came to a pointn of no return.
Where they perished pitifully of thirst in those dry sands under the burnhing sun with no water at all,……
That is called a FATA MORGANA!
( Fata Morgana does mean the facts or the deeds of that fameous and cruel wicked witch Morgane, who lead naive and stupid men into temptation that way)
All this is to0 be known about and warned against according to those old moslems and learnt, experienced proper serious arab relatives to the fameous and unluckily vanished University of Alexandria, with all its quite timeless and valuable, Gypsy and Greek wisdoms.
Geoff Bacon @August UV comment,
You set out a few thoughts concerning Energy Imbalance, global SAT and long-term feedbacks which perhaps confusingly is rather a broad range of subject matter. If I may be so bold to suggest that the discussion be cut in half and address the Energy Imbalance and the long-termp effects seperately.
So concening the first part: Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) and global SAT.
EEI is measured at the top of the atmosphere and measures the rate of warming of the planet so a big EEI or an increasing IEE is not good news.
It is not easy to directly measure EEI but we do now have a useful approximation in Ocean Heat Content which today comprises the vast majority of EEI. There is today a rising rate of OHC thus a rising EEI. Fig 7 in the preceding OHC link suggests OHC was risng in 2015 at 0.7Wm^-2(ocean), so 8Zj/y into the oceans, perhaps 9.5Zj/y planet-wide, thus a de-wobbled 2015 IEE of ~0.6Wm^-2.
You (I think confusingly) state “GMST can be stable (not increasing or decreasing) with the Earth’s Energy Imbalance still heating the Earth.” I think I see the word “stable” being used here to mean different things to different people. The situation with an ‘unchanging GMST’ can exist with an EEI warming the planet in that the imbalance could be warming deep oceans or melting ice and tundra (all long-term processes) while not impacting GMST. But such warming/melting has limits so the GMST has not reached ‘equilibrium’ and when the ocean warming/ice melting ends, there must/will be a renewed change in that ‘unchanging GM SAT’ to reach that ‘equilibrium’.
Yet it would be the ‘unchanging GMST’ which is the driving force behind the ocean warming/ice melting. And this driving may be a one-way process as there is hysteresis such that a GMST returning to previous levels will not in many cases lead to a reversal of the ocean warming/ice melting caused by earlier higher GMST. Indeed that earlier higher GMST may have resulted in a ‘tipping point’ being passed and thus the ocean warming/ice melting continuing despite the return to earlier lower GSTM. (And that “return to earlier lower GSTM” may occur for a short while driven by a ‘tipping point’, this most likely concerning unstabalised polar ice caps melting down.)
A Serious Flaw In The New RC,
When the reply and nesting function was introduced, I thought “finally, people can have serious discussions, or stupid trolling using up endless column inches, or long winded lover’s spats, contained within a space, making it much more convenient for everyone to do their own thing.”
Now, on the previous UV, Geoff Beacon (not a troll or long winded) asked a real question, and Cedric Knight and I (neither of us being a troll or long winded) tried to answer. Gosh, I thought, a chance to clear up an honest misconception on physics, or maybe I’m missing something, but we can do this without making other people scroll endlessly, and typing in comment numbers, and so on.
But, as they say, it’s never easy. There is now no reply function within the sub-thread, so it becomes necessary to make a comment on this new UV, in the form of ATTENTION GEOFF, hope that he sees it among unrelated comments, and then refer back to the original, just like in the old format.
I’m hoping this can get fixed easily. So far, the new format’s little bugs have been little, compared to the great improvement overall. If all other posts can be kept open for comment, why not UV and FR?
That is not new, not a flaw (in the sense it’s always been that way), zebra. Has always been thus when a new month was posted.
I hope it’s OK to continue this from August., where Zebra said
“There’s no reasonable mechanism for unidirectional energy transfer and/or change of form to occur within the system for any length of time after we observe the stabilization of GMST”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/08/unforced-variations-aug-2021/comment-page-2/#comment-795367
If ‘the stabilization of GMST’ means simply that GMST is staying constant then this is simply wrong.
