Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

SCIENCE DISCUSSION ONLY

Geology, Geophysics, Oceanography, Meteorology etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#981  Postby OlivierK » Oct 07, 2019 2:06 am

Yep, it keeps getting hotter (which is no surprise given a warming trend).

It's a poorly written article, though. It fails to provide a link to the source, it says that last month (September 2019) was "slightly warmer (0.02) than September" - when it clearly means "than September 2016", and states that the temperature was 0.57C warmer than the historical average, without specifying what period that average used as the base line is. It's not any of the most commonly used baselines like 20th century average or pre-industrial, which is why it would be nice to have a link to the source to see what they used.
Last edited by OlivierK on Oct 07, 2019 2:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 9673
Age: 54
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#982  Postby Macdoc » Oct 07, 2019 2:12 am

good summary of geo-engineering possibilities.....

Climate change means geoengineering under pressure to keep our CO2 budgets under control

By Malcolm Sutton
Posted about 4 hours ago
Image


good summary https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/201 ... 2/11563584
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 72
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#983  Postby Macdoc » Nov 16, 2019 7:58 am

I recall when an Arctic dipole was news...now seems the norm.

Stalled weather patterns will get bigger due to climate change
Relationship between jet stream, atmospheric blocking events
Date:
November 13, 2019
Source:
Rice University
Summary:
Climate change will increase the size of stalled high-pressure systems that can cause heat waves, droughts and other extreme weather, according to a new study.

Climate change will increase the size of stalled high-pressure weather systems called "blocking events" that have already produced some of the 21st century's deadliest heat waves, according to a Rice University study.


more
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 075107.htm

Cold waves too as the systems slow down movement across the continents and the circumpolar jet stream wavers all over the place letting very cold incursions south like last weeks in the North Eastern Canada and the US. Fine mess we've made :roll:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 72
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#984  Postby Macdoc » Nov 25, 2019 2:34 am

Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 72
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#985  Postby Macdoc » Dec 01, 2019 10:57 pm

Not a bad choice ..

Former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney to serve as UN special envoy on climate


Carney drew international acclaim during his 5 years as Canada's top central banker

Bank of England governor Mark Carney, who previously served as Canada's top central banker, will be taking on a new role as the United Nations' special envoy on climate action and climate finance.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres made the announcement while speaking to reporters in Madrid on Sunday, adding the move will take effect next year.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/un-clima ... -1.5380092
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 72
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#986  Postby Macdoc » Dec 27, 2019 2:14 am

Known unknown ??

The power of earthworm poop and how it could influence climate change

'They could have as much of an impact as, let's say, wildfire,' according to expert

David Burke · CBC News · Posted: Dec 26, 2019 6:00 AM AT | Last Updated: 10 hours ago


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-sco ... -1.5370724
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 72
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#987  Postby Macdoc » Jan 03, 2020 3:09 am

Gavin says

Image

http://www.realclimate.org

It ain't gonna stay under 1.2 by 2040
It ain't even going to stay under by 2030

Iffy even by 2025 barring a volcanic outbreak. :coffee:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 72
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#988  Postby OlivierK » Jan 03, 2020 8:27 pm

No fucking shit.

We're at about 1.1C above pre-industrial temps (actually a bit more), and warming is approximately 0.2C/decade (actually a tiny bit less), so...

1.2C of trend warming (eg fairly ENSO-neutral years) would be expected around 2025
1.3C would be expected around 2030
1.4C would be expected around 2035
1.5C would be expected around 2040

All of those thresholds will be broken earlier in El Nino years, and that will be balanced by some La Nina years below those levels. (For example, during El Nino periods, we've already broken 1.2C of warming.)

None of this is a surprise, and I'd be surprised that you're surprised if we hadn't been around this fucking stupid hamster wheel so many times before.

Here's a chart of trend temperature. Over the last few decades, it's close to linear.

