0.68

Clive Durdle · #1 by **Clive Durdle** » Jan 16, 2015 5:47 pm

I am correct in stating that is a third of 2 and that we are already on course for a major over shoot of 2?

scott1328 · #2 by **scott1328** » Jan 16, 2015 6:41 pm

Context?

TopCat · #3 by **TopCat** » Jan 16, 2015 7:07 pm

scott1328 wrote:Context?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30852588

home_ · #4 by **home_** » Jan 16, 2015 7:39 pm

Yeah, the way things are we're going well beyond 2°C.

OlivierK · #5 by **OlivierK** » Jan 16, 2015 9:30 pm

Clive Durdle wrote:I am correct in stating that is a third of 2 and that we are already on course for a major over shoot of 2?

TopCat wrote:
scott1328 wrote:Context?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30852588

We're at 0.68C over the 1951-1980 average. If temperature were rising strictly linearly, that would make the base year 1966, and the rise since then 0.0141C per year. To get to an anomaly of 2C by 2100, we require a linear rise of 0.0149C per year. We're a little over a third of the way from the base year to the target year.

So we're broadly on track, or a little behind, based on a linear rise. Assumptions of a linear rise may or may not be justified, but 0.68C by 2014 is not, in and of itself, evidence that we're heading for an overshoot of 2C.

A 2C rise in 134 years is troubling enough, whether or not we overshoot it.

Clive Durdle · #6 by **Clive Durdle** » Jan 16, 2015 10:31 pm

Why the repetition of linear? I thought there are loads of positive feedback effects, like melting of permafrost releasing methane, therefore exponential?

And are not changes in living systems exponential?

BWE · #7 by **BWE** » Jan 17, 2015 12:39 am

feedback is feedback. Differential functions respond to feedback. The linearity is a line but not a straight line. perturbations in a system with an attractor often lead to a new normal.

OlivierK · #8 by **OlivierK** » Jan 17, 2015 6:03 am

Clive Durdle wrote:Why the repetition of linear?

Because I'm making the basis of my calculation explicit.

Clive Durdle wrote:I thought there are loads of positive feedback effects, like melting of permafrost releasing methane, therefore exponential?

And are not changes in living systems exponential?

As I said, assumptions of a linear rise may not be justified, but even if there are feedbacks, you need to quantify them. Exponential feedbacks could add 0.1C or less or an extra 2C or more; exponential doesn't mean "huge", especially over what is in climate terms a very short timescale of 85 years. We're on track for 2C by 2100. We may overshoot if there are significant feedbacks before then. Either scenario is not good in terms of impacts, and it's clear that the warming is primarily anthropogenic.

I have no beef with climate science, but you asked:

Clive Durdle wrote:I am correct in stating that is a third of 2 and that we are already on course for a major over shoot of 2?

and the answer is that no, you're not particularly correct that we're on course for a major overshoot of 2C by 2100. It might happen, but 0.68C by 2014 isn't evidence that we will overshoot, but evidence that the 2C prediction is ballpark correct.

Clive Durdle · #9 by **Clive Durdle** » Jan 17, 2015 3:40 pm

no, you're not particularly correct that we're on course for a major overshoot of 2C by 2100

On the current emissions trajectory, the world will attain warming of 4 or 5C by 2100, which climate scientists say would be catastrophic.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -noaa-nasa

Sorry? Would you justify why you disagree with NASA etc? And what does "not particularly correct" mean?

My understanding of exponential change is that 4 or 5 C are looking like minimal changes and we might be seeing the beginning of Venusian type scenarios.

Scot Dutchy · **#10** by **Scot Dutchy** » Jan 17, 2015 3:44 pm

Clive Durdle wrote:
On the current emissions trajectory, the world will attain warming of 4 or 5C by 2100, which climate scientists say would be catastrophic.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -noaa-nasa

I wont be around then. :whistle:

Clive Durdle · **#11** by **Clive Durdle** » Jan 17, 2015 3:49 pm

Neither will I, (actually I am hearing that sort of comment quite often) but it puzzles me. Do we not all have responsibilities towards our brothers, and that includes the future and ecosystems?

DavidMcC · **#12** by **DavidMcC** » Jan 17, 2015 3:51 pm

Clive Durdle wrote:I am correct in stating that is a third of 2 and that we are already on course for a major over shoot of 2?

So, you think that 2/3 =/= 0.666...? (in the decimal system).

EDIT: Are you suggesting that the decimal system has developed a fault? :lol:

How is that possible?

Scot Dutchy · **#13** by **Scot Dutchy** » Jan 17, 2015 3:52 pm

Clive Durdle wrote:Neither will I, (actually I am hearing that sort of comment quite often) but it puzzles me. Do we not all have responsibilities towards our brothers, and that includes the future and ecosystems?

Do we. Why?

Nobody has done in the past, why change. I could not care a fuck about mankind. If will kill ourselves off well and good. Are we so special? What an illusion.