Scientists and policymakers are hoping that by about 2060, GMST can be ‘stabilized’ at about 15C. The average temperature of the ocean is 3.9C.
By various routes there will be a heat transfer to the oceans.
At ‘stabilization’ GMST will be higher than 3.9C so oceans will keep heating, ice will keep melting and permafrost will keep thawing.
How serious are these continuing processes-at-stabilization?
Geoff, the average temperature of the ocean might be 3.9C, but that refers to the whole ocean, not just the surface, so you have to account for ocean currents. That’s not straightforward. Much of the deep mixing and heat exchange with the surface air occurs at polar and subpolar latitudes in just a few areas, such as the Labrador Current area in the NH. So, a lot will depend on how much the AOMC and Antarctic currents are upset before “stabilization.” With a lot of the heat exchange happening in the colder parts of the planet, the oceans won’t necessarily keep taking in a lot of extra heat, even if GMST is 15C.
I like your quotes, because the GMST isn’t truly stable even if we stop producing more CO2, since the system won’t be in equilibrium. There is a very long full response time for the polar ice sheets, probably millenia. Much of the ocean response will be more rapid as the near-surface layers adjust, but the currents will not be stable at least until the ice sheets (or what is left of them) have reached equilibrium with prevailing greenhouse gas levels. The same goes for whatever carbon-bearing permafrost might be exposed by the melting of the ice sheets. We have an indication that the NH production of additional CO2 and CH4 wasn’t exceptional during the warm Eemian period around 120k BP, because there wasn’t an exceptional spike in these gases preserved in the Antarctic ice cores, even as much of the Greenland Ice Sheet melted.
So, part of the answer seems to be that after we quit adding extra greenhouse gases, there will still be serious long-term sea level rise, accompanied by unstable ocean currents. This would also keep the climate unstable, along with GMST.
Geoff, you seem to be mixing up some basic concepts and numbers.
-The 3.9C value is for the entire ocean, but that includes the very cold deep waters below 200 meters. So your reasoning there is way off; remember the GMST used to be 14C, but the permafrost was frozen and the arctic was covered with ice, and 14 is still much bigger than 3.9.
-Most (90%) of the increase in system energy caused by humans is already in the oceans, and has raised the temperature of the upper layer. That increase is already incorporated into the GMST. Now, if we manage to stop increased energy gain due to greenhouse gases, some of that existing excess may move out of the oceans… you seem to have that backwards.
So I do still think you may be confusing the idea of positive feedback with a transfer of energy within the system. The value of GMST reflects all the different processes going on, globally and locally.
For the permafrost to melt, energy has to come from somewhere. And you are suggesting that somehow, energy will be lost from somewhere without affecting the temperature of that source….. because if it does affect the temperature of the source, that will show up as GMST still not being stable.
Maybe someone can suggest such a mechanism?
I posted these questions on the sea level thread but got no response. Maybe I’ll have better luck here:
How can one claim sea level rise is driven by warming produced by CO2 emissions when that rise began at a time prior to 1880, when CO2 emissions were negligible and global temperatures were relatively stable? how can one claim sea level rise is driven by warming produced by CO2 emissions when the rate of rise has remained relatively stable from 1880 through the present, while both global land and sea temperatures have risen and fallen at varying rates during this same period? how can one reconcile the observations reported in Fasullo et al., acknowledging that sea level rise has actually decelerated during the satellite era, with the notion, claimed by the IPCC, that the rise has accelerated?
From Fasullo et al., “Is the detection of accelerated sea level rise imminent?” “Global mean sea level rise estimated from satellite altimetry provides a strong constraint on climate variability and change and is expected to accelerate as the rates of both ocean warming and cryospheric mass loss increase over time. In stark contrast to this expectation however, current altimeter products show the rate of sea level rise to have decreased from the first to second decades of the altimeter era.” ( https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31245 )
V: How can one claim sea level rise is driven by warming produced by CO2 emissions when that rise began at a time prior to 1880, when CO2 emissions were negligible and global temperatures were relatively stable?