Image

Take some time to work out for yourself when that line goes through certain levels, then shut the fuck up with your "It'll go through 1.2C before 2040!!!!1!11!!" carry-on, because literally everyone who is adequately informed on the subject (and who is also numerate) already knows that. 2019 will be over 1.2C above pre-industrial temperatures once the totals are in, for starters, and it won't be the first year over that level.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 9673
Age: 54
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#989  Postby Animavore » Jan 12, 2020 10:06 am

There’s an old saying that “the proof is in the pudding,” meaning that you can only truly gauge the quality of something once it’s been put to a test. Such is the case with climate models: mathematical computer simulations of the various factors that interact to affect Earth’s climate, such as our atmosphere, ocean, ice, land surface and the Sun.

For decades, people have legitimately wondered how well climate models perform in predicting future climate conditions. Based on solid physics and the best understanding of the Earth system available, they skillfully reproduce observed data. Nevertheless, they have a wide response to increasing carbon dioxide levels, and many uncertainties remain in the details. The hallmark of good science, however, is the ability to make testable predictions, and climate models have been making predictions since the 1970s. How reliable have they been?

Now a new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth’s future global average surface temperatures over the past half-century answers that question: most of the models have been quite accurate.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/stud ... ons-right/
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44186
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#990  Postby Fallible » Jan 12, 2020 2:31 pm

Its “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”, ffs...
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51545
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#991  Postby newolder » Jan 12, 2020 2:40 pm

Unless it's what Fermat shouted to his mistress about the work that wouldn't fit in the margin? :think:
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7306
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#992  Postby felltoearth » Jan 12, 2020 4:44 pm

Fallible wrote:Its “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”, ffs...

That saying always makes me think of this fantastic story by Twain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pudd'nhead_Wilson
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 13623
Age: 52

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#993  Postby Macdoc » Jan 12, 2020 4:53 pm

My apologies that was supposed to be 1.5 above not 1.2 ....Australia all ready there.

2019 was Australia's hottest year on record – 1.5C above average temperature
Bureau of Meteorology data shows average temperature record across the country beat previous high of 2013

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... emperature

Met for the first time anticipates a global year above 1.5 C in its 5 year forecast.

Global warming could temporarily hit 1.5C above pre-industrial levels for the first time between now and 2023, according to a long-term forecast by the Met Office.

Meteorologists said there was a 10% chance of a year in which the average temperature rise exceeds 1.5C, which is the lowest of the two Paris agreement targets set for the end of the century.


it's NOT going be 2040 when it crosses the 1.5 threshold in a non El Nino year globally.

One of the major issues is if methane release in the northern continents and ocean verges has now charted its own course.

Levels of a powerful greenhouse gas jumped again last year, continuing a surge in the past few years that researchers still cannot fully explain.

Atmospheric concentrations of methane climbed by 10.77 parts per billion in 2018, the second highest annual increase in the past two decades, according to provisional data released recently by US agency NOAA.

Methane is a shorter-lived but much more powerful greenhouse than carbon dioxide. The amount finding its way from human and natural sources, which can include everything from oil and gas wells to wetlands, has been rising since 2007. The rate has accelerated in the past four years.

Researchers warned earlier this year that if methane levels keep increasing at current rates then the Paris climate deal’s goals – of limiting global warming to 2°C and pursuing efforts to keep below 1.5°C – would be very difficult to meet.

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... z6Apqkpg6C


a known unknown but makes rose coloured projections of relying on 30 year trends rather moot.

The 1.5 was of course an electric prod that was never realistic....at this point neither is 2C 80 years out barring some serious CO2 removal.

The instrumentation of the changes in the Arctic are sorely lacking and the rate of change astonishing

Global Warming Is Pushing Arctic Toward ‘Unprecedented State,’ Research Shows
Rising temperatures are triggering cascading effects across the polar region, from diminishing ice to changes in when plants flower and where wildlife is found.

Global warming is transforming the Arctic, and the changes have rippled so widely that the entire biophysical system is shifting toward an "unprecedented state," an international team of researchers concludes in a new analysis of nearly 50 years of temperature readings and changes across the ecosystems.

Arctic forests are turning into bogs as permafrost melts beneath their roots. The icy surface that reflects the sun's radiation back into space is darkening and sea ice cover is declining. Warmth and moisture trapped by greenhouse gases are pumping up the water cycle, swelling rivers that carry more sediment and nutrients to the sea, which can change ocean chemistry and affect the coastal marine food chain. And those are just a few of the changes.