DavidMcC · **#14** by **DavidMcC** » Jan 17, 2015 3:56 pm

Does anyone know of a good service engineer, who can fix the decimal system? :dopey:

EDIT: Never mind the earth, it's arithmetic that Clive is claiming is wrong.

OlivierK · **#15** by **OlivierK** » Jan 17, 2015 9:31 pm

DavidMcC wrote:Does anyone know of a good service engineer, who can fix the decimal system?

EDIT: Never mind the earth, it's arithmetic that Clive is claiming is wrong.

We're not talking mathematics, we're talking temperature. Given that average global temperature measurement can not be done with absolute precision, the observed rise of 0.68C is close enough to a third of 2C for all practical purposes, and indeed Clive's statement that we've already had a third of the predicted 2C rise is true in the sense that 0.68 > 0.666...

I'm as pedantic as the next fellow, probably more, and I have a degree in pure mathematics, but it's clear to me (a) what Clive meant, and (b) that your pedantry here is as pointless as any I can recall in quite some time.

OlivierK · **#16** by **OlivierK** » Jan 17, 2015 9:43 pm

Clive Durdle wrote:
no, you're not particularly correct that we're on course for a major overshoot of 2C by 2100

On the current emissions trajectory, the world will attain warming of 4 or 5C by 2100, which climate scientists say would be catastrophic.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -noaa-nasa

Sorry? Would you justify why you disagree with NASA etc? And what does "not particularly correct" mean?

My understanding of exponential change is that 4 or 5 C are looking like minimal changes and we might be seeing the beginning of Venusian type scenarios.

No, 4 or 5C are not "minimal changes" they're the results of the most pessimistic models that assume continuing strong growth in carbon emissions. Here's a graph from NASA showing predictions from the various scenarios modelled:

Do you think that your claim that "4 or 5 C are looking like minimal changes" or my claim that 2C is ballpark likely is better supported by that graph?

josh-j · **#17** by **josh-j** » Feb 08, 2016 8:16 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:
Clive Durdle wrote:Neither will I, (actually I am hearing that sort of comment quite often) but it puzzles me. Do we not all have responsibilities towards our brothers, and that includes the future and ecosystems?

Do we. Why?

Nobody has done in the past, why change. I could not care a fuck about mankind. If will kill ourselves off well and good. Are we so special? What an illusion.

An interesting viewpoint and I kind of understand it I think. I wonder if I can explain why I disagree though

Climate change will kill off many many species of animal, plant, etc. Even if you don't care about humanity, which is capable of surviving climate change anyway though perhaps without civilisation, are you saying you have no care for any of nature? Personally I don't have children, and potentially may never have any. But I care strongly about the effects that climate change will have on nature over such a short timescale because our often declining ecosystems are really beautiful and we shouldn't be fucking the world up.

Now I suppose that may not be a very scientific argument, but unless you have some kind of value system science can never really advise on what is best to do.

On the subject of human extinction, what would you feel about climate change if it destroyed much of nature but didn't cause humans to go extinct. There would still be people around and they could still continue making bad choices about the environment, so climate change isn't necessarily something that would kill humanity then allow the world to florish again. What if there are no benefits after all that death?

I hope I don't sound too argumentative, I'm genuinely curious. The view that humanity is mostly bad for the planet is, I think, not all that uncommon. But if you do think that, you probably think that causing massive environmental damage is one of the reasons (talking about people in general here). To me it doesn't seem to make that much sense to be indifferent to the damage in the hope that humanity will destroy itself and leave the planet alone, as that is far from a foregone conclusion!

That indifference just seems very fatalistic. This is where I think I see where you're coming from as I know I have a tendancy to think like that sometimes, but I'd rather be positive and hope humanity can solve its problems rather than wait for painful suffering to end it all at some undefined moment in the future :smoke:

Apologies for the long reply to what may have just been a throwaway comment anyway :lol:

Scot Dutchy · **#18** by **Scot Dutchy** » Feb 09, 2016 3:46 pm

It was not a throw away comment and thanks for your reply Josh.

I have plenty of black days these days. My tinnitus is literally diving me nuts, even so I dont think very highly of humanity. I also dont think we have as any other animal the right to be here. It is all down to chance. The future in my opinion is also down to chance. We can try to alter some parameters but we dont have that much control. So what happens will happen

josh-j · **#19** by **josh-j** » Feb 10, 2016 7:51 pm

Sorry to hear that Scot.

I think at the end of the day whether its all down to chance or not, even if its likely there will be a "world is doomed" scenario, there is always a point in working towards a positive outcome if it can reduce the chances the bad outcome happening. So yes our control may be limited, especially on an individual level, but that doesn't mean it isn't good to keep trying. If you're a rational thinker with a moral sense you're one of the "good guys" of humanity so we're not all bad.

At the very least there are some people around who it is worth thinking highly of; that in itself is something to be positive about. Whats that quote, "without hope we have nothing"? Well hope is something you can hang on even the smallest slivers of chance.

With all the chance involved, its perfectly possible that the future is generally bright for humanity and the planet. Best to think we can make that more likely rather than assume the worst and stop there.