BPL: You could do a correlation analysis. But alas, the math is beyond you.
As the hurricane season wears on, the public suffering crisis fatigue from compulsory use of the C-word on network news.
It may be time to air an unsolicited testimonial to climate modeling and computational meteorology that has emerged from a sport whose progress depends on both :
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/08/climate-models-and-anthropocene-age-of.html
Zebra lecturing Geoff: “ take a step back and get cause and effect clear […] you have to be clear that GMST [Global Mean Surface Temperature] is an effect (a metric, or proxy), not a cause. ”
Wasn’t that obvious when Geoff called GSMT:
Of course an important measure […] BUT the increases in ocean heat content, melted ice & thawed tundra are NOT directly linked to GMST [but to] Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI)” ?/ ?
Zebra: “ here’s no reasonable mechanism for unidirectional energy transfer and/or change of form to occur within the system for any length of time after we observe the stabilization of GMST.”
A zebra walks into a bar.
– “Hey, why the long face?” goes the bartender.
– “Arghh, somebody on the Internet got their definition wrong, Again!”
– “C’mon, relax. How about the usual, Martini on the rocks? ”
– “Whatever. stirred, not shaken”.
Zebra observes the glass: the ice is melting yet the drink remains freezingly cold
– “Barkeep, there’s a problem with my drink: there is no reasonable mechanism for melting of the ice if the temperature of the drink is stable”!
– Bartender rolls his eyes: “Sheesh, here we go, again”
If the GMST stabilizes, it will do it ABOVE the preindustrial steady state of the ocean-ice system – then you need your “unidirectional energy transfer” into the atmosphere to compensate for the heat removed form the atmosphere into the subsurface ocean until the new steady state is reached, and to compensate for energy used for the phase change of the melting ice and thawing permafrost. That’s why Geoff said:
“GMST can be stable (not increasing or decreasing) with the Earth’s Energy Imbalance still heating the Earth.
What’s “unreasonable” about that?
Zebra: “You may be confusing this with the idea of “tipping points” or positive feedbacks. .”
No, he is not confused, you are – Geoff said: “GMST can be STABLE (not increasing or decreasing) with the Earth’s Energy Imbalance still heating the Earth”. This sentence is not predicated on tipping points or positive feedbacks.
Yes, Geoff mentions feedbacks, but in a very different context – in discussing impact of short-lived greenhouse gasses – their impact (heating of the ocean, melting ice) may indirectly affect GMST long after these gases are gone, by triggering feedbacks, even though they no longer DIRECTLY affect GSMT via their IR absorption.
No one dares to comment further here.
Are they afraid of getting it also from my side?
The new Honest Government Ad dropped: Carbon Capture and Storage:
Ha ha so true. However the text is very light and hard to read. This is not Jim’s fault, and looks to be yet another problem with the new website format.
No Mr.Nigelj
They conspire against old and poor- sighted readers, discriminate them. Because they want quite much younger readers and users of the website.
@ Jim Galasyn
Once upon a time I had to spend a few hours at the Frankfurt Airport due to Lufthansa, and Al Gore had got the Nobel Price from Oslo just a few days earlier.
An found Frankfurter Allgemeine for reading.
There, a reader stated that taken all the CO2 that is to be captured and stored in its most compressed and dense form namely as CO2 dry ice. It will make up a volume larger than the Alps.
Such a large room does not exist underground!
What is even less understood is that E= PdV, where V is that very volume, and P is geolotgical pressure. A very large volumke is to pe pumped down and stored against geological pressure. So where are we supposed to get that energy E from?
The obvious moral is, rather avoid taking up and burning that fossile carbon at all. It is allready there down in the ground where it ought to be. And better look for possible alternatives for energy and electricity production. I believe in the green values and the photosynthesis and in hydroelectric power.
Wikipedia says that the total human greenhouse gas emissions is 52 billiion tonnes CO2 equivalent, of which about 72% is actually carbon dioxide. Dry ice is 1562 kg/m^3. From that I get about 23 km^3.