The researchers describe how warming in the Arctic, which is heating up 2.4 times faster than the Northern Hemisphere average, is triggering a cascade of changes in everything from when plants flower to where fish and other animal populations can be found.

Together, the changes documented in the study suggest the effects on the region are more profound than previously understood.



https://insideclimatenews.org/news/0804 ... logy-study

and

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 326/aafc1b

the world has a very foggy view of what is going on in the Arctic ....this will help

How anchoring a ship to an ice floe will help fight climate change
Mosaic, a year-long Arctic mission aims to answer fundamental questions about global warming


https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... n-ice-floe

Not sure it will help fight climate change but will provide better measurements as to the changes. :coffee:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 72
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#994  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 13, 2020 7:59 am

Macdoc wrote:Australia all ready there.


Is it significant that an entity defined by political convention has a statistical assessment attached? Yes, but only in a political sense, and then, only locally. It just doesn't matter that Australia has such a shitty record on climate activism. The burning season is not punishment for that.

This all has nothing to do with climate science, and doesn't belong in this thread, if it is strictly moderated. The rest of your post is full of speculation. We don't need speculation, we can look at the last few years of recorded data, but who takes that seriously, you know, besides scientists? When and how are the models of climate change established as correct?

Too many people don't think they ever are,
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29349
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#995  Postby OlivierK » Jan 13, 2020 10:22 am

Macdoc wrote:My apologies that was supposed to be 1.5 above not 1.2 ....Australia all ready there.

2019 was Australia's hottest year on record – 1.5C above average temperature
Bureau of Meteorology data shows average temperature record across the country beat previous high of 2013

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... emperature

Met for the first time anticipates a global year above 1.5 C in its 5 year forecast.

Global warming could temporarily hit 1.5C above pre-industrial levels for the first time between now and 2023, according to a long-term forecast by the Met Office.

Meteorologists said there was a 10% chance of a year in which the average temperature rise exceeds 1.5C, which is the lowest of the two Paris agreement targets set for the end of the century.


Again, no shit. We've had a Nino year at 1.4C above pre-industrial globally in 2016. Add 0.2C warming per decade, and we're quite likely to have a 1.5C year before 2023. This is NOT news, this is just knowing how to read a graph.

And in any year, some places will be above the global average, and some below, so that's not news either.

Macdoc wrote:it's NOT going be 2040 when it crosses the 1.5 threshold in a non El Nino year globally.

So when is the current very steady 0.2C/decade warming going to accelerate and what's the trigger going to be? I presume you're hanging your hat on methane, in which case you might want to quantify what you think the warming attributable to methane will be.

Macdoc wrote:One of the major issues is if methane release in the northern continents and ocean verges has now charted its own course.

Levels of a powerful greenhouse gas jumped again last year, continuing a surge in the past few years that researchers still cannot fully explain.

Atmospheric concentrations of methane climbed by 10.77 parts per billion in 2018, the second highest annual increase in the past two decades, according to provisional data released recently by US agency NOAA.

Methane is a shorter-lived but much more powerful greenhouse than carbon dioxide. The amount finding its way from human and natural sources, which can include everything from oil and gas wells to wetlands, has been rising since 2007. The rate has accelerated in the past four years.

Researchers warned earlier this year that if methane levels keep increasing at current rates then the Paris climate deal’s goals – of limiting global warming to 2°C and pursuing efforts to keep below 1.5°C – would be very difficult to meet.

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... z6Apqkpg6C


a known unknown but makes rose coloured projections of relying on 30 year trends rather moot.

The 1.5 was of course an electric prod that was never realistic....at this point neither is 2C 80 years out barring some serious CO2 removal.

Keeping things below 1.5C is already impossible with the warming locked in by current CO2 levels. I distrust any article that says that it's possible. To say it's "difficult" is to misunderstand where we're at.

Look, Macdoc, I know that you think that we'll cross 1.5C of trend warming before 2040. God knows you've posted it often enough. What I'd like to see is why you think that. We've got half a century of data that says we're warming the planet at a thoroughly dangerous pace of 2C/century, which puts us on track for 1.5C of warming by 2040. For trend warming to reach that level much sooner than that, the rate of warming has to increase substantially above 2C/century, and that substantial change has to happen very soon. The idea that in addition to our current disastrous levels of warming there's some large additional source of warming likely to act on the global climate very soon is a big claim that requires evidence that you seem resistant to providing, even as you repeat the claim over and over. Breathless New Scientist articles about how scientists "just don't know what methane will do" don't count.