:cheers:

Now don't nobody accuse me of going off topic..!

Macdoc · **#20** by **Macdoc** » Feb 10, 2016 11:32 pm

We are further along that .68 and of course the Artic is 2-4 x that already and is driving the weather extremes.....9 named storms for UK since mid Nov and the winter that wasn't in most of North America.

2015 temps 1C above pre-industrial levels | SBS News
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/.../2016/... ... trial-le...
Jan 26, 2016 - Average global temperatures rose 1C above pre-industrial levels last year for ... The UN's weather and climate body says last year's global average temperature ... 26 Jan 2016 - 12:19 AM UPDATED 26 Jan 2016 - 12:24 AM ...

and 2016 expected to be even higher..

New 2016 year is expected to be the warmest year globally on record

Climate Change
18/12/2015

John Mcconnico/AP
The UK Met Office forecast indicates that the global average temperature in 2016 will be 1.14C above pre-industrial temperatures, with a 95% likelihood of being between 1.02C and 1.26C.

It shows how challenging it will be to meet the 1.5C goal, as the maximum temperature rise limit, agreed at COP21 in Paris.

Earlier this year the latest Copernicus data confirmed the 12-month period to end November 2015 as the warmest year on record. (Read more...)

http://www.copernicus.eu/news/new-2016- ... lly-record

Now this is a strong El Nino - El Nino releases heat stored in the oceans to the atmosphere.....but it's still heat in the box and there is no sign ....short of a major volcano outbreak....that things will change.

The heat goes on with CO2 topping 405 ppm.....last time it was there.....the oceans were 25 meters higher 15 million years ago.

Atmospheric CO2 Rocketed to 405.6 ppm Yesterday — A Level not Seen in 15 Million Years
As CO2 levels hit a new record global high of 405.66 ppm yesterday, I couldn’t help but think that HG Wells could not have imagined a more perilous mechanism for exploring the world’s past.

For when it comes to testing the range of new climate extremes, the present mass burning of fossil fuels is like stepping into a dark time machine. As all that carbon hits the airs and waters, the climate dial spins backward through hundreds of thousands and millions of years. Speeding us on toward the hothouse extinction eras of Earth’s deep history. Now, not only is it driving us on through extreme weather and temperature events not seen in 100, 1,000, 5,000 or even 10,000 years, it is also propelling us toward climate states that haven’t occurred on Earth for ages and ages.

*****

Ever since 1990, the world has experienced atmospheric CO2 levels in a range that hasn’t been seen since the Pliocene geological epoch. A period of time 2.6 – 5.3 million years ago hosting carbon dioxide levels ranging from 350 to 405 parts per million and global average temperatures that were 2-3 degrees Celsius hotter than 1880s levels. Overall, global sea levels towered about 80 feet higher than those humankind has grown accustomed to.

Annual mean CO2 Growth Rate

(Never has the Earth seen a CO2 build-up so rapid as the one produced by the human fossil fuel energy era. Rates of CO2 increase just keep ramping higher ever as the world’s climate sinks appear to be filling up. In this context, 2015 saw the swiftest pace of CO2 rise yet. Warming ocean surface waters can’t absorb as much CO2 as cooler oceans. And a record hot ocean during 2015 contributed to this extreme atmospheric CO2 accumulation. For the whole of the past year, CO2 built up in the atmosphere at a rate of 3.2 parts per million per annum. That’s well above the already raging pace of 2 parts per million average annual accumulation during the decade of the 2000s. Image source: NOAA ESRL.)

If global atmospheric CO2 levels had stabilized in this range, it’s likely that we would have eventually seen climates, temperatures, and sea levels that became more and more like those experienced 2-5 million years ago. A process that would have likely taken centuries to reach a final, far warmer climate state. One in which little to no ice remained upon Greenland or West Antarctica, and one hosting a substantial retreat of coastlines.

From 1990 through 2015, that was our climate context. The new world that was steadily settling into place. One that would eventually assert itself unless atmospheric CO2 levels were somehow drawn down to below 350 parts per million. It was kind of a big deal. Unfortunately, few experts really talked about it.

Exiting the Pliocene

But starting in 2015 and continuing on into 2016 the fossil fuel burning time machine again cranked us back toward hotter, more dangerous times. For during the past two years we began to exceed the maximum CO2 threshold of the Pliocene and we started to enter CO2 ranges that were more typical to those of the Middle Miocene climate epoch of 15 to 17 million years ago.

more

all in 300 years.... :doh:

http://robertscribbler.com/2016/02/05/c ... ion-years/

0.68

0.68

Re: 0.68

Re: 0.68

Re: 0.68

Re: 0.68

Re: 0.68

Re: 0.68

Re: 0.68

Re: 0.68

Re: 0.68

Re: 0.68

Re: 0.68

Re: 0.68

Re: 0.68

Re: 0.68

Re: 0.68

Re: 0.68

Re: 0.68

Re: 0.68

Re: 0.68

Who is online