The area of the Alps is 200000 km^2. If you spread 23km^3 of dry ice evenly over the Alps it would be about 11cm high. That’s not going to be “a volume larger than the Alps”.
Remember that most of the carbon that was burnt to create that CO2 was extracted from the ground in the first place.
At least we can laugh our way to Armageddon! Those guys are fricking brilliant!
This is why you don’t pin your entire survival on a non-existent industry. (R&D does not = an industry.)
So Exxon is advertising capturing <0.3% of today's emissions…by 2040.
Just how big? Not very.
Listen up, IPCC.
https://twitter.com/GlobalEcoGuy/status/1433868049212481580?s=20
Thanks for the discussion above.
I also asked
“How serious are these continuing processes-at-stabilization?”
Sea level rise is obviously serious but what about …
1. The effects on sea-life?
2. Rapid intensification on storms?
3. Increased feedbacks?
4. Others?
Have any of these been assessed?
Dr. G. Beacon
Good morning, how are you?
By looking through your questions, I first thought of a fool who can ask more than 10 wise men (especially me,) can possibly answer. But I shall resign on that argument now.
Your most dubious is that of stabilization. When Panta rei,… should we try and stop that?
Answer: Read the history of Sisyphos first!
The effects on sea life may be the most important, at least to my opinion.
But as far as I can see it, industrial and chemical pollution together with the Armada of very large and rabid fisherboats is what ought to be brought an end to.. And there are promjising examjples of proper international good results in that respect, Whereas in other areas / waters, flat-sculled landcrab capitalism is still in charge. .
Rapid intensification of storms?
No! I do not believe that. It is hardly rapid. Only that TV is invented and the broad masses are told to take it politically and blame the class enemy for it.
Increased feedbacks?
No. That is ruled by Le Chateliers principle. The only news is that the broad masses never learnt about feedbacks before..
Others?
Yes, a lot!
Thanks Carbomontanus,
The rapid intensification of storms is quick – as happened with Katrina and recently with Ida.
Doesn’t this process occur because heat is dragged up from sub-surface layers?
“Both Ida and Katrina received much of their strength from a rapid intensification cycle while moving over over the Gulf Loop Current, an eddy of very warm and deep water in the Gulf.”
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/09/04/hurricane-ida-strongest-ever-recorded-comparison-katrina/5713442001/
How can Le Chatilier’s Principle on chemical equilibrium be used here?
“Have any of these been assessed?”
Yes.
Where, when, who by?
Do these assessments need updating now, after a year-of-the-megafires,
Even though WG1 AR6 has just recently been available, this year’s happenings came after the cut off for AR6.
It is unclear to me which graph / figure at the NSIDC site you link you leads you to “anticipate” a RECORD low this year.
The “Arctic Sea Ice Extent” graph in the top-right corner of the webpage, along with Figures 1a and 3, indicate a “low” (below the “inter-decile range”) minimum value in mid-September. is a reasonable conclusion to reach, but a “record” low … Sorry, I just can’t see it.
Am I missing something “obvious” on that NSIDC webpage ?
Mark BLR,
I don’t think you are missing anything on NSIDC’s Arctic Sea Ice News but, given this year’s Arctic melt season has been since mid-July looking like being well short of any record for meltiness, perhaps the wording “if not a record” in the thread header should be read as saying rather clumsily “even if not a record” (which was my interpretation).
Mind, the 2021 Arctic melt season could still be a different sort of record-breaker (although it is now getting very close to not being), this record-breaking for being the least melty melt season for over a decade, The JAXA daily record has 2021-to-date as potentially the least melty minimum since 2009 (12 years ago) while the previous ‘record-holder’ 1996 became the least melty since 1988 (8 years before).
And while that might appear ridiculously pedantic to some, there is reason for examining the progress of decline in Arctic summer ice and such lack-of-meltiness is a factor in plotting out that decline.
Dr. Detlev Helmig was fired from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2020. He had been investigating the relationship between the local fracking boom and local pollution. Any comments from the scientists here?