The first IPCC report of 1990 predicted around 1.5C of warming by 2040, which was then 50 years away. 30 years of data later, those models are looking pretty close to bang on.

So what do you know that climate scientists don't? Given the frequency with which you post stuff containing basic innumeracy, I'm guessing: not much.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 9673
Age: 54
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#996  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 13, 2020 2:07 pm

Well, water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, at least up to a point. That's a feedback having nothing to do with fossil fuels. Eventually, with enough water vapor, cloud cover will increase, and with it, albedo. Nobody really wants to think about how warm it will be when there's enough water vapor to increase the albedo.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29349
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#997  Postby Macdoc » Jan 13, 2020 9:59 pm

You don't read what's posted ..you apparently don't even follow the science as it unfolds. You fall back on your claimed superiority in reading graphs and accept the projections without question which you've been doing ad nauseum.

Thawing permafrost could wake ‘sleeping giant’ of more greenhouse gases, potentially derailing global climate goals.


That is from the UN
https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and- ... des-arctic

The sleeping giant is already awake.

30 APRIL 2019
Permafrost collapse is accelerating carbon release
The sudden collapse of thawing soils in the Arctic might double the warming from greenhouse gases released from tundra, warn Merritt R. Turetsky and colleagues.


and this from the tabloid Nature,
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01313-4

This much is clear: the Arctic is warming fast, and frozen soils are starting to thaw, often for the first time in thousands of years. But how this happens is as murky as the mud that oozes from permafrost when ice melts.

As the temperature of the ground rises above freezing, microorganisms break down organic matter in the soil. Greenhouse gases — including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide — are released into the atmosphere, accelerating global warming. Soils in the permafrost region hold twice as much carbon as the atmosphere does — almost 1,600 billion tonnes1.

What fraction of that will decompose? Will it be released suddenly, or seep out slowly? We need to find out.

Current models of greenhouse-gas release and climate assume that permafrost thaws gradually from the surface downwards. Deeper layers of organic matter are exposed over decades or even centuries, and some models are beginning to track these slow changes.

But models are ignoring an even more troubling problem. Frozen soil doesn’t just lock up carbon — it physically holds the landscape together. Across the Arctic and Boreal regions, permafrost is collapsing suddenly as pockets of ice within it melt. Instead of a few centimetres of soil thawing each year, several metres of soil can become destabilized within days or weeks. The land can sink and be inundated by swelling lakes and wetlands.

Abrupt thawing of permafrost is dramatic to watch. Returning to field sites in Alaska, for example, we often find that lands that were forested a year ago are now covered with lakes2. Rivers that once ran clear are thick with sediment. Hillsides can liquefy, sometimes taking sensitive scientific equipment with them.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01313-4

Every week dozens of metal flasks arrive at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado, each one loaded with air from a distant corner of the world. Research chemist Ed Dlugokencky and his colleagues in the Global Monitoring Division catalog the canisters and then use a series of high-precision tools—a gas chromatograph, a flame ionization detector, sophisticated software—to measure how much carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane each flask contains.

These air samples—collected at observatories in Hawaii, Alaska, American Samoa, and Antarctica, and from tall towers, small aircraft, and volunteers on every continent—have been coming to Boulder for more than four decades, as part of one of the world’s longest-running greenhouse gas monitoring programs. The air in the flasks shows that the concentration of methane in the atmosphere had been steadily rising since 1983, before leveling off around 2000. “And then, boom, look at how it changes here,” Dlugokencky says, pointing at a graph on his computer screen. “This is really an abrupt change in the global methane budget, starting around 2007.”

The amount of methane in the atmosphere has been increasing ever since. And nobody really knows why. What’s more, no one saw it coming. Methane levels have been climbing more steeply than climate experts anticipated, to a degree “so unexpected that it was not considered in pathway models preparatory to the Paris Agreement,” as Dlugokencky and several coauthors noted in a recently published paper.

https://www.wired.com/story/atmospheric ... knows-why/

and you sit content that the models are predictive .....all models are wrong...some are useful....just recall that.

Methane has an outsize effect on warming even tho the duration is far shorter than carbon it's certainly within the 20-30 year time frame.

It's going up faster than anticipated, it's not known why, it's not in your cherished condensed reports.

The physical evidence of methane release in the north and ocean verges is overwhelming and the measurements in the north are lacking.....do you really think we have the least notion of fires. methane release and permafrost melting across Siberia.?

The world community is making an admirable effort in working to curb AGW in some regions but we still have upwardly mobile emerging nations countering or even exceeding the mitigation efforts of the first world
....the effort to curb carbon emissions is woefully lacking in the kind of war footing that some want.

Processes beyond human control are in play as the planet nears 1.5C above pre-industrial, that rise is not uniform and strongly magnified in the north where in the UN's own words "sleeping giant" risk lies.

The IPCC reports themselves are not the underlying science ...often the risks are downplayed.


There is a consistent pattern in the IPCC of presenting detailed, quantified (numerical) complex-modelling results, but then briefly noting more severe possibilities—such as feedbacks that the models do not account for—in a descriptive, non-quantified form. Sea levels, polar ice sheets and some carbon-cycle feedbacks are three examples. Because policymakers and the media are often drawn to headline numbers, this approach results in less attention being given to the most devastating, high-end, non-linear and difficult-to-quantify outcomes.

Twelve years ago, Oppenheimer and co-authors pointed out that consensus around numerical results can result in an understatement of the risks:
The emphasis on consensus in IPCC reports has put the spotlight on expected outcomes, which then become anchored via numerical estimates in the minds of policymakers…it is now equally important that policymakers understand the more extreme possibilities that consensus may exclude or downplay…given the anchoring that inevitably occurs around numerical values, the basis for quantitative uncertainty estimates provided must be broadened.


http://www.climatecodered.org/2019/04/e ... -un_8.html

There is hardly the need for polemics ....it's there in the science ...muted in the consensus. :coffee:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 72
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#998  Postby OlivierK » Jan 14, 2020 9:28 pm

The air in the flasks shows that the concentration of methane in the atmosphere had been steadily rising since 1983, before leveling off around 2000. “And then, boom, look at how it changes here,” Dlugokencky says, pointing at a graph on his computer screen. “This is really an abrupt change in the global methane budget, starting around 2007.”


Image
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 9673
Age: 54
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#999  Postby OlivierK » Jan 14, 2020 9:43 pm

Here's a lovely gusher in Vox you might like:
Every year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration releases an Arctic Report Card, detailing the state of the frozen world at the top of the globe.

And each year, its findings grow more dire. This year, the report revealed that the Arctic itself may now be contributing to climate change.

That’s because Arctic soil contains a lot of carbon, which would stay there if the planet wasn’t warming. As the frozen ground across the Arctic starts to thaw, it releases that carbon, which turns into a greenhouse gas. Some of that carbon gets taken up by plants growing in the summertime, but more and more of it is now escaping into the atmosphere.

“Thawing permafrost throughout the Arctic could be releasing an estimated 300-600 million tons of net carbon per year to the atmosphere,” the NOAA writes in the report. That’s roughly the equivalent of Japan’s annual emissions.

And those emissions are going to increase. “We think that should be two to three times bigger by the end of the century based on the kind of forecasting we’ve done,” Ted Schuur, an ecologist and the author of the report’s section on permafrost, said.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/energy ... -card-noaa

So tundra thaw emissions are at levels similar to Japan's (4% of total), and might double to triple by 2100. So those emissions can be offset by a 10% reduction in fossil fuel use over the next 80 years. I think we're capable of that, and I don't think that adding an extra 4% of current emissions over the next 80 years is quite the bombshell that you, or the clickbaiters at Vox, make it out to be.

But convince me. With numbers, not emotive bullshit. Whatever you claim, quantify it, and cite your sources. I'm all ears if you've got something with actual meat.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 9673
Age: 54
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post


PreviousNext

Return to Earth Sciences

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest