Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Comment Search Results

Search for sea level rise

Comments matching the search sea level rise:

More than 100 comments found. Only the most recent 100 have been displayed.

At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?

Bob Loblaw at 23:43 PM on 23 April, 2024

Theo:

Taking a quick look at that paper, I see it refers to Angstrom's work in 1900 to support their "saturation" argument. This is already discussed in the Advanced tab of the detailed "Is the CO2 effect saturated?" post that this at-a-glance introduces. Short version - we've learned a few things since Angstrom wrote his paper in 1900.

Searching the recent paper for "saturation", it seems that they are using the typical fake skeptic approach that applies the Beer-Lambert law (which is exponential in nature, and a standard part of radiation transfer theory) to the atmosphere as a whole. That is - they look at whether or not IR radiation can make it through the atmosphere in a single pass.

To nobody's surprise, this turns out to not be the case - IR radiation in the bands absorbed by CO2 rarely makes it directly from the earth's surface to space. The energy in the photons needs to go through a series of absorption/re-emission cycles as it gradually works its way up through the atmosphere. When these processes are included in the calculations, it turns out that this particular flavour of the "saturation" argument falls flat on its face, and adding more CO2 (compared to our current levels) does indeed have an effect.

Executive Summary: the authors of that paper have no idea how the greenhouse effect works, as Eclectic has stated.

Read the full rebuttal here for more discussion - and the details of the Beer-Lambert Law are also discussed in this SkS blog post.

Elsevier is usually considered a reputable publisher, but they screwed up on this one. The rapid passage from "received" to "accepted" is indeed a red flag. The journal - Applications in Engineering Science - is clearly an off-topic journal for this paper. On the page I link to, it mentions "time to first decision" as 42 days, and "review time" of 94 days. If you click on "View all insights", you get to this page that also gives "Submission to acceptance" as 77 days, and "acceptance to publication" as five days. The seven days for this paper (from "received" to "accepted") is, shall we say, a bit shorter than usual?

It is worth noting that several other papers in the same issue also have very short times between "received" and "accepted". Of the four I looked at, none of them had any indication that the authors were asked to revise anything, which is rather unusual. Someone at that journal is in a rush.

(If you click on "What do these dates mean?", below the title/author section of the web page for the appear, it specifically states that "received" is the date of the original submission, and they will say "revised" if a more recent version is submitted - e.g. after review.)

How extreme was the Earth's temperature in 2023

nigelj at 07:08 AM on 18 April, 2024

Some explanations for the unusual global warming levels in 2023:

James Hansen thinks the anomalously high global surface temperature in 2023 are due to AGW + El Nino + Aerosols reductions. I can't find the related commentary, and have to go by memory, but Hansen suggests that the quite abrupt reductions in shipping aerosols in 2023 added to reductions in industrial aerosols over the last ten years warmed the oceans and this energy comes out after a time delay and it all came out in 2023. Perhaps someone has the details of his suggestion and comments on its credibility.

El ninos release ocean heat that has been building up. I note that the high sea surface temperatures are in the northern oceans are away from the centre of el nino activity.

From NASA: Five Factors to Explain the Record Heat in 2023. But what caused 2023, especially the second half of it, to be so hot? Scientists asked themselves this same question. Here is a breakdown of primary factors that scientists considered to explain the record-breaking heat ( I have cut and pasted the key statements only):

The long-term rise in greenhouse gases is the primary driver.
The return of El Niño added to the heat.
Globally, long-term ocean warming and hotter-than-normal sea surface temperatures played a part.
Aerosols are decreasing, so they are no longer slowing the rise in temperatures.
Scientists found that the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha‘apai volcanic eruption did not substantially add to the record heat.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/152313/five-factors-to-explain-the-record-heat-in-2023

From PBS News: ‘We’re frankly astonished.’ Why 2023’s record-breaking heat surprised scientists. A range of factors including general warming due to human-caused climate change, the El Niño climate pattern, record-low Antarctic sea ice and others — contributed to 2023’s record-breaking heat, but they don’t tell the full story. Schmidt said more work has to be done to fully understand why the year was so hot.

“In 2024, we’ll be seeing whether this persists or whether it kind of goes back to a normal pattern,” he said. “And that will be kind of telling as to whether 2023 was just a very unusual combination of things that all added up to what we saw, or whether there’s something systematically different going forward.” (Seems like good comments to me)

www.pbs.org/newshour/science/were-frankly-astonished-why-2023s-record-breaking-heat-surprised-scientists#:~:text=A%20range%20of%20factors%20%E2%80%94%20including,the%20year%20was%20so%20hot.

From Copernicus:

Some alternative suggestions on 2023 warming including changes in regional wind patterns over the northern parts of the oceans bringing heat to the surface:

atmosphere.copernicus.eu/aerosols-are-so2-emissions-reductions-contributing-global-warming

(This is not a reference to el nino, but to other changes in wind patterns to the north. For me it raises the question of caused the changes in wind patterns)

Clearly there is no definitive answer yet on why 2023 was so unusually warm ( ditto 2024 thus far). As scientists say next years data will help illuminate the causes.

A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

nigelj at 05:10 AM on 4 April, 2024

William @ 38

"At what point - would you start to not trust a climate alarmist - if deaths continue to fall or not rise for another 40 years - would you think maybe we should not trust those who make these predictions and fuel the narrative. Or do they just get a forever pass - and you will always accept more predictions - even though the people and movements who made them before have always been wrong."

Scientists are making the best predictions and projections they can. The best evidence they have says heatwaves have already become significantly more frequent and intense (refer last IPCC report), and that this situation will get worse over time particularly as warming gets above 2 degrees C. I see no reason to doubt them. The predictions are rational, logical and evidence based. I am a sceptical sort of person but Im not a fool who thinks all predictions should be ignored or that everything is fake or a conspiracy.

Scientists generally predict heatwave mortality will increase and be greater than reducing deaths in winter due to warmer winters, as per the reference I posted @34. What scientists cannot possibly predict is what advances there might be in healthcare and technology that might keep the mortality rate low. All we know is there will likely be further improvements in healthcare and technology, but quantifying them is impossible and it would be foolish to assume there will be massive improvements. We have to follow the precautionary principle that things could be quite bad.

If warming over the next 20 years causes less harm than predicted mitigation policies can be adjusted accordingly. This is far better than just making wild assumptions that global warming would be a fizzer.

Please appreciate that contrary to your comments elsewhere, multiple climate predictions have proven to be correct. Just a few examples:

theconversation.com/20-years-on-climate-change-projections-have-come-true-11245

www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/oct/25/charlie-kirk/many-climate-predictions-do-come-true

"I think people just want to believe things will be terrible and there are primed believe end of days narratives."

Some people yes. Other people think things will always be fine. Both are delusional views. I would suggest the vast majority of people between those extremes have a more rational, nuanced view and that they look at the overall evidence. Polling by Pew Research does show the majority of people globally accept humans are warming the climate and we need to mitigate the problem.

"Yes - anything could happen in the future and deaths and damage levels could rise again- but it is nor healthy to ignore the present - or trust people that wilfully distort it."

I'm not ignoring the present or past. The mortality rate from disasters has mostly fallen over the last 100 years and that looks like robust data. I didn't dispute this above. I dont recal anyone disputing it. However you cant assume that trend will always be the case. The climate projections show deadly heatwaves are very likely to become very frequent and over widespread areas, and so obviously there is a significant risk the mortality rate will go up.

It's almost completely certain that at the very least considerably increased resources will have to go into healthcare, air conditioning, adaptation, etc,etc. This means fewer resources available for other things we want to achieve in life. Once again its not all about the mortality rate per se. So when I look at the big picture there is a strong case to stop greenhouse gas emissions and transition to a new zero carbon energy grid.

A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

michael sweet at 23:01 PM on 2 April, 2024

William,

Once you build the wind and solar generators you don't have to buy fuel to run them every day so they are cheaper than fossil fuels. You continue to only measure the cost of the renewable side. Who cares if it costs L1.4 trl to build out renewables if the cost of fuel is L3 trl? The article I linked included storage for enough power so that there would be no shortages, you just didn't read it. Fossil or nuclear backup are not necessary.

I remember 10 years ago the IPCC report suggested that Global Warming would eventually cause sea level rise that endangered houses near the sea, wildfires and droughts that caused massive relocations of people. I wondered if I would see these damages in my lifetime. I expected to live about 25 years.

We see all these things happening now, only 10 years later. They are no longer future projections. Wildfires are destroying entire towns and massive amounts of forrest. Unprecedented droughts and floods are making it harder for farmers to turn a profit. Millions of climate refugees are already trying to access the Global North because they can no longer make a living due to climate change. The damages we currently see are much, much higher than scientists projected only 10 years ago. 40 years ago they thought the great ice sheets would take thousands of years to melt as much as they have already melted now. No-one thought that all the coral reefs worldwide would be dying off as we see today.

We do not need to wait 40 years to see these problems. You are blind to what is happening before your eyes.

A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

Eclectic at 21:32 PM on 2 April, 2024

William @4 , @5 :

William, you are again failing to think logically.

The people of the Global North are fairly well accustomed to deal with the cold. ( Even in harsh Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period, the farmers kept their cattle in the barn for 5 months of the year. Later, a 0.5 degreeC temperature cooling did not cause their societal collapse ~ that collapse was due to socio-economic changes.)

The coming problems of further global warming do affect the people of the impoverished "South". The poor cannot afford house airconditioning ~ even if the national electricity prices were halved. And airconditioned barns . . . are a fantasy. Like the idea of solar panels for barn coolers. And most of the poorest are a long, long way from (expensive) transmission lines.

Yes, agricultural scientists have done some good work in breeding for more heat-resistant staple crops. But nature imposes genetic limits, and there is no Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card to ultimately save the day.

And the increasing sea level rise will also contribute to mass migrations. Think of "border crises" and demagogues ranting against them thar furriners. It will get a lot uglier than now.

William, you are intelligent enough to know all this. Please put aside your Motivated Reasoning, and skip past all the Denial, Anger, and Bargaining (and the Depression stage, too) . . . and move on to the Acceptance that real action needs to be taken against AGW.

A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

William at 19:51 PM on 2 April, 2024

Eclectic 3,
Yes there are and most ;likley will be more heatwaves - but there are also fewer cold waves. Cold kills more than heat, so there has been a net reduction in direct weather deaths. Ignoring the ( larger number ) of cold deaths averted is similar to an anti vaxxer only focussing on the side effects of vaccines.
There is relatively quite a lot of time to deal with rising sea levels should it be needed .
I am not dismissing everything you say , climate change could of course become a significant problem - but it could not. My concern is : a lot of people one side of the debate , will never recognise it is not the problem they say it is.
Deaths from weather related disaster could be 9.99995% down - and it would make no difference . they will always say - but in the future....they might rise. saying something could happen in the future is of course unfalsifiable.
We should recognise that over the last 40 years - a lot/most/all of the doomsday predictions have not occurred. Crop yields have improved, disasters deaths are down, direct weather deaths are down.
How many years more of benign outcomes would it take for you or others to change their mind - or at least consider the crisis was overhyped.
I am open minded , I think we should take precautionary action - but for the most part it should be of dual benefit, cutting pollution at the same time - and also a cost benefit analysis and feasibility study should be done. Net Zero is an arbitrary target - that does not take anything else into account. Governments will not achieve it , because it is too expensive and the people will not put up with the economic pain it could bring.

A data scientist’s case for ‘cautious optimism’ about climate change

michael sweet at 08:11 AM on 2 April, 2024

The cost benefit has been done. It has been determined that if we switch to all renewable energy it will cost much less for energy than if we continue using fossil fuels. The linked article finds for the USA that renewable energy will cost $993 billion per year in 2050 while fossiil fuels will cost $2,513 billion per year for energy alone. When you add in the health costs (millions of people die every from fossil pollution) and the climate costs the fossil energy costs $6,791 billion per year while renewable costs are unchanged. The question is why do you want people to spend so much more for fossil energy when it costs 7 times the renewable energy cost and so many people die every year from the pollution?

The IEA reports that in 2022 83% of all new buiild power in the world was renewable energy (primarily wind and solar). These generating stations are being built because they are the cheapest power in the world. Since both wind and solar get cheaper every year, you are advocating spending much more money on more expensive fossil power.

These homeowners in Massachusetts wasted $600,000 building sand dunes to protect their homes from sea level rise. There are trillions of dollars of homes in the USA alone that are threatened with distruction from sea level rise alone. When you add in the stronger hurricanes and other storms, drought starving South Africa and other places and unprecedented firestorms worldwide already causing trillions of dollars of damage and you want to just let it get worse instead of trying to staunch the bleeding? Talk about penny wise and pound foolish!!

From Politico today:

Property insurers see escalating losses from climate disasters
Wildfires, floods, droughts and other "secondary perils" are becoming more frequent — and costing insurers more money.

I guess you don't read the newspaper.

I note that peak oil is near. The USA fracking craze is ending. The best plays have all been tapped out and the older wells are rapidly slowing down. All the easy, quality coal has been mined. In 20 years there will not be enough fossil energy for the world even if we drill baby drill. How old are you that you think you don't require renewable energy which will be around forever instead of fossil fuels which are already running out.

Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?

res01 at 02:45 AM on 30 March, 2024

Skeptical Science Team, Eclectic @42, et. al,

Recent paper by P. Bierwith (2024)* notes, "There is now substantial evidence that permenant exposure to CO2 levels in the future will have significant effects on humans." The article goes on to summarize recent findings; all of which generally support the subject article here. I find though the article does contain a few "technical errors" as it was written with the knowledge as it was best known a few years back, it is in no way unnecessarily "alarmist." The problem I believe is that to some the subject itself is "alarmist", and in truth it should be.

To address Eclectic's concern a bit more succinctly; the human body's CO2 compensary mechanisms have been considered in the papers being questioned. Basically, though the body can compensate for very high levels of CO2 for short periods of time, eventually these mechanisms will "give out" over time as one is continually immersed in even mildly elevated levels of CO2; the effect becoming noticeable around 800-1200 ppm. The general effects are bone dimeneralization, calcification of soft tissues, and neurological agitation which will give rise to a range malidies not favorable for human health and well being.

*P. Bierwith, (2024), "Long-term carbon dioxide toxicty and climate change: a critical unapprehended risk for human health. Australian National University. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311844520_Long-term_carbon_dioxide_toxicity_and_climate_change_a_critical_unapprehended_risk_for_human_health

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

Eclectic at 10:31 AM on 29 March, 2024

Steveeeej @36 :-

Hmm, you have three questions, not just a couple.

Eh, that sounds like I am qualified to answer you, on math alone ;-)

And I would reply a tad differently from John Mason @37.

Seriously though (and answering in reverse order) . . . .

"What is the goal?" Er . . . you don't say what you mean by that. I'm guessing you mean the goal of achieving a better world than it would be after rising to 2 or 3 degrees (Celsius) hotter than the present. That hot world would have much more of heat waves /droughts /floods /and sea level rise . . . and salinization of a big bunch of fertile farmland . . . and consequently have hundreds of millions of desperate migrants seeking other countries to live in. ~That might be tolerable for Texas . . . but most of the rest of the world would find it all a bit troublesome. And expensive.

"How much money would ....?" Again, I'm guessing you mean the cost of fixing most of the warming now (i.e. by say 2060 or 2070?) versus the cost of letting things rip as per "business as usual". Were you thinking the cost in dollars, or the cost in human misery & massive social disruption? Or both? Some rich people only think of cost in the $ today, rather than total/long-term. Strangely, they call themselves "Realists".

"Was there ever a period in the earth's llfe span when the climate wasn't changing?" Er, what is the relevance of your question? #When you are holding your hand of cards at poker, do you decide how to play your cards according to the hand you are holding right now ~ or do you play your cards according to a hand of cards you held yesterday evening?

CO2 lags temperature

RBurr at 08:51 AM on 15 March, 2024

The analogy was cute, that the observation that CO2 rises lag temperature rises, means that the Temp rise causes the CO2 rise, is a bit like saying that chickens do not lay eggs because they have been observed to hatch from them. I would submit that, by the same token, opining that CO2 increases cause global warming is a bit like saying that chickens to not hatch from eggs, because they they’ve been observed to lay them.
This all suggests (as inferred) a co-dependent process.
However, this overlooks the same thing that MOST public blogs overlook, and that is the quantum mechanical mechanism on IR radiation (per greenhouse warming theory) has never been proven, and is actually false. New research indicates the fundamental error in the theory, presumes that Heat is ADDITIVE (eg. The Earth’s energy ‘budget’). The quantum process for Thermal transference is not additive. It is a function of frequency resonance. This is why microwave ovens work. Solar heating occurs because the spectrum of frequencies included in sunlight (which reaches the Earth’s surface) sets the maximum temperature which the recipient object may reach. An object in an oven set to 400 degrees will never reach 500 degrees no longer how long it is in the oven, because heat transference is not additive over time. The low energy IR waves received by CO2 molecules will naturally dissipate into the atmosphere with negligible net effect upon the atmosphere, but will never cause planetary ‘heating’ because, per thermodynamic law, no object can heat something beyond the temperature it possesses. Irradiated CO2 molecules can never heat the earth beyond the temperature frequency that already exists within the earth, which generated the IR light waves to begin with. IR Radiation does not raise the temperature of the Earth. The greenhouse warming theory is flawed. THAT is why the universally accepted historical record shows zero correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and average temperature over the entirety of the past 4 Billion years. Zeroing in on the last 400k or 800k years, and pointing to an anomaly amounts to cherry picking, which disregards the other dynamics in play, such as Milankovitch Cycles. Note: Ozone depletion CAN increase surface temperatures because the range of UV frequencies that reach the surface is expanded.

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

John ONeill at 07:32 AM on 24 February, 2024

'Nuclear is not economic' - the 17 countries building new nuclear missed your memo.

'..takes too long to build..' Mean construction time was 7.5 years, with a long tail. Countries involved in a concerted buildout do rather better - Japan averaged less than 5 years, China and South Korea less than 6. Sheffield Forgemasters, one of the few companies qualified to make reactor pressure vessels, has just demonstrated a new method of ion beam welding, letting them weld around the girth of an RPV ring in one day. This weld, on a 4 metre diameter, 200 mm thick piece, with very tight inspection requirements, would normally take up to a year. RPVs have been one of the bottlenecks for nuclear growth. Other solutions, such as the heavy water reactors used in India, don't have RPVs.

'..there is not enough uranium.' This was the perceived reality when the industry was just starting up - and when Cold War bomb-making led to a frantic search for uranium reserves, since enriching to 90% U235 bomb-grade uses up far more feedstock than does the 3-5% used in light-water reactors, or the natural uranium used in mainly Canadian and Indian heavy water reactors. At the time, it was also assumed that energy demand would keep growing at 1960s rates, and that most of the growth would be from nuclear. L Ron Hubbard's famous graph of human energy use rising sharply from a low base, as fossil fuel reserves are used up, and dropping equally sharply back to pre-industrial levels, was used by Peak Oil doomers to predict a coming crash, to be followed by unending scarcity. In fact, Hubbard original graph showed nuclear growing as fast as fossil fuel energy, completely replacing it, and then maintaining that level indefinitely. Plans were in place to switch to fast reactors, converting the 99.3% U238 of natural uranium to fissile plutonium, and to use thorium, 3x more abundant again, as fissile U233. This effort stalled when demand fell, and uranium proved to be much more abundant than thought. Until recently, global production has been well below demand, due to oversupply causing very low prices. Many high grade mines, like MacArthur River in Saskatchewan, were closed during the drop in demand after Fukushima, with the word's third and fourth largest users, Japan and Germany, temporarily shutting their whole industries. With demand now booming, these mines are reopening, and new prospecting has resumed. (Many nuclear operators are on long-term contracts, and have existing stocks, so are not immediately affected.)

Hubbard's fossil peak has been slower to arrive than expected, and so has the nuclear growth he expected to replace it. Long term though, I expect his insight to be accurate. The drive for increasing energy use is still there - nobody wants to stay poor (religious orders aside). The down-ramp on fossil use will be steeper than the rise, as climate concerns spread. Can weather-based energy fill the gap? Not judging by the view out my window (mid summer, 8/8ths cloud cover, national wind fleet at 1/3 of capacity).

I've read some of Mark Jacobson's papers - all the way back to his cover article on Scientific American, in 2009. Before him, there was Amory Lovins' vision of a 'soft path' energy future, very influential on Jimmy Carter's policy. The two were actually diametrically opposite in their prescriptions. Lovins decried the cost and energy waste of the transmission grid, calling for efficiency ('negawatts'), small-scale, local wind and solar, backed by fluidised bed coal. Jacobson wants a maximal grid, moving greatly overbuilt wind and solar across continents, with probably battery backup, no biofuels or combustion energy, no new hydro. Neither prescription has done well when put into practice in reducing emissions. US CO2 emissions per capita hardly changed from the 70s to the 2000s, only falling with the switch from coal to gas (though increased methane leakage may have negated some of the climate benefit). Widespread, government-sponsored wind and solar growth, most notably in Germany, has bought a rapid rise in installation, but though the individual solar plants and wind turbines became much cheaper, their integration into the grid led to increasing power costs, while fossil fuel use persisted at a higher level than on grids that had already switched to nuclear for largely economic reasons.

Some countries whose governments had declared that nuclear power would cease have reversed course, and plan new build - notably Japan, South Korea, Sweden, and Italy. Others - Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, which had 20 to 40% of their power from nuclear - currently persist in de-nuclearising. Russia is building plants in Turkey, Egypt, Iran, India, Bangla Desh, and shortly Hungary. Russia, United Arab Emirates, Iran, and possibly soon Saudi Arabia, are building nuclear plants at home because it displaces gas, which earns much more money as exports. Japan and South Korea are building nuclear for the opposite reason - it makes power much more cheaply than imported liquefied natural gas, at East Asian prices. The important question for the future is whether nuclear can take more than a toehold share in countries like India, Pakistan, South Africa, and Indonesia, where energy use is rising fast, and coal is now the chosen option.

It's only a few degrees

michael sweet at 00:42 AM on 19 January, 2024

Retired guy at 10:

Arhennius predicted in 1896 (that is 1896, not a typo) that warming would be greater at night than during the day, greater in winter than summer and greater at high latitudes. Perhaps the scientists do not emphasize this point since it has been discussed so long by those who pay attention.

This sounds like another attempt by deniers to grasp at straws to try to minimize the problem. I have seen a lot of articles that say that high temperatures at night make it much harder for people to live in hot areas because there is no time to recover from the daily heat. Likewise many plants in temperate areas require night time cold to produce fruit (think apples, peaches, cherries, grapes and nuts). Of course sea level rise will be greater since Greenland and the Antarctic will melt faster when they are warmer.

The deniers have nothing so they make up stuff to argue about.

Skeptical Science New Research for Week #2 2024

michael sweet at 06:18 AM on 14 January, 2024

Zekie Hausfather posted a summary of 2023 on Carbon Brief today. He put a summary of the temperature record on Climate Brink. The Carbon Brief article contaiind more data about sea level rise, climate records, sea ice and glacier melt and a few other things. They are written for lay people to read. They are very informative. The Climate Brink article is shorter.

He says that the reason that 2023 was so not is not known. The predictions of the 2023 temperature from a year ago were much too low. He says he thinks the volcano and aerosols have too small an effect to account for 2023 but so does a typical El Nino. We will have to wait for more data to find out the scientific reason.

The Climate Brink article would make a good OP here at SkS. The Carbon Brief article is longer than OPs usually are here.

At a glance - Is the CO2 effect saturated?

Just Dean at 09:44 AM on 11 January, 2024

I think this is where data from paleoclimatology can help as well. Three recent studies have looked at the earth's temperature vs CO2 during the Cenozoic period, Rae et al., Honisch et al., and Tierney et al. . Each of those show that the temperature of ancient earth continues to rise as CO2 increases. As I understand it the first two are based solely on proxy data while the Tierney effort includes modeling to try and correlate the data geographically and temporally.

All of these are concerned with earth system sensitivities that include both short term climate responses plus slower feedback processes that can take millenia, e.g. growth and melting of continental ice sheets. Both Rae and Honisch include reference lines for 8 C / doubling of CO2. In both cases, almost all the data lie below those reference lines suggesting that 8 C / doubling is an upper bound or estimate of earth's equilibrium between temperature and CO2. Also notice that there quite is a bit of spread in the data.

In contrast, when Tierney et al. include modeling they get a much better correlation of T and CO2. They find that their data is best correlated with 8.2 C / doubling, r = 0.97. Again, this represents an equilibrium that can take millenia to achieve but does to my way of thinking represent "nature's equilibrium" between T and CO2.

In these comparisons, the researchers define changes in temperature relative to preindustrial conditions, CO2 = 280 ppm. For Tierney's correlation then on geological timescale, the temperature would increase by 8.2 C at 560 ppm. At our present value of 420 ppm there would be 3.7 C of apparent warming potential above our 1.1 C increase already achieved as of 2022, i.e., global warming in the pipeline if you will.

Bottom line, based on paleoclimatological data, there is no apparent saturation level of CO2.

A New 66 Million-Year History of Carbon Dioxide Offers Little Comfort for Today

nigelj at 05:38 AM on 13 December, 2023

The information on earth system sensitivity of 5 - 8 degrees C is very sobering. There are many accounts of what a 6 degree world is like easily googled and its very inhospitable for humans and other species. Because ESS develops on long time frames we might adapt to some extent, but that doesn't really make it any less inhospitable.

This is one authors depiction of a 6 degree world based on available research. The description is based on such a world developing over the next couple of centuries and a failure to curb emissions, but even if it takes thousands of years as a result of ESS, many of the outcomes would be similar.

"Special coverage is given to the positive feedback mechanisms that could dramatically accelerate climate change. The book explains how the release of methane hydrate and the release of methane from melting permafrost could unleash a major extinction event. Carbon cycle feedbacks, the demise of coral, the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, and extreme desertification are also described, with five or six degrees of warming potentially leading to the complete uninhabitability of the tropics and subtropics, as well as extreme water and food shortages, possibly leading to mass migration of billions of people."

LINK

The IPCC seems to have focused most attention on warming and sea level rise rates by 2100. We have projections of around 3 degrees C of warming and worst case about 5 degrees, and SLR around 1 metre with a worst case 2 metres. The details on longer term trends several centuries into the future, or millenia into the future like earth system sensitivity, are buried away in their reports or not given much attention.

The IPCC have a chart buried in their reports showing a worst case of about 10 degrees C by about 2300 if equilibrium climate sensitivity turns out to be high and we just go on burning fossil fuels. Likewise by 2300 SLR could be well over 2 metres. This may be somewhat attenuated by the impacts of renewable energy already reducing projected coal use, but it would still be a big number and theres a lot of SLR already baked in even if we stop warming right now.

I wonder if this focus on year 2100 is a deliberate psychological strategy to focus on our immediate future. If they focused on the longer term trends there might be a risk that people would say why worry that won't effect me or my children.

However warming of for example 3 degrees by 2100 and one metre or so of SLR doesnt sound very scary to some people, while numbers like 5- 8 degrees longer term and SLR of 10 - 20 metres are obviously intuitively far more scary and certainly get my attention. Clearly we do need a focus on year 2100, for obvious reasons, because its in our lifetimes and adaptation would be very costly, but I wonder if a bit more attention on longer term time frames would have really shown people the huge scale of change we are facing.

At a glance - Evidence for global warming

nigelj at 06:17 AM on 29 November, 2023

We have many ways of measuring global warming. Urban areas, rural areas,oceans, the middle, and upper atmosphere. Sea level rise is also an indication of warming. All these show a similar warming trend. How much more do people want to be convinced? There really isn't any part of the planetary system left to measure.

If we were reliant purely on land surface data in cities for example, I would be scepetical. One data set might be flawed. But the chances of so many multiple data sets all being flawed and in the same direction is effectively zero.

Sarah Palin seems like a typical example of a lay person who thinks she knows better than the climate experts. Of course its good to discuss things and question if the experts are right, but remember the experts know things you dont know and small details are important in science.

Another expample of someone out of their depth is John Clauser, a physicist with a nobel prize in quantum physics and an outspoken anthropogenic climate change sceptic despite the fact he has never published any research related to climate change or formally specialised in something like atmospheric physics. It hasn't stopped him telling everyone that climate science is all wrong. He has made many indisputably false statements sometimes by using very out of date information. So even scientists outside their area of expertise can fool themselves. Good commentary here:

www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/11/clauser-ology-cloudy-with-a-chance-of-meatballs/

2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44

michael sweet at 02:39 AM on 8 November, 2023

I don't think Hansen is worried about thousands of years in the future. He has been saying for decades that aerosols are reflecting a lot of energy back into space, cooling the planet. Reducing fossil fuel use reduces aerosols. The loss of aerosols causes rapid warming. Hansen projects that 1.5C will be exceeded by 2030 and 2.0 C will be exceeded by 2050. He is concerned about changes that will occur while people alive now are still around, about 100 years. He is concerned about multimeter sea level rise by 2100. If Hansen is correct about aerosols the next 30 years will have substantial extra heating.

I respect Zeke and Mann but their explainations for the extreme heat the past 6 months are pretty weak. While the current temperatures are inside the error bars for the models, the temperature this year is extraordianrily hot comnpared to all previous years. I note that the IPCC generally emphasizes what a consensus of scientists think is the minimum amount of change in the climate and temperature. That means that a majority of scientists think it will be worse than the IPCC projections.

The scientists who project damages substantially exceeding the IPCC reports are in the minority. It is very concerning to me that they exist at all. Especially since the last 6 months have been so hot and next year is projected to be even hotter. El Nino does not usually strongly affect temperature until the end of the year.

I agree that "it's important to communicate the incredible challenges we face but without instilling in people's minds the idea it's already a lost cause." But politicians still are not taking action seriously.

What is the IPCC defination of "consensus". It has to be a lot higher than 50%. Is it 80%, 90%? They must have it written down somewhere.

John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

michael sweet at 12:47 PM on 27 October, 2023

TWFA:

There are mountains of evidence that climate science has predicted in the past that can be currently reviewed. For example, climate scientists predicted that hurricanes would increase in force in the future. Just yesterday the city of Acapulco was destroyed by a hurricane of greater force than any previously occuring in the East Pacific Ocean. That was predicted in advance. Hansen predicted the future increase in temperature in his testimony to congress in 1989. His predictions have proven to be accurate.

You are asserting that people who have correctly predicted climate change for the past 100 years cannot be believed in their predictions for the next 20 years. Why do you think that scientists who have correctly predicted changes in the past will suddenly become unable to make correct predictions now? For the most part the predictions of scientists have been correct. A few things, like the increasing force of hurricanes, and sea level rise, have been underestimated by scientsts.

The time when

"until such time as the real world data and not just the modeled projections show it is clearly being being affected by our behavior"

was reached decades ago. The predictions made during the 60's and 70's have been validated by data. You are claiming that we can never predict anything because we do not remember what was predicted correctly in the past. The people at SkS remember the past projections and know that they validate the current projections.

John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

nigelj at 06:46 AM on 9 September, 2023

The IPCC reports are clearly conservative leaning. However the latest IPCC report does project warming at around 4 - 5 degrees by end of this century at BAU (Business as usual emissions) and SLR (sea level rise) worst case up around 1 - 2M end of this century. And it will go on rising after that if we do nothing.

There are lower SLR projections out there and a small number of higher projections by people like Hansen at around 4M end of century, but his is very speculative. So Im not sure that the IPCC are being excessively conservative on the key numbers.

For me SLR projections of 1 - 2M end of this century look very worrying with the potential to cause massive problems. Even although 2M is worst case and low probbaility the impact is potentially huge so such a scenario should be guiding or mitigation response. If people cant see all this and feel motivated to take serious action, then I'm not sure they would change their attitude if the number was 4M anyway.

So obviously the IPCC should robustly communicate the climate problem, but I think we are at risk of scapegoating the IPCC for the lack of strong mitigation response, when the culprit is really peoples complacency, due presumably to numerous factors from vested interests, resistance to change, psychological barriers, ideological views, the denialist campaign etc,etc.

Climate Confusion

One Planet Only Forever at 04:24 AM on 5 September, 2023

Markp,

Your comment @40 contains the following helpful point: "In fact, one of our first mirror test sites was either on or adjacent to a local airport's land and their permission was required, and it was given."

This is helpful because it appears to establish that, along with your earlier mention of being very familiar with 'climate related finance', you appear to be 'invested' in a 'mirroring enterprise'.

Mirrors may be a helpful measure, along with other actions that increase the reflection of sunlight, to reduce the current degree of human impacts on global warming. They could be a part of the broad diversity of helpful actions. But they are unlikely to be 'the primary solution'.

Project Drawdown (at drawdown.org) developed by Paul Hawkin (author of The Ecology of Commerce) is an informative resource. It lists and evaluates climate impact reduction solutions. In their words "Project Drawdown’s world-class network of scientists, researchers, and fellows has characterized a set of 93 technologies and practices that together can dramatically reduce concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." But their list of solutions includes helpful actions that do not reduce ghgs like the one they evaluated that seems close to your 'mirror' application - Green and Cool Roofs (Linked to Project Drawdown).

Maybe you should get in touch with Project Drawdown to get your idea added to their list of evaluated solutions.

However, I am pretty sure about what the primary solution is. And it is not covered by Project Drawdown. It is not a 'new idea'. It requires nothing new to be built. And it requires no alteration of any developed activities. It is:

Reduced Consumption - especially by the people who have over-developed levels of consumption (who consume 'beyond necessary consumption') - especially the reduction of types of consumption that are ultimately undeniably unsustainable like fossil fuel use (which cannot be continued to be 'enjoyed by everyone' centuries into the future even if there were no harmful impacts).

Climate Confusion

Markp at 22:43 PM on 3 September, 2023

For Rob: I know I have not provided much data to back what I've been saying, but that's mainly because I was going on the assumption that you may already be aware of the data that could support me. In other words, I don't think what I've said is uncontroversial from a data point of view, but I do accept that it might be controversial from the point of view of making those holding a mainstream view (and I know that's vague) uncomfortable.

I disagree with little of what you say about climate in this last post. From your list of 8 items, only 1,4 and 5 are problematic in my view. Unfortunately, those few items are weighty:

"A lot is happening towards decarbonization" is vague enough to require examples to qualify the statement. There has definitely been a lot of talk about decarbonization, but as 2022 saw global emissions hit a new high of 36.8 Gt, according to the IEA's report "CO2 Emissions in 2022" one has to ask what decarbonization achievements, what action, in place of mere talk, can we point to. Renewable energy production plus use of EVs, heat pumps and who knows what else saved about 550 Mt. Fine. But this growth rate (growth of renewable contribution) won't hold up. So when you say "a lot" is happening, what's that really mean? And could you give just a few bullets on how you think we'll achieve net zero by 2050?

I'm also curious to know how much your vision of "net" zero relies on offsetting schemes, because I don't trust them and fear that they are being relied on too much for comfort.

As for what happens to the rising temperatures in a net zero 2050, we'll have to wait and see.

I'm certainly with you on breaching 2C by 2050, but since I've got little hope we'll be anything close to net zero by then (for whatever net zero is actually worth as long as we've got all the offestting nonsense thrown in there) it looks worse to me than to you.

Finally, and to change the subject a bit, I think the talk about models went too far. I'm not saying models are bad, just that they're being relied on too heavily in certain important cases. And as my primary experience (nearly 30 years now) has been in the financial arena for many "quant" strategies where, in that industry it is painfully common to see wonderful quant investment funds with great backtested results finally have some real money thrown at them and start a live track record, only to see the live returns look nothing like the lovely return characteristics of those backtests, I confess a lot of my skepticism comes from just that type of environment. Still, when we continually see news reports with headlines running "Researchers present shocking new data that climate change is happening much faster than expected" and the previous expectation was based on models, I don't feel at all surprised. I've just had a look at the "myths" section of Skeptical Science specifically at the models myth and I also see there that most of the argument seems to be toward trying to convince climate deniers who say models are all wrong that GW is real. That's clearly not me.

For Eclectic: I don't think I've written too much, do you? I know people these days don't like to read anything longer than a twitter post, but I don't think your assessment here is fair. I've tried to keep it short, in fact. Like I said, I assumed, and maybe wrongly(?), that you folks had a decent understanding of the data already, and could follow commentary like mine that took a broader look at things rather than fussing over citations and decimal points because I'm not claiming anything that boils down to a disagreement over small measurements but has been more about one's basic orientation: some of you seem to be wearing rose-colored glasses in my view, like too many people are.

As for the mirror concept, if the goal were to limit global temperature rise to 2C by 2100 we would need about twice the surface area of the contiguous USA. Although these reflectors would be useful in many instances, like on rooftops, parks, outdoor markets, reservoirs, etc., the main idea is for them to be used in agricultural settings because there's a lot of agricultural land, and because the reflectors would bring both local benefits to the crops by cooling, saving water and increasing yield, and contribute to global cooling. How to do that on a large scale is a problem that needs to be worked out. Any cropland managed by tractors and other large machines would either need to involve reflectors that would be removed from time to time for those machines to do their work, which wouldn't be easy, or they'd need to be placed so as not to interfere with those machines, perhaps by having them suspended vertically alongside crops rather than horizontally over them. And of cource, horizontal coverage would not involve blocking all available sunlight as to choke off photosynthesis, but as most crops can thrive with up to 30% shading, it would be placed intermittently. Anyway, this is the rough idea. Reflectors made from PET and aluminum cans from landfill provide more than enough for this level of scale, but other reflector constructions/materials could pop up as well. If you feel this isn't the type of detail you'd like to see, I'm not allowed to offer more. Not to protect technology or profits, because this comes from a nonprofit, but simply because I'm not authorized. As some of you know, the science takes time. We're working on it.

If that surface area seems "too big" as in "nobody will go for that" I can certainly feel that, but what choice have we got? The Earth is big. We can do it. We've got 4 million miles of roads in the USA. When cars first got started, nobody would have thought that possible. All of our climate "solutions" are by nature on a grand scale. Nothing to do about that as far as I know. And why people might balk at lots of mirrors/reflectors when they seem to think DAC (or your solution of choice) can clean (enough of) the entire atmosphere, I'm stumped.

Climate Confusion

Markp at 05:22 AM on 3 September, 2023

Hello

No, I'm not at all advocating that individuals adjusting their lifestyles are the answer, far from it (I'm surprised to hear this from you!), but it is something that must be done. Average people pushing the politicians and business leaders to act is necessary as well, because as we can see, without that they'll continue making targets and holding discussions that don't get us anywhere.

This is going to come down to us agreeing to disagree, I guess, for example regarding the IPCC and all the supposed "progress" we've made. I know that most people in climate science (scientists and others) think like you, that a lot has been done, etc. I just don't buy it. We've certainly managed to elevate the overall knowledge of GW among everyone - people from all walks of life (not with the honesty and clarity that is needed in my opinion, but...). But that has not translated into the kind of action we need by a LONG shot. It's politics and it's scientific reticence (i.e. David Spratt) and many other reasons, but it's there, staring us all in the face. Maybe I'm just speaking here to the optimists, 45-years of experience or not. I don't know. But if you think you shouldn't take me seriously because of my attitude towards models re "the end of temp rise" I'll just reiterate that it's not just me but people like James Hansen who have expressed those opinions. Just look at his latest tidbit: "Equilibrium Warming = Committed Warming?" where he writes in the 4th paragraph: "...climate science should be focused on data. That's the way science is supposed to work. However [the] IPCC is focused on models. Not just global climate models, but models that feed the models, eg. Integrated Assessment Models that provide scenarios for future GHG levels...sometimes the models contain hocus-pocus. As we mention in our current paper, they can assume, in effect, that 'a miracle will occur.'" And as you know, he's not the only one to criticise the overreliance on models. I'm assuming you are all familiar with Spratt and Dunlop's "What Lies Beneath."?

At the end of the day, scientists are no different from anyone else in this world where we all have to struggle for survival and protect our jobs and reputations and do things we have to do but may not believe in. Research isn't done for fun or for pure curiosity unless one bankrolls one's own laboratory, which few do. It's done to support the money, make a product, build a name for oneself, etc.

So people like (unnamed) set up for-profit companies as sidelines in addition to their responsibilities with their universities and, look what he just did: sold Carbon Engineering for over $1B. Nice. Ka-ching. You can't sell simple solutions for that kind of money, can you? And Climeworks, when are they going to have an IPO and cash-out, for worthless DAC? And this is all because the IPCC said "We MUST do this!"

An extremely important statement from the foreward of "What Lies Beneath" is from Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, professor of theoretical physics, etc., long list of credentials, when he said we are running out of time and so "...it is all the more important to listen to non-mainstream voices who do understand the issues and are less hesitant to cry wolf [than for example those scientists working with the IPCC]".

I work with those non-mainstream scientists because they are the ones who seem to be cutting through the BS towards real solutions that give us more than hopium.

Let me just ask you, and I am trying to be fair to the scientists in climate, generally speaking, because I imagine the vast majority are really doing their best. They aren't free to do what they might if they weren't trapped in the system we all are trapped in. (I know one who is a physicist but works with the IPCC on policy and he told me once "You have to trust your institutions, Mark"!!! Really. I trust the post office to deliver a letter. I don't trust politicians to solve global disasters that require those in power taking home less money.) But let me ask: if scientists really have been trying as hard as they could for decades now to come up with ways to stop rising heat and protect life on Earth as fast as possible, why has nobody else but a man who left his academic career at Harvard behind in order to found a nonprofit been able to come up with the solution staring us each in the face every morning when we brush our teeth, involving mirrors? Could it maybe have anything to do with the fact that it is just not very sexy? Honestly, I cannot understand or explain it any other way. And I've seen big-wig scientists in the climate sphere hear of this and say "where's your peer-reviewed research?" instead of just turning their brains on and thinking about the idea first. "Hey, makes sense, pretty obvious, actually...could be some complications, but overall, interesting idea..." (Kudos to Eclectic on this one) No, instead they just wanted research to back up the idea that ice will melt in a hot frying pan.

Well...would have been more fun over a beer. Take care.

It's not bad

jlsoaz at 06:23 AM on 14 August, 2023

Hi -

As has been remarked by others, arguably this "It's not bad" response is good, but may be trying to cover too much ground. In particular, I'm here to request that the team consider writing a response to the related or subordinate myth(s), which are in my opinion arguably the most important myths not yet debunked on this site, that
- nobody has died from climate change,
- any claim of increased deaths can't be attributed to climate change.
- and, therefore, calling this a "climate emergency" is exaggerating, alarmist and hysterical.

I believe the science here would fall in the area of social science or biological sciences (i.e.: discussing increased mortality above what is expected per time period, and whether it is attributable, under established scientific practices, to climate change). There are peer reviewed publications out there which may give some idea and basis for a proper rebuttal, though admittedly we could use more of such publications to lean on in the face of such arguments. A couple of examples:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01058-x
Article
Published: 31 May 2021
The burden of heat-related mortality attributable to recent human-induced climate change

1. I think these two links relate to the same study published in Nature in 2021:

LINK
Global Study Evaluates Heat-Related Deaths Associated with Climate Change
By David Richards

2.
Also in 2021, this may be a completely different study (I can't tell for sure at a glance. It seems to have been published in The Lancet Planetary Health.
LINK
World’s largest study of global climate related mortality links 5 million deaths a year to abnormal temperatures
08 July 2021

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext

Global, regional, and national burden of mortality associated with non-optimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study

Prof Qi Zhao, PhD
Prof Yuming Guo, PhD
Tingting Ye, MSc
Prof Antonio Gasparrini, PhD
Prof Shilu Tong, PhD
Ala Overcenco, PhD
et al.
Show all authors

Open AccessPublished:July, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00081-4

---------
These above are just one or two recent examples. There are probably other credible-seeming ones if the team is able to look, in preparing a rebuttal, and they may vary as to which climate change impacts (heat, drought, rise in sea level, increased storms, etc.) have what mortality increase (or decrease, in some isolated cases, I suppose is possible) figures associated with them. As to "associated", I think it's to the scientific papers to clarify what the correct approach is.

Anyway, to simplify, please take a look at what I believe to be arguably the most important myth not yet addressed on this site.

A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty

MA Rodger at 18:52 PM on 11 August, 2023

Nigelj @13,
The paper Frank (2019) did take six months from submission to gain acceptance and Frontiers does say "Frontiers only applies the most rigorous and unbiased reviews, established in the high standards of the Frontiers Review System."
Yet the total nonsense of Frank (2019) is still published, not just a crazy approach but quite simple mathematical error as well.

But do note that a peer-reviewed publication does not have to be correct. A novel approach to a subject can be accepted even when that approach is easily show to be wrong and even when the implications of the conclusions (which are wrong) are set out as being real.
I suppose it is worth making plain that peer-review can allow certain 'wrong' research to be published as this will prevent later researchers making the same mistakes. Yet what is so often lost today is the idea that any researcher wanting publishing must be familiar with the entirety of the literature and takes account of it within their work.

And for a denialist, any publication means it is entirely true, if they want it to be.

In regard to the crazy Frank (2019), it is quite simple to expose the nonsense.

This wondrous theory (first appearing in 2016) suggests that, at a 1sd limit, a year's global average SAT could be anything between +0.35ºC to -0.30ºC the previous year's temperature, this variation due alone to the additional AGW forcing enacted since that previous year. The actual SAT records do show an inter-year variation but something a little smaller (+/-0.12ºC at 1sd in the recent BEST SAT record) but this is from all causes not just from a single cause that is ever accumulating. And these 'all causes' of the +/-0.12ºC are not cumulative through the years but just wobbly noise. Thus the variation seen do not increase with variation measured over a longer period. After 8 years in the BEST SAT record is pretty-much the same as the 1-year variation and not much greater at 60 years (+/-0.22ºC). But in the crazy wonderland of Pat Frank, these variations are apparently potentially cumulative (that would be the logic) so Frank's 8-year variation is twice the 1-year variation. And after 60 years of these AGW forcings (which is the present period with roughly constant AGW forcing) according to Frank we should be seeing SAT changes anything from +17.0ºC to -12.0ºC solely due to AGW forcing. And because Frank's normal distributions provides the probability of these variations, we can say there was an 80% chance of us seeing global SAT increases accumulating over that 60 years in excess of +4.25ºC and/or decreases acumulating in excess of -3.0ºC. According to Frank's madness, we should have been seeing such 60-year variation. But we haven't. So as a predictive analysis, the nonsense of Frank doesn't begin to pass muster.

And another test for garbage is the level of interest shown by the rest of science. In the case of Frank (2019), that interest amounts to 19 citations according to Google Scholar, these comprising 6 citations by Frank himself, 2 mistaken citation (only one by a climatological paper which examines marine heat extremes and uses the Frank paper to support the contention "Substantial uncertainties and biases can arise due to the stochastic nature of global climate systems." which Frank 2019 only says are absent), a climatology working-paper that lists Frank with a whole bunch of denialists, three citations by one Norbert Schwarzer who appears more philosopher than scientist, and six by a fairly standard AGW denier called Pascal Richet. That leaves a PhD thesis citing Frank (2019)'s to say "... general circulation models generally do not have an error associated with predictions"
So science really has no interest in Frank's nonsense (other than demonstrating that it is nonsense).

2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #29

nigelj at 07:17 AM on 29 July, 2023

wilddouglascounty

"When the severity and frequency of extreme weather increases, the sea level rises and gets more acidic, wildlife populations move and wildfires abound, it is not because of Climate Change. It's because fossil fuel use that has changed the atmospheric and oceanic chemistry, allowing it to store more heat, changing the climate. Everyone who watches the weather needs to be reminded of that, too."

I'm sympathetic to what WDS wrote and what OPOF says. One reason. Apparently the link between fossil fuels and climate change is not mentioned in the IPCC summary for policy makers (or rarely mentioned I just forget which), because the oil exporting companies lobbied vigorously to keep it out. And in hindsight I've noticed our news media doesn't explicilty mention the link very often.

The counter argument is that almost everyone on the planet must know by now that fossil fuels are the main cause of climate change in recent decades. You would have to live a very isolated existence not to have heard by now.

But I think the link should always be mentioned more often and when appropriate. ( I hear what BL is saying) Reinforing the facts is arguably a good idea and cannot be a bad idea.

2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #29

wilddouglascounty at 15:01 PM on 24 July, 2023

The term "climate change" has buried the lead for too long, so it's time to correct this. When Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire were not voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, it was not because of Home Run Change, it was because of Performance Enhancing Drugs. And everyone who watches baseball knows that.

When the severity and frequency of extreme weather increases, the sea level rises and gets more acidic, wildlife populations move and wildfires abound, it is not because of Climate Change. It's because fossil fuel use that has changed the atmospheric and oceanic chemistry, allowing it to store more heat, changing the climate. Everyone who watches the weather needs to be reminded of that, too.

It's time to stop using euphemisms that don't explicitly connect the changing climate to fossil fuel use so that folks understand in the same way that folks understand the role of performance enhancing drugs in sports. Everyone needs to be reminded of the role fossil fuels has in climate change, just as they know about the role of performance enhancing drugs in turbocharging the natural talents of the users. Whenever discussing any of the things related to Climate Change we should make that link explicit by using phrases like:

- Fossil fuel induced Climate Change

- Increased greenhouse gases from Fossil Fuel use

- Climate Change caused by Fossil Fuel use

- Changed atmospheric chemistry through the widespread use of fossil fuels

and the like. And if someone says that you're politicizing the weather, tell them that this isn't just political; it's based on overwhelming scientific evidence. Refer them to the IPCC or skepticalscience websites if they are still deniers, and change the focus to how to become more energy efficient first, replace fossil fuel use with renewables second, and nurture local ecosystems third. We don't have a choice but to make things super-clear if we are to have a chance to turn the ship away from almost unimaginable disasters for future generations.

At a glance - Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

walschuler at 00:39 AM on 20 July, 2023

This brief greenhouse gas theory history omits the very important paper, "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Ttemperature of the Ground,"the first true model of the effect, the hand-calculated model by Svante Arrhenius published in 1896. It modeled the atmosphere as a single layer and the effect of setting the concentration of CO2 to 2/3 of the value at his time, and at values up to 3 times higher, for 10 degree latitude steps both north and south, for 4 seasons and for the annual mean. His results for this simple model were within a factor of 10 of current calculations and measurements as the value has grown. His interest was in explaining newly discovered evidence of ancient ice ages.

You also omit Horace-Benedict de Saussures' important measurements (in "Continuation du Voyage Autour du Mont-Blanc," Chapter XIII, Voyages dans les Alpes VII, 1779, S . Fauche, Neuchatel, pp353-355, and pp365-367). The first demonstrates the existence of "chaleur obscure" (="dark heat" = infrared radiation) and its reflection and concentration, using metal mirrors, just like visible light. The second records measurements of the greenhouse effect temperature rise in a cubic foot wooden box, insulated on all but one side with blackened cork, and that side closed by two layers of glass. He placed thermometers between the glass layers and inside and outside the box, and traveled the assembly from sea level up to high altitude in the Alpes, measuring the temperatures inside and outside the box as he went. He ascribes the decrease of temperature with altitude to the increasing transparency of the air as you ascend. I made a translation from the French which is available upon request. Fourier refers to this work in the paper of 1827 cited above.

How big is the “carbon fertilization effect”?

daveburton at 01:45 AM on 14 July, 2023

Eclectic wrote, "Daveburton @22 ~ Please explain more of your first chart [ IPCC's decadal Carbon Flux Comparison 1980-2019 ]. The natural sink flux figures… show a rather steady proportionality to the total carbon emissions."

Glad to. Any two things which steadily increase are thereby correlated. There's only a possibility that the relationship might be causal if there's a possible mechanism for such causality.

There's no possible mechanism by which the rate at which CO2 emerges from chimneys could govern the rate at which CO2 is taken up by trees & absorbed by the oceans, or vice-versa, so the relationship cannot be causal — just as this famous relationship is not causal:

does cheese consumption cause death by bedsheet entanglement?

Eclectic wrote, "The land sink shows about 30-35% of total emissions, while the sum of land & ocean remains around 55-60%."

Yes, I usually say "about half," as in, "If our CO2 emissions were cut by more than about half then the atmospheric CO2 level would be falling, rather than rising."

It is important to recognize that the relationship is merely coincidental, not causal.

Eclectic wrote, "as the decades progress, the natural carbon sink flux in absolute terms rises with the rising emissions ~ but does not show a proportional increase."

The rate at which natural processes, such as ocean uptake, uptake by trees and soil ("greening"), and rock weathering, remove CO2 from the air, is affected in minor ways by many factors, but in a major way by only one: the current amount of CO2 in the air.

Our CO2 emission rate does not and cannot affect the natural removal rate, except indirectly, in the long term, by being one of the most important factors which affect the amount of CO2 in the air.

Eclectic wrote, "looking back in time ~ as the atmospheric CO2 level decreases, the size of the natural sink flux decreases also."

That is correct. It will also be correct looking forward in time, when CO2 levels are falling, someday.

Eclectic wrote, "this directly contradicts your hypothesis of 'if emissions were halved ... atmospheric CO2 level would plateau.'"

If you'll allow me to use "halved" as a shorthand for "reduced to the point at which emissions merely equal current natural removals, rather than exceed them," then those two statements are both correct, and perfectly consistent. It's pCO2 (level), not the rate of CO2 emissions, which (mostly) governs the rates of all the natural CO2 removal from the atmosphere.

Of course there are also minor factors which affect the removal rates. For instance, as we've already discussed, a 1°C rise in water temperature slows ocean uptake of CO2 by roughly 3%. Conversely, a rise in air temperature accelerates CO2 removal by rock weathering. (Sorry, I don't have a quantification of that.) But the main factor which controls the rate of CO2 removals is pCO2.

Eclectic wrote, "While the nutritive components of some food crops may reduce slightly as CO2 rises…"

Oh boy, another rabbit hole! That's the Loladze/Myers "nutrition scare."

It is of little consequence. That should be obvious if you consider that crops grown in commercial greenhouses with CO2 levels as high as 1500 ppmv are as nutritious as crops grown outdoors with only 30% as much CO2.

≥1500 ppmv CO2 is optimal for most crops. That's why commercial greenhouses typically use CO2 generators to raise daytime CO2 concentration to well above 1000 ppmv. It is expensive, but they go to that expense because elevated CO2 (eCO2) makes crops much healthier and more productive. (They don't typically supplement CO2 at night unless using grow-lamps, because plants can't use the extra CO2 without light.)

If elevating CO2 by >1000 ppmv doesn't cause crops to be less nutritious, then elevating CO2 by only 140 ppmv obviously doesn't, either.

Better crops yields, due to eCO2 or any other reason, can cause lower levels (but not lower total amounts) of nutrients which are in short supply in the soil. But that doesn't happen to a significant extent when agricultural best practices are employed.

I had an impromptu online debate about the nutrition scare with its most prominent promoter, mathematician Irakli Loladze, in the comments on a Quora answer. If you're not a Quora member you can't read it there, so I saved a copy here. He acknowledged to me that food grown in greenhouses at elevated CO2 levels is as nutritious as food grown outdoors.

Faster-growing, more productive crops require more nutrients per acre, but not more nutrients per unit of production.

Inadequate nitrogen fertilization reduces protein production relative to carbohydrate production, because proteins contain nitrogen, but carbohydrates don't. Likewise, low levels of iron or zinc in soils cause lower levels of those minerals in some crops. So, it is possible, by flouting well-established best agricultural practices, to contrive circumstances under which eCO2, or anything else which improves crop yields, causes reduced levels of protein or micronutrients in crops.

But farmers know that the more productive crops are, the more nutrients they need, per acre. Competent farmers fertilize accordingly.

Or, for nitrogen, they may plant nitrogen-fixing legumes — which benefit greatly from extra CO2.

If you don’t fertilize according to the needs of your crops, negative consequences may include reductions in protein and/or micronutrient levels in the resulting crops. The cause of such reductions isn't eCO2s, it's poor agricultural practices.

The nutrient scare is an attempt to put a negative "spin" on the most important benefit of eCO2: that it improves crop yields.

Eclectic wrote, "it is (as you state) beyond argument that higher CO2 benefits overall crop yield & plant mass."

That's correct. Moreover, agronomy studies show that for most crops the effect is highly linear as CO2 levels rise, until above about 1000 ppmv (which is far higher than we could ever hope to drive outdoor CO2 levels by burning fossil fuels). That linearity is obvious in the green (C3) trace, here:

CO2 vs plant growth, C3 & C4

That improvement is one of several major reasons that catastropic famines are fading from living memory.

If you're too young to remember huge, catastrophic famines, count yourself blessed. Through all of human history, until very recently, famine was one of the great scourges of mankind, the "Third Horseman of the Apocalypse." But no more. This is a miracle!

https://ourworldindata.org/famines

Ending famine is a VERY Big Deal, comparable to ending war and disease. Compare:

● Covid-19 killed 0.1% of world population.
● 1918 flu pandemic killed about 2%.
● WWII killed 2.7%.
● The near-global drought and famine of 1876-78 killed about 3.7% of the world population.

Eclectic wrote, "other CO2/AGW concomitant effects of increased droughts /floods /heat-waves can be harmful to crop yields in open-field agriculture. [And especially so for the staple crop of maize.]"

Well, let's examine those one at a time.

Heat-waves. Overall, temperature extremes are not worsened by the warming trend. Heat waves are slightly worsened, but by less than cold snaps are mitigated. That's because, thanks to "Arctic amplification," warming is disproportionately at chilly high latitudes, and it is greatest at night and in winter. The tropics warm less, which is nice, because they're warm enough already.

1°C is about the temperature change you get from a 500 foot elevation change. (That's calculated from an average lapse rate of 6.5 °C/km.)

On average, 1°C is similar in effect to a latitude change of about sixty miles, as you can see by looking at an agricultural growing zone map. Here's one, from the Arbor Day Foundation:

From eyeballing the map, you can see that 1°C (1.8°F) = about 50-70 miles latitude change.

James Hansen and his colleagues reported a similar figure: "A warming of 0.5°C... implies typically a poleward shift of isotherms by 50 to 75 km..."

1°C is less than the hysteresis ("dead zone") in your home thermostat, which is the amount that your indoor temperatures go up and down, all day long, without you even noticing.

In the American Midwest, farmers can fully compensate for 1°C of climate change by adjusting planting dates by about six days.
Des Moines temperature by month

Floods. Theoretically, by accelerating the water cycle, climate change could increase the frequency or severity of floods. But the effect is too slight to be noticeable. AR6 says no change in global flood frequency is detectable:

AR6 on floods

Droughts. Droughts have not worsened. In fact, the global drought trend is slightly down. Here's a study:

Hao et al. (2014). Global integrated drought monitoring and prediction system. Sci Data 1(140001). doi:10.1038/sdata.2014.1

Here's the U.S. drought trend (the bottom/orange side of the graph):
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/uspa/wet-dry/0

U.S. very wet and very dry

Not only does climate change not worsen droughts, it has long been settled science that eCO2 improves plants' water use efficiency (WUE) and drought resilience, by improving CO2 stomatal conductance relative to transpiration. So eCO2 is especially beneficial in arid regions, and for crops which are under drought stress.

Maize (corn) has been very heavily studied. Even though it is a C4 grass, it benefits greatly from elevated CO2, especially under drought stress. Here's a study (one of many):

Chun et al. (2011). Effect of elevated carbon dioxide and water stress on gas exchange and water use efficiency in corn. Agric For Meteorol 151(3), pp 378-384, ISSN 0168-1923. doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2010.11.015.

EXCERPT:
"There have been many studies on the interaction of CO2 and water on plant growth. Under elevated CO2, less water is used to produce each unit of dry matter by reducing stomatal conductance."

Here's a similar study about wheat:

Fitzgerald GJ, et al. (2016) Elevated atmospheric [CO2] can dramatically increase wheat yields in semi-arid environments and buffer against heat waves. Glob Chang Biol. 22(6):2269-84. doi:10.1111/gcb.13263.

However, I agree with you that putting a monetary value on the benefits of CO2 for crops is difficult. In part that's because the price of food soars when it's in short supply, and plummets when it's plentiful. So, for example, if we were to attribute, say, 15% of current crop yields to CO2 fertilization & CO2 drought mitigation, and value that 15% using current crop prices, we would be underestimating the true value, because absent that 15% boost the prices would have been much higher.

How big is the “carbon fertilization effect”?

daveburton at 15:36 PM on 13 July, 2023

Rob wrote elsewhere, "greening is now turning into 'browning.' ... fertilization [has now been] overwhelmed by other effects... In other words, the greening has now stopped," and here, "You were making the claim that natural sinks were removing more of our emissions, and that is not the case by any stretch of the imagination.""

Here's AR6 WG1 Table 5.1, which shows how natural CO2 removals are accelerating:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_05.pdf#page=48

Here it is with the relevant bits highlighted:
https://sealevel.info/AR6_WG1_Table_5.1.png
Or, more concisely:
https://sealevel.info/AR6_WG1_Table_5.1_annot1_partial_carbon_flux_comparison_760x398.png
Excerpt from AR6 WG1 Table 5.1, showing how natural removals of carbon from the atmosphere are accelerating
(Note: 1 PgC = 0.46962 ppmv = 3.66419 Gt CO2.)

As you can see, as atmospheric CO2 levels have risen, the natural CO2 removal rate has sharply accelerated. (That's a strong negative/stabilizing climate feedback.)

AR6 FAQ 5.1 also shows how both terrestrial and marine carbon sinks have accelerated, here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter05.pdf#page=99

Here's the key graph; I added the orange box, to highlight the (small) portion of the graph which supports your contention that, "greening is now turning into 'browning.' ... fertilization [has now been] overwhelmed by other effects... In other words, the greening has now stopped."

https://sealevel.info/AR6_FAQ_5p1_Fig_1b_final2.png

Here's the caption, explicitly saying that natural removal of carbon from the atmosphere is NOT weakening:

The authors did PREDICT a "decline" in the FUTURE, "if" emissions "continue to increase." But it hasn't happened yet.

What's more, the "decline" which they predicted was NOT for the rate of natural CO2 removals by greening and marine sinks, anyhow. Rather, if you read it carefully, you'll see that that hypothetical decline was predicted for the ratio of natural removals to emissions.

What's more, their prediction is conditional, depending on what happens with future emissions ("if CO2 emissions continue to increase").

Well, predictions are cheap. My prediction is that natural removals of CO2 from the atmosphere will continue to accelerate, for as long as CO2 levels rise.

The "fraction" which they predict might decline, someday, doesn't represent anything physical, anyhow. (It is one minus the equally unphysical "airborne fraction.") Our emission rate is currently about twice the natural removal rate, so if emissions were halved, the removal "fraction" would be 100%, and the atmospheric CO2 level would plateau. If emissions were cut by more than half then the removal "fraction" would be more than 100%, and the CO2 level would be falling.

I wrote elsewhere, "This recent study quantifies the effect for several major crops. Their results are toward the high end, but their qualitative conclusion is consistent with many, many other studies. They reported, "We consistently find a large CO2 fertilization effect: a 1 ppm increase in CO2 equates to a 0.4%, 0.6%, 1% yield increase for corn, soybeans, and wheat, respectively.""

If you recall that mankind has raised the average atmospheric CO2 level by 140 ppmv, you'll recognize that those crop yield improvements are enormous!

Rob replied, "If you actually read more than just the abstract of that study you find this on page 3: 'Complicating matters further, a decline in the global carbon fertilization effect over time has been documented, likely attributable to changes in nutrient and water availability (Wang et al. 2020).'"

Rob, I already addressed Wang et al (2020), but you might not have seen it, because the mods deemed it off-topic and deleted it. Here's what I wrote:

Rob, it's possible that your confusion on the greening/browning point was due to a widely publicized paper, with an unfortunately misleading title:

Wang et al (2020), "Recent global decline of CO2 fertilization effects on vegetation photosynthesis." Science, 11 Dec 2020, Vol 370, Issue 6522, pp. 1295-1300, doi:10.1126/science.abb7772

Many people were misled by it. You can be forgiven for thinking, based on that title, that greening due to CO2 fertilization had peaked, and is now declining.

But that's not what it meant. What it actually meant was that the rate at which plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere has continued to accelerate, but that its recent acceleration was less than expected. (You can't glean that fact from the abstract; would you like me to email you a copy of the paper?)

What's more, if you read the "Comment on" papers responding to Wang, you'll learn that even that conclusion was dubious:

Sang et al (2021), "Comment on 'Recent global decline of CO2 fertilization effects on vegetation photosynthesis'." Science 373, eabg4420. doi:10.1126/science.abg4420

Frankenberg et al (2021), "Comment on 'Recent global decline of CO2 fertilization effects on vegetation photosynthesis'." Science 373, eabg2947. doi:10.1126/science.abg2947

Agronomists have studied every important crop, and they all benefit from elevated CO2, and experiments show that the benefits continue to increase as CO2 levels rise to far above what we could ever hope to reach outdoors. Perhaps surprisingly, even the most important C4 crops, corn (maize) and sugarcane, benefit dramatically from additional CO2. C3 plants (including most crops, and all carbon-sequestering trees) benefit even more.

Rob also quoted the study saying, "While CO2 enrichment experiments have generated important insights into the physiological channels of the fertilization effect and its environmental interactions, they are limited in the extent to which they reflect real-world growing conditions in commercial farms across a large geographic scale."

That's a reference to the well-known fact that Free Air Carbon Enrichment (FACE) studies are less accurate than greenhouse and OTC (open top container) studies, because in FACE studies wind fluctuations unavoidably cause unnaturally rapid variations in CO2 levels. So FACE studies consistently underestimate the benefits of elevated CO2. Here's a paper about that:

Bunce, J.A. (2012). Responses of cotton and wheat photosynthesis and growth to cyclic variation in carbon dioxide concentration. Photosynthetica 50, 395–400. doi:10.1007/s11099-012-0041-7

The issue is also explained by Prof. George Hendrey, here:

"Plant responses to CO2 enrichment: Much of what is known about global ecosystem responses to future increases in atmospheric CO2 has been gained through Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) experiments of my design. All FACE experiments exhibit rapid variations in CO2 concentrations on the order of seconds to minutes. I have shown that long-term photosynthesis can be reduced as a consequence of this variability. Because of this, all FACE experiments tend to underestimate ecosystem net primary production (NPP) associated with a presumed increased concentration of CO2."

Rob wrote, "It does seem that you're claiming CO2 uptake falls with increasing temperature.""

That is correct for uptake by water. Or, rather, it would be correct, were it not for the fact that the small reduction in CO2 uptake due to the temperature dependence of Henry's Law is dwarfed by the large increase in CO2 uptake due to the increase in pCO2.

Rob wrote, "But it's unclear to me how you think this plays into the conclusion that CO2 levels would 'quickly normalize' over the course of 35 years" and also, "You also claimed CO2 concentrations would quickly come down (normalize) once we stop emitting it. This is also not correct unless you're using 'normalize' to mean 'stabilize at a new higher level'."

Perhaps you've confused me with someone else. I said nothing about CO2 levels "normalizing."

I did point out that the effective half-life for additional CO2 which we add to the atmosphere is only about 35 years. I wrote:

The commonly heard claim that "the change in CO2 concentration will persist for centuries and millennia to come" is based on the "long tail" of a hypothetical CO2 concentration decay curve, for a scenario in which anthropogenic CO2 emissions go to zero, CO2 level drops toward 300 ppmv, and carbon begins slowly migrating back out of the deep oceans and terrestrial biosphere into the atmosphere. It's true in the sense that if CO2 emissions were to cease, it would be millennia before the CO2 level would drop below 300 ppmv. But the first half-life for the modeled CO2 level decay curve is only about 35 years, corresponding to an e-folding "adjustment time" of about fifty years. That's the "effective atmospheric lifetime" of our current CO2 emissions.

Rob wrote, "Dave... The fundamental fact that you disputed is that oceans take up about half of our emissions."

That reflects two points of confusion, Rob.

In the first place, our emissions are currently around 11 PgC/year (per the GCP). The oceans remove CO2 from the atmosphere at a current rate of a little over 2.5 PgC/year. That's only about 1/4 of the rate of our emissions, not half.

More fundamentally, the oceans are not removing some fixed fraction of our emissions. None of the natural CO2 removal processes do. All of them remove CO2 from the bulk atmosphere, at rates which largely depend on the atmospheric CO2 concentration, not on our emission rate. If we halved our CO2 emission rate, natural CO2 removals would continue at their current rate.

Because human CO2 emissions are currently faster than natural CO2 removals, we've increased the atmospheric CO2 level by about 50% (140 ppmv), but we've increased the amount of carbon in the oceans by less than 0.5%, as you can see in AR5 WG1 Fig. 6-1.

Sorry, this got kind of long. I hope I addressed all your concerns.

How big is the “carbon fertilization effect”?

daveburton at 08:56 AM on 13 July, 2023

Rob, in answer to your first question, Bob is correct: they use different units.

Both the graph and the "plug in suitable values" calculation (above) are for freshwater, but that hardly matters. CO2 is noticeably less soluble in saltwater, but the effect of temperature on CO2 solubility is nearly identical. Here's the same calculation with salinity 35 (typical seawater), for a 1° temperature increase (from 288K to 289K):

1 - ( (e^( -60.2409 + (93.4517*(100/289)) + (23.3585* ln(289/100)) + 35 * (0.023517 - (0.023656*(289/100)) + (0.0047036 * (289/100)^2)) )) / (e^( -60.2409 + (93.4517*(100/288)) + (23.3585* ln(288/100)) + 35 * (0.023517 - (0.023656*(288/100)) + (0.0047036 * (288/100)^2)) )) ) =

Bob is also correct that ocean chemistry is more complicated than that, in part because most of the dissolved CO2 immediately dissosiates into various ions. Here's a good resource on ocean chemistry:
http://www.molecularmodels.eu/cap11.pdf

What's more, in the oceans, biology generally trumps chemistry, and that is certainly true for CO2 uptake. Some people think that the capacity of the oceans to take up CO2 is limited to surface water by ocean stratification. But that's incorrect, beause the "biological carbon pump" rapidly moves CO2 from surface waters into the ocean depths, in the form of "marine snow."

The higher CO2 levels go, the faster that "pump" works. Here's a paper about it:
https://www.science.org/doi/reader/10.1126/science.aaa8026

Once carbon has migrated from the ocean surface to the depths, most of it remains sequestered for a very long time. Some of it settles on the ocean floor, but even dissolved carbon is sequestered for a long time. For instance, it is estimated that the AMOC takes about 1000 years to move carbon-rich water from high latitudes to the tropics, where it can reemerge. That is obviously far longer than the anthropogenic CO2 emission spike will last.

Due to the temperature dependence of Henry's Law, a 1°C increase in temperature slows CO2 uptake by the oceans by about 3%. That's a slight positive feedback: more CO2 in the air increases water temperatures, which slows ocean uptake of CO2. But it is very minor, because a 50% (140 ppmv) rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration accelerates CO2 uptake by the oceans by 50%, which obviously dwarfs 3%. That's the main reason that ocean uptake of CO2 continues to accelerate despite the temperature dependence of Hanry's Law.

Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater

daveburton at 21:53 PM on 12 July, 2023

Bob Ludlow wrote

[Contents snipped]

"You have no objective criteria to declare that The Battery and Honolulu are "the best" at representing anything other than local effects..."

The Battery has 1825 months of sea-level measurements. No other NOAA Atlantic site has that much. Only San Francisco has more, but it has only 1404 months of measurements since the 1906 earthquake. The downside to The Battery's measurement record is its high (atypical) rate of subsidence, which roughly doubles the local ("relative") sea-level trend there.

There are some European sites with longer, better Atlantic / North Sea / Baltic measurement records, and Australia has an excellent Pacific measurement record, but there are substantial delays getting data for those locations. My sealevel.info stie pulls data from NOAA frequently, so it's much more up-to-date.

Some of the European sites, have recorded a slight acceleration; it was most noticeable at Brest, which saw a 0.0 mm/year trend in the19th century, but a 1.6 mm/year trend since then, though there are substantial gaps in ther record.

Several German sites have particularly excellent measurement records; here's one of them:

In the Pacific, Honolulu has 1421 months (>118 years) of continuous sea-level measurements, without even a single missing month. Just as importantly, Honolulu is a near-ideal measurement site, near the middle of the world's largest ocean, on an "old" island with near-zero vertical land motion, small tides, and (unlike most places!) almost no seasonal cycle. What's more, its mid-Pacific location is near the pivot point of the east-west Pacific "teeter-totter," so it is little affected by ENSO "slosh." That is, El Niño and La Niña don’t affect sea-level there much at all. It really is a superb dataset.

Bob continued, "Just because they have long records does not mean that they accurately reflect regional or global trends."

That's true. As I've mentioned, NYC's sea-level trend is atypical, because of the high rate of subsidence there.

However, if subsidence / uplift are due to very long term processes, like PGR, there's reason to hope that they are fairly consistent over the duration of the measurement record. In that case, even if the linear trend is greatly affected by uplift or subsidence, the acceleration won't be. (Of course, that doesn't work in places, like Manila, where changing local factors, like groundwater pumping, cause varying subsidence.)

So it should not surprise you that, even though The Battery and Honolulu have seen quite different linear trends over the last century, the measured acceleration in both places is very similar (negligible).

Bob wrote, "You are clearly picking locations to try to tell the story you want to tell."

That's a false accusation. You just find the data surprising, so you make baseless accusations, without evidence. That is not conducive to constructive dialogue, nor to learning.

If you think I chose unrepresentative sites, or sites with inferior quality measurement data, then YOU tell me what sites YOU think are better, and why.

Bob wrote, "As for your quadratic fits: it has been pointed out to you over the past 10 years that quadratic fits mean nothing when the underlying data does not resemble a quadratic relationship."

Nobody competent makes that claim in the context of sea-level analysis.

If there were a step-change in some climate system input, then you could look for a step-acceleration as a consequence. But there's been nothing like that. The radiative forcing trend from CO2 has been very gradual, and strikingly linear (just barely more than linear) for the last forty years. It's been quite gradual for much longer than that.

Quadratic regression is the cannonical way of detecting gradual acceleration. It's how Church & White did it, and how every competent sea-level analyst since then has done it. When Hogarth reported that, "sea level acceleration from extended tide gauge data converges on 0.01 mm/yr²," that's what he was talking about.

Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater

daveburton at 06:58 AM on 11 July, 2023

Philippe Chantreau wrote, "I will respond to Dave Burton on the CO2 fertilization thread on the part of this latest post regarding that subject."

Will you please provide a link to your comment to me, Philippe?

[Major snip]

Rob Honeycutt wrote, "1) That is not an image that appears in AR6, not with the added orange box. Thus you're co-opting their work to infer conclusions they do not make."

That's incorrect.

Since we're onto the next page of comments now, here's the image again:
https://sealevel.info/AR6_FAQ_5p1_Fig_1b_final2.png

If you enlarge it you can see, in fine print, the URL that will take you to where you can find it in chapter 5 of AR6:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter05.pdf#page=99

I added the orange box to highlight the (small) part of the image which supports your contention that, "greening is now turning into 'browning.' ... fertilization [has now been] overwhelmed by other effects... In other words, the greening has now stopped."

AR6 directly contradicts your contention, Rob. In fact, it does so in the caption on that very figure:

They could not have been clearer in stating that natural removal of carbon from the atmosphere is NOT weakening.

The authors did PREDICT a "decline" in the FUTURE, "if" emissions "continue to increase." But that hasn't happened yet, and the "decline" which they predicted was NOT for the rate of natural CO2 removals by greening and marine sinks, anyhow. Rather, that hypothetical decline was predicted for the ratio of natural removals to emissions, and their prediction is conditional, depending on what happens with future emissions ("if CO2 emissions continue to increase").

Well, predictions are cheap. My prediction is that natural removals of CO2 from the atmosphere will continue to accelerate, for as long as CO2 levels rise.

Rob, it's possible that your confusion on the greening/browning point was due to a widely publicized paper, with an unfortunately misleading title:

Wang et al (2020), "Recent global decline of CO2 fertilization effects on vegetation photosynthesis." Science, 11 Dec 2020, Vol 370, Issue 6522, pp. 1295-1300, doi:10.1126/science.abb7772

Many people were misled by it. You can be forgiven for thinking, based on that title, that greening due to CO2 fertilization had peaked, and is now declining.

What's more, if you read the "Comment on" papers responding to Wang, you'll learn that even that conclusion was very dubious:

Sang et al (2021), "Comment on 'Recent global decline of CO2 fertilization effects on vegetation photosynthesis'." Science 373, eabg4420. doi:10.1126/science.abg4420

Frankenberg et al (2021), "Comment on 'Recent global decline of CO2 fertilization effects on vegetation photosynthesis'." Science 373, eabg2947. doi:10.1126/science.abg2947

Bob Loblaw wrote, "...I have no way of knowing whether our daveburton is the same Dave Burton seen in the discussions at Tamino's... The other Dave Burton's name shows up quite a few times, although he does not comment."

Yes, I'm the Dave Burton who Tamino intermittently criticizes. Unfortunately, when I try to comment on his blog, he nearly always deletes my comments, so I stopped trying. Suffice to say, if you like being misled, you should enjoy his blog. (Example.)

Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater

Bob Loblaw at 22:34 PM on 7 July, 2023

daveburton @ 29:

You seem to be under some serious delusions as to what the words "best", and "accurate" really mean.

You have no objective criteria to declare that The Battery and Honolulu are "the best" at representing anything other than local effects. Just because they have long records does not mean that they accurately reflect regional or global trends. You also state:

Beware of "global" sea-level analyses which use varying mixes of measurement locations. As you can see from the striking difference between Oahu and New York, sea-level trends vary considerably from one location to another.

So, you admit that single locations do not provide global trends - yet you seem to be arguing that the "best" way to get global trends is to ignore most of the other data.

You are clearly picking locations to try to tell the story you want to tell. That is not "accurate".

As for your quadratic fits: it has been pointed out to you over the past 10 years that quadratic fits mean nothing when the underlying data does not resemble a quadratic relationship. It does not matter if you "accurately" calculated the quadratic fit when the underlying physics says "not quadratic".

This discussion is also getting off topic for this rebuttal of Hansen's statement. If you want to continue to discuss sea level, there are better places here at SkS. Here are two SkS posts that provide some of the material from Tamino that I referred to earlier.

Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?

Is sea level rise accelerating?

Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater

michael sweet at 21:19 PM on 7 July, 2023

DaveBurton:

You are wastiing our time here with your obvious, deliberately incorrect graphs. I note that Tamino specifically addressed your deliberate mistakes as long as a decade ago. You have been wrong for over a decade and you are not informed enough to realize it. You have no excuse for your false claims. Neutral observers wonder why you persist in your obviously false claims for so long.

No-one here will give your garbage a second consideration. You will not convince anyone with your absurd claims. You need to go back to WUWT where they do not care about being lied to.

Every scientist who studiies sea level rise states that sea level rise has accelerated substantially. When you are alone claiming something and everyone who studies the topic professionally states that you are wrong you need to realize that you are not Galileo, you are simply wrong. Look at the pictures of fish in the streets all over the world.

You should go away. You contaminate a scientific site with pretend analysis.

Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater

Eclectic at 09:10 AM on 7 July, 2023

Indeed, Daveburton, the sea level is a complex subject. I applaud the detailed work you have done on some aspects of it.

Nevertheless, Dave, you have taken a relatively short-term look at some trees ~ while entirely failing to look at the forest. And failing to take a commonsense look at the underlying physics : the causes of long-term changes.

I am fairly sure you are not the Flat-Earth Scientist who completely discounts the role of CO2 in climate & consequent sea level changes (despite you consciously /subconsciously "trailing your coat" at the start of post #29 ).

My worry (for you) is that you have been "captured" by Motivated Reasoning . . . and that for a number of years now, you have not climbed out of the rabbit-hole.

So . . . good luck for self-examining your inner emotions & motivations. A scientific thinker must rise above his inner bias.

As OnePlanet says, it is the half-truths which are the danger [to one's own self, especially].

Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater

Rob Honeycutt at 12:48 PM on 6 July, 2023

I'm reasonably certain this is the same Dave Burton, Bob. I've come across him many times over the years. He operates the sealevel.info website. He's making the exact same claims. He's an IT guy who fancies himself an expert on sea level rise.

Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater

Bob Loblaw at 10:50 AM on 6 July, 2023

Oh, my. Commenter daveburton is certainly sending a lot of information our way. I am going to focus on his sea level acceleration claims in comment #10. In that comment, he links to two US locations (The Battery, in the NYC area, and Honolulu) for tide/sea level data, and gives us some quadratic equations to make a claim that sea level rise is negligible, and not much of a worry for the future.

Most regular readers here will also be familiar with Tamino's blog. Although Tamino has not been particularly active recently, over the years he has done a number of posts on analysis of sea level data. It turns out that a lot of those posts have the name "Dave Burton" showing up in them, either as a source of information that Tamino is debunking, or (on a few) as a commenter.

Now, I have no way of knowing whether our daveburton is the same Dave Burton seen in the discussions at Tamino's, but there is a similarity: they both like using The Battery and Honolulu stations as examples, and they both like fitting quadratic equations and arguing that there is little or no evidence for acceleration in sea level rise. To avoid confusion, I'll refer to the Dave Burton that is discussed at Tamino's as "the other Dave Burton".

I don't have the space or time to try to re-write everything that Tamino has written, so I'll just link to a few of his posts on the matter (well, nine) and provide very brief summaries.

The first Tamino post is from 2012, titled Unnatural Hazards. The other Dave Burton's name shows up quite a few times, although he does not comment. Tamino looks at The Battery data, plus a global sea level data set, and demonstrates why a quadratic fit is unsuitable. He also shows clear acceleration in the data. To provide a little graphic input for this comment, I'll included two of Tamino's figures:

A graph of the seasonally-detrended sea level at The Battery:

Sea level at The Battery

And a graph showing the rate of sea level change:

Rate of sea level change at The Battery

I"ll let you decide if you think this shows acceleration. Read Tamino's post for further details.

The next Tamino post isn't until October 2019. He had five posts from October to December, covering the following:

Sea Level Rise. This post looks at acceleration in several global data sets, finding it present. The other Dave Burton comments extensively, and claims that "Honolulu is a nearly ideal place for sea-level measurement". He uses a quadratic equation to look for acceleration (and basically says it isn't significant).

The next Tamino post is on Sea Level Acceleration. This post was prompted by the comments from the other Dave Burton on the previous post. Tamino looks at San Diego, Key West, Boston, St. Petersburg (FL), and Honolulu. Honolulu is the only one without acceleration. Tamino uses changepoint analysis to look for changes in linear trend. (Spoiler alert: he finds changes.)

Further comments from the other Dave Burton lead to Tamino's next post, on Sea Level Accleration Denial. Tamino goes into more detail on the folly of the other Dave Burton's quadratic analysis, and explains more aspects of statistical testing for acceleration.

Tamino's final October post is on Sea Level: Eastern North America. This post only has a passing mention of the other Dave Burton, but it is another excellent analysis along the entire east coast from the Caribbean to Canada.

In December, we see another post on A Century and More of Sea Level Acceleration. Also only a passing mention of the other Dave Burton, but this post looks at several different sea level data sets, and includes more acceleration analysis.

It isn't until November 2021 that we see another Tamino post where the other Dave Burton is mentioned. This one is titled North Carolina Sea Level Rise: Problem Not Solved. (The other Dave Burton first came on the scene, arguing against forcing North Carolina developers to include future rapid rising sea levels in their planning.) Tamino quickly followed the first November post with another, titled Sea Level at Wilmington, NC (and other places). This adds another North Carolina station to the analysis.

And finally, in February 2022, Tamino posted on Sea Level Denial, where the other Dave Burton's name comes up again. This post has further looks at Wilmington, Cedar Key, Pensacola, and Key West.

Again, our daveburton posting here may not be the same as the other Dave Burton, but the arguments are much the same - and rife with the same errors. Let's hope that our daveburton can read Tamino's posts and learn from them The other Dave Burton certainly did not.

Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater

One Planet Only Forever at 08:00 AM on 6 July, 2023

daveburton,

I will try to limit how much I repeat any of the assistance others have provided to increase your awareness and improve your understanding of the issues. I will try to focus on aspects of your response @10 that have not yet been addressed.

I think it may be best to respond in reverse as follows.

Regarding: "Assumption #2: You seem to think that the CO2 level controls sea-level."

That is a misunderstanding of my comment. I am aware of and understand the following Common Sense Consensus knowledge:

Increased CO2 levels will result in a warmer global average surface temperature resulting in the reduction of the amount of water that is stored as ice supported by land (melting of ice supported by water does not change the level - unless the melting of that ice accelerates the flow of land supported ice to the ocean). Most of the water that is no longer "ice supported on land" will drain into the oceans resulting in a higher sea level (and this process will take a long time to reach a balanced state after CO2 levels stop increasing).

In addition to the sea level change due to melted ice, an increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere will result in an increased average temperature of the oceans. And water expands as it warms resulting in a higher average sea level in addition to the melted ice impact.

Regarding: "Assumption #1: You assume that there's such a thing as "a locked-in doubling of CO2.""

I was not assuming anything. I was presenting a hypothetical situation for consideration. That situation is a case where CO2 levels reach 560 ppm and stay at that level due to continued human impacts.

Simply asking what the sea level will be when CO2 levels reach 560 ppm will result in a vast range of answers. There are a diversity of cases where CO2 levels reach 560 ppm that would have significantly different expected maximum sea level rise. They include the following:

CO2 rapidly reaching 560 ppm and continuing to rapidly increase. That will produce a low amount of sea level increase at the moment that 560 ppm is reached. But it would cause a much higher level in the distant 'balanced condition' of the future that will be established at some significant time after CO2 levels are no longer being increased.

CO2 levels slowly reaching 560 ppm and continuing to slowly increase. That would result in a higher sea level when 560 ppm is reached that in case 1. But if the same 'maximum ppm level' as in case 1 is reached then the long term sea level rise would likely be comparable to case 1.

CO2 level increases to 560 ppm then is held steady by continued human impacts (a locked in level of CO2). This is the case I was referring to. Indeed you misunderstood my comment.

CO2 levels rise to 560 ppm and then are rapidly reduced by human industrial CO2 removal or other human impact changes that result in reduction of CO2 levels rather than a steady level of 560 ppm. This is closer to what an ethical consideration would conclude. The more ethical conclusion is that CO2 levels should not be allowed to reach 560 ppm. And human actions to remove CO2 from the atmosphere are required even though the CO2 levels do not reach 560 ppm.

Finally regarding your opening statement: "...why are you asking me "about the human origins of global warming"? My comment had nothing to do with that."

I was not asking a question. I was pointing out that the information you provided did not affect the conclusion of the OP. Your comment could be considered to be an attempt to use a 'new twist' of the "Hansen got it wrong" claim.

That raises a new question. Why did you make the claim you made @8?

Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater

daveburton at 07:39 AM on 6 July, 2023

Rob wrote, "that greening is now turning into 'browning.'"

Well, here's what AR6 shows:

Some people point to that little orange box and say that greening has ceased. That reminds me of the folks who say that the it's not as warm as the 2015-16 El Nino, so warming has ceased.

Philippe wrote, "There is probably a better thread for this argument,"

I agree. I was just trying to address OnePlanet's remark about a "locked in" CO2 level.

Philippe wrote, "There is only one factor that truly controls how green any region can be: water availability."

That's a common misconception. Elevated CO2 levels greatly improve plants' water use efficiency (WUE) and drought resilience. That's why elevated CO2 is especially beneficial for crops when under drought stress. It has been heavily studied by agronomists. Here's a paper about wheat:

Philippe wrote, "The experiences that have shown a CO2 fertilization effect were done in very controlled conditions and involved extremely high concentrations (800 ppm and up)."

That's incorrect. All major crops have been studied, and all benefit from elevated CO2. It is true that the greatest benefits accrue at 1000 ppmv or higher, but even modest CO2 increases significantly improve crop yields.

This recent study quantifies the effect for several major crops. Their results are toward the high end, but their qualitative conclusion is consistent with many, many other studies. They reported, "We consistently find a large CO2 fertilization effect: a 1 ppm increase in CO2 equates to a 0.4%, 0.6%, 1% yield increase for corn, soybeans, and wheat, respectively."

This study evaluated pine trees:

Idso, S., & Kimball, B. (1994). Effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on biomass accumulation and distribution in Eldarica pine trees. Journal of Experimental Botany, 45, 1669-1672.
Pine trees grown at varying CO2 levels

As you noted, the effect is greatest with CO2 >800 ppmv, but, as you can see, even a much smaller CO2 increase has a substantial effect.

Rob wrote, "This entire paragraph is patently absurd and completely fabricated."

It is 100% factual, Rob. I'm surprised that you didn't already know it.

These figures are from that same AR6 Table 5.1 excerpt which I already showed you:

average CO2 removal rate in the 2010s = 2.7707 ppmv/yr
average CO2 removal rate in teh 2000s = 2.3481 ppmv/yr

These figures are from Mauna Loa:

average CO2 level in the 2010s = 399.91 ppmv
average CO2 level in the 2000s = 378.84 ppmv

(399.91-378.84) / (2.7707-2.3481) = 49.86

So a 50 ppmv increase in CO2 level accelerates the natural removal rate by about 1 ppmv/year.

49.86 / 2.1294 = 23.42 ppmv increase yields a +1 PgC removal rate increase.

I encourage you to do the calculations yourself for any other time period of your choice.

If you have the natural removal rate as a function of CO2 level (which we do), it is trivial to simulate the CO2 level decline if emissions were to suddenly cease. I wrote a little Perl program to do it; email me if you want a copy.

Rob wrote, "if true, the oceans would just continue to suck up all the atmospheric CO2 and we'd live on a frozen planet."

That's incorrect. The system progresses toward equilibrium, which is below 300 ppmv, but not zero.

Rob wrote, "rather that starting from a prior where all the published science is getting it wrong, and making stuff up... you don't have the requisite training to fully grasp the topic"

Rob, it's not necessary to resort to ad hominem attacks. I'm happy to document things that are surprising to you. You need but ask. Everything I've written is well-supported.

Rob wrote, "take some time to fully familiarize yourself with Henry's Law."

Due to the temperature dependence of Henry's Law, a 1°C increase in temperature slows CO2 uptake by the oceans by about 3%. But a 50% (140 ppmv) rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration accelerates CO2 uptake by the oceans by 50%. That's the main reason that ocean uptake of CO2 continues to accelerate.

Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater

michael sweet at 07:27 AM on 6 July, 2023

Dave Burton:

I note that the last time Carbon dioxide was over 400 ppm the sea level was more than 20 meters higher than current sea level.

Your sea level graphs are obviously flawed. A simple eye ball look at the data from the Battery in New York shows that at the start of the time period the data is above the fit line and at the end of the time period the data is way above the fit line. That means that the line does not fit the data and some sort of curved line is needed because the rate of sea level rise is increasing over the time period you chose.

In addition, you have cherry picked two single locations to do your calculations without justifying your choice.

Fortunately, Tamino did an analysis of sea level rise before he stopped posting analysis. (Tamino is a professional statistical data analyzer who has published on sea level rise). He analyized "the data for every tide gauge station in region 3 which had at least 360 months’ data (at least 30 years), at least 120 months of which (10 years of which) are since the year 2000 — after all, we do want to know what’s happening now. That leaves 10 stations". Since he used all the available data his data is not cherry picked like yours is.

Here is one of his graphs of the rate of sea level rise on the East coast of the Gulf of Mexico:

sea level rise

We see immediately that sea level rise does not follow a straight line but varies over the 100 year time from of analysis. Of particluar interest is the dramatic increase in sea level rise since 2010.

The dramatic increase in sea level rise observed since 2010 holds true for an analysis of the entire globe. Your analysis using a linear fit is simply incorrect and cherry picked.

I note that the rate of rise since 2010 is more than double all the previous rates.

We would expect that if the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere remains above 400 ppm that the sea level will rise 20 meters plus. The question is only how fast the sea will rise. We see the rise is rapidly increasing every year now. Your linear fit deliberately hides the observed rise.

I note that the change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has rapidly increased over the past 50 years so one would expect the sea level change to rapidly increase over that time period. Including the data back to 1900 with a linear fit just hides the recent rapid increase in sea level rise.

Does anyone know how Tamino is doing?

Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater

daveburton at 03:51 AM on 6 July, 2023

Thanks for fixing those links, Rob. We were obviously typing simultaneously; you beat me to it by 7 minutes.

However, nothing I wrote was misleading. If you "follow the link to the actual IPCC page to read the full" table, you'll see that it shows exactly what I said it shows: as atmospheric CO2 levels have risen, the natural CO2 removal rate has sharply accelerated. (That's a strong negative/stabilizing climate feedback.)

The commonly heard claim that "the change in CO2 concentration will persist for centuries and millennia to come" is based on the "long tail" of a hypothetical CO2 concentration decay curve, for a scenario in which anthropogenic CO2 emissions go to zero, CO2 level drops toward 300 ppmv, and carbon begins slowly migrating back out of the deep oceans and terrestrial biosphere into the atmosphere. It's true in the sense that if CO2 emissions were to cease, it would be millenia before the CO2 level would drop below 300 ppmv. But the first half-life for the modeled CO2 level decay curve is only about 35 years, corresponding to an e-folding "adjustment time" of about fifty years. That's the "effective atmospheric lifetime" of our current CO2 emissions.

Moreover, it is not correct to say that "the ocean takes up about half of our emissions." Our emissions are currently around 11 PgC/year (per the GCP). The oceans remove CO2 from the atmosphere at a current rate of a little over 2.5 PgC/year, but they are not removing some fixed fraction of our emissions. If we halved our emission rate, natural CO2 removals would continue at their current rate.

In the oceans, biology generally trumps chemistry, and that is certainly true for CO2 uptake. Some people think that the capacity of the oceans to take up CO2 is limited to surface water by ocean stratification. But that's incorrect, beause the "biological carbon pump" rapidly moves CO2 from surface waters into the ocean depths, in the form of "marine snow."

The higher CO2 levels go, the faster that "pump" works. Here's a paper about it:
https://www.science.org/doi/reader/10.1126/science.aaa8026

Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater

daveburton at 17:24 PM on 5 July, 2023

One Planet, why are you asking me "about the human origins of global warming"? My comment had nothing to do with that.

As for your first indented question, it appears that you've made two unjustifiable assumptions:

Assumption #1: You assume that there's such a thing as "a locked-in doubling of CO2."

If I understand you correctly, that means you think CO2 added to the atmosphere just stays "locked in" there, forever, and the longer we add CO2 to the air the higher the level will rise. Is that what you think?

If that's what you think, you're mistaken. CO2 doesn't just stay in the atmosphere. Nature is rapidly removing CO2 from the air, into other carbon reservoirs. The only reason the atmospheric CO2 level is nevertheless rising instead of falling is that we're adding CO2 to the air even faster than nature is removing it.

But it's becoming harder and harder to keep up with natural CO2 removals, because they're accelerating. This is an excerpt from AR6 WG1 Table 5.1, showing how the removals are accelerating:

LINK (Note: 1 PgC = 0.46962 ppmv = 3.66419 Gt CO2.)

At the current 420 ppmv level (i.e., 135-140 ppmv above a 280-285 ppmv baseline), those negative feedbacks already remove an average of about 5.5 PgC per year (= about 2.6 ppmv), and for each 20-25 ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration those removals accelerate by another 1 PgC/year.

With our current emission rate, the CO2 level is only rising by about 5.1 PgC/year (+2.4 ppmv). So it won't take much of a CO2 level increase before natural removals match our current emission rate: just (20 to 25 ppmv/PgC) × 5.1 PgC = (102 to 128) ppmv.

420 + (102 to 128) = 522 to 548 ppmv. That's the "plateau level" beyond which the atmospheric CO2 level cannot rise, unless our emissions increase further. If we were to continue our current anthropogenic emission rate indefinitely (or until the coal runs out), we'd still not quite reach 560 ppmv.

Assumption #2: You seem to think that the CO2 level controls sea-level. But the data do not support that assumption. Most coastal measurement sites have seen negligible acceleration in sea-level trend over the last century, even as the atmospheric CO2 level rose by 115 ppmv.

Here are the best long U.S. Atlantic and Pacific measurement records, respectively:
https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=Battery&c_date=1923/6-2024/12
https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=Honolulu&c_date=1923/6-2024/12
Both show a statistically insiginficant acceleration of 0.006 mm/yr² (± at least twice that) over the last century.

Hogarth studied many long measurement records, and concluded, "Sea level acceleration from extended tide gauge data converges on 0.01 mm/yr²"

That's very, very slight.

To calculate the effect of that acceleration use the following quadradic formula:

y = B + M·x + (A/2)·x²

where:

x is elapsed time
y is position or sea-level after time x
B is initial position or sea-level
M is current rate
A is acceleration

So (choosing some fairly typical values) if:

M = 1.5 mm/yr
A = 0.01 mm/yr²
x = 100 yrs

And if the trends were to continue:

y = B + 100·1.5 + (0.01/2)·100²
= B + 150 + 0.005·10000
= B + 150 + 50
= 200 mm = 7.9 inches

6" of that 8" is from the linear trend, and 2" of that 8" is due to acceleration.

However, there's a subtle twist. When acceleration is estimated by quadratic regression, we're fitting a quadratic curve to the measurement record to date. Extending that curve is the projection. But the curve's slope matches the linear tread at the midpoint, not at the end.

So, to find y (sea-level) 100 years from NOW, we should use x = 100+(L/2), where L is length of the measurement record.

So if we have a 100 year measurement record, to calculate the accumulated effect of the acceleration 100 years from now we should use x=150, not x=100.

Remember our formula:

y = B + M·x + (A/2)·x²

That last term is the effect of acceleration; using x=150 we get:

(A/2)·x² = 0.005·150² = 0.005·22500 = 112.5 mm = 4.4 inches.

So, an acceleration of 0.01 mm/year² is still negligible, but it's a "slightly bigger negligible."

A warming climate is know to have effects which both increase and decrease sea-level. Based on the negligible effect that the last century's CO2 increase and consenquent warming has had on sea-level trends, it is clear that, so far, the effects which increase and decrease sea-level must be similar in magnitude, and roughly cancelling.

So the assumption that a particular CO2 level "locks in" a particular sea-level is not justifiable.

97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven

michael sweet at 11:47 AM on 5 July, 2023

Duran3d:

As has been pointed out, a consensus is a supermajority of those consulted. For IPCC reports they usually state what the consensus is for the least amount of harm from the discussed issue. For example, the IPCC sea level rise projections are set at what a consensus thinks are the minimum rise expected. That means that a large majority of scientists who study sea level rise think sea level rise will be greater than the IPCC consensus. Trying to minimize something that has already been minimized is not a consistant argument.

Claiming that it must be a unanimous consensus will not get you any traction here at Skeptical Science.

Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater

One Planet Only Forever at 05:44 AM on 4 July, 2023

daveburton,

Your observation does not change the conclusion that "..., we can stop using this conversation from 1988 as a reason to be skeptical about the human origins of global warming."

But it raises interesting questions you may be able to answer.

How much sea level rise at the West Side Highway would be 'locked-in (occur in the future)' by a 'locked-in' doubling of CO2 to 560 ppm?

What would the expected high tide levels be relative to the elevation of the lowest point of the West Side Highway?

And what flood levels and frequencies of flooding would likely be the result?

Note that in May of 2017 portions of the West Side Highway were flooded due to heavy rain and an inability to drain the areas quick enough. The level of such flood events are higher if the water level that they drain into is higher.

Also note that Hurricane Sandy (2012) also flooded many parts of New York.

Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater

daveburton at 01:56 AM on 4 July, 2023

It appears that Hansen added that "assuming CO2 doubled" caveat later. Many years later he claimed to recall that that's what he had said to Reiss back in 1988, but there doesn't seem to be any contemporaneous evidence of it.

Moreover, his claim doesn't pass the smell test, not only because of the implausibility of remembering such details years later, but also because in 1988 the atmospheric CO2 concentration was less than 352 ppmv, and it was rising by only 1.63 ppmv or +0.476% per year. For the CO2 level to reach 570 ppmv by 2028 would have required a wildly accelerated average annual increase of ((570-352)/40) = 5.45 ppmv or +1.21% per year.

The rate of CO2 level rise did accelerate, but only slightly. Over the last decade the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased at an average rate of 2.45 ppmv or +0.603% per year.

With only five years to go before 2028, the average sea-level at The Battery in Manhattan has risen by only about 6.7 inches (some of which is due to subsidence), and the "West Side Highway" (Henry Hudson Parkway) is still about ten feet above mean sea-level.

Cranky Uncle: a game building resilience against climate misinformation

peppers at 00:56 AM on 19 June, 2023

infant mortality Hi gentlemen. Rob, I start my logic from our worlds increase from 1 to 8 billion people. I dont know of anywhere this is made up or in dispute. I then premise that this describes mankinds addtional use of resources, including increased use that has elevated Co2. I will pause there until we are agreeing these premises are in agreement, but I will hint that this is a remarkable change in approaching this topic. If we do not agree that our population has rocketed up from 1 to 8 billion ( 8 billion reached November 22, 2022 ) in 200 years, after never going over 1 billion in the prior 180,000 years of human history, then we cannot really go to the next step of my ideas (thx).

Eclectic, hi. I understand infant mortality to be the measurement of human suffering over the large picture. That is how it is posed. I know it sounds off base and we should discuss cancer or heart disease, etc. But infant mortality has been the real beast to our existence. 50% in roman times, peaking to 62% I think in south american in 800AD. It has been at 50% in many place on earth into the mid 1800's. Today it is under 1% in the US, and about 4.35% globally with the third world locations providing the offsets of up to 8.5%. I posted a chart earlier on this thread.

Surprisingly, or not surprisingly, the eradication of infant mortality, the leap of our lifespans and the shear amount of people who now live to be an adult produces a chart that is an exact mirror to the hockey stick chart used to show our rise in Co2.

I hesitate to go further, but I will hazard it. If you see what I am referring to, much like the rise of people on earth to 8 billion; there is no going back. The world is different. The world is already different and there is no going back and the United Nations estimates we will continue to increase to just about 9.5-10B around the end of this century and then it will taper off on increasing.

I have not explored expectations of any decline but if it is expected I would imagine it would involve several hundreds of years. And only find a moderating level of some kind and not return to 1B.

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

EddieEvans at 07:58 AM on 7 June, 2023

scaddenp at 07:01 AM on 7 June 2023
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

I've forgotten how to use this board and answer. I'm not clear on what you don't understand. The blanket analogy is a common metaphor because the Earth's heat is being trapped by greenhouse gases, not unlike Venus.

I understand that the Earth warms and cools, primarily, by the Malankovich Cycles and trapped greenhouse gases. Is someone saying otherwise, and if so, how do they explain worldwide glacier melt and sea level rise?

At a glance - How reliable are climate models?

Eclectic at 22:26 PM on 30 May, 2023

PSBaker @1 ~ you are quite right to say that the uncertainties re rainfall are making for a less relatable message to non-specialists [such as me ! ].

Rising sea level, rises in severity & duration of heat waves/ droughts/ floods are all important in the medium term. But a broad-brush picture of what the future holds, is quite sufficient for "us" to base our policy decisions on.

Mathematical delineation of uncertainties is relevant to the scientific specialist ( and especially to the hydrologist re rainfall variation) . . . but uncertainties are, for the rest of us, probably not worth addressing, unless you feel something misleading or nefarious is being concealed by their omission.

10 year anniversary of 97% consensus study

michael sweet at 02:54 AM on 26 May, 2023

John Kerry was quoted addressing the British Parliment as saying:

"“If you have five tipping points, and two of them involve the potential of metres, literally multiple metres, double digits of sea level rise, that’s as good a definition of catastrophe as you can achieve.

“And the reality is that that is where we are headed unless we do more about it. Now, why do I have this measure of optimism and of our capacity? Because it is within our capacity."

I thnk in addition to multiple meters of sea level rise there are other potential consequences of climate chnge that would qualify as "catastrophic". Perhaps we could make a list.

I saw a projection of a billion climate refugees or more under some conditions. For me that is way past catastrophic.

How many human deaths in one year , or cumulative, before it counts as catastrophic? Only one if it is a close friend or relative.

What conditions do others here think would count as catastrophic. Perhaps we could find a consensus, Undoubtedly we all have different conditions that have to be met for the problem to be catastrophic.

I remember when the IPCC AR5 came out in 2014 with a list of severe consequences. I wondered at the time if I would live to see sea level rise causing damage, widespread fire storms, heat conditions killing millions etc. I was 56 at the time and thought I would live another 30 years. Now, only 8 years later, we see these problems already happening around the world. I can only imagine what it would be like in 2100 if we do not take as strong action as possible immediately.

In my experience, persons who ask for definations of catastrophic want to minimize the actions we take to try to avoid the already begun catastrophic climate change.

10 year anniversary of 97% consensus study

Eclectic at 23:03 PM on 16 May, 2023

Michael @10 ~ yes, points taken.

But the question of time scale : that's probably best viewed by the usual legal yardstick of "reasonable" ~ that which would be reasonably expected over a reasonable timespan in reasonably predictable circumstances, as viewed by a reasonable person (or better, by a reasonable climate scientist). Does that sound reasonable?

A future sea level rise of 1 meter has been closely estimated as displacing around 230 million people. Presumably a rise of 2 meters would displace well over twice that number, and would destroy a far greater amount of fertile farmland into the bargain. Perhaps not a problem if occurring over 2,000 years ~ but not-quite-unbearably-catastrophic if occurring over the more reasonably likely timespan of 200 years.

In short, the term "catastrophic" is nearly useless.

Beg to differ on (your) suggestion of catastrophe definition by dollar scale. Too much room for endless wrangling there, whether the figures be $10 Trillion or $50 Trillion or $500 Trillion (not to mention if these figures are additional costs or partly-substitute costs +/- dependence on future unknowable technologies). Besides, oooooodles of zeros can have a stultifying effect on the average mind [such as mine].

Dollar scale is inferior to scale by Deaths & Displacements & Destroyed farmlands.

10 year anniversary of 97% consensus study

michael sweet at 21:32 PM on 16 May, 2023

Is it "catastrophic" if sea level rises 2 meters in 1000 years, or do we have enough time to adjust? It would be catastrophic if sea level rose 2 meters in 5 years. You need an amount and a time. I think a cash amount is easiest to start with. Since it is a forecast you need a percentage chance. If the chance of catastrophe is only .01% most people would not care.

Is it more likely than not that climate damages worldwide exceed $10 trillion before 2050 or $50 trillion by 2100?

You could have a single value or two possible catastrophes. Or you could do human cost:

Is it more likely than not that Climate Change will result in over 100 million refugee by 2050? Or perhaps over 50 million deaths?

I think items like ecological damage are too hard to estimate. Single items like likely sea level rise are too specialized.

Scientists would have to offer heir opinion on topics that are not heir specialty. For example Zeke Hausfather gives good temperature descriptions, we want his thoughts on the chances of catastrophe. We only want opinions from experts, not just the man on the street or some paid fossil shill.

10 year anniversary of 97% consensus study

Eclectic at 12:15 PM on 16 May, 2023

Perhaps "catastrophic" should only be used when quantified by % .

# 100% catastrophic = the Sun goes supernova

# 90% catastrophic = moon-size asteroid strikes Earth

# 30% catastrophic = sea level rises 2 meters

# 20% catastrophic = Floridian gets re-elected President

# 5% catastrophic = price of gasoline exceeds $8 per gallon

# 0.1% catastrophic = earthquake tsunami destroys New York.

Something along those sorts of lines. Quantification essential.

You can't intelligently manage to talk about it, if you can't measure it.

Why the food system is the next frontier in climate action

One Planet Only Forever at 03:08 AM on 2 May, 2023

Evan @6,

I briefly reviewed the 2014 Research Article you pointed/linked to (note it is almost 10 years old). I would update my previous comments to add that human actions causing increased N2O in the nitrogen cycle are to be considered the same way I refer to impacts on the carbon cycle. And I would add that there are other good reasons for more aggressive reduction of nitrogen cycle impacts than climate change (refer to Planetary Boundaries).

I will also clarify that reducing methane emissions from rice is still an opportunity for reducing the peak level of ghg impacts even if that methane could be considered to be ‘part of the natural carbon cycle (an action that does not increase the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle the way that burning fossil fuels or leaks of methane from fossil fuel operations or permafrost melting do).

More specifically, the report’s evaluated floor level of non-CO2 emissions from food production and consumption (Global total 7 GtCO2e/year by 2050 with more if population continues to grow beyond 2050 and also influenced by 'potential changes of attitudes towards being less harmful') appears to be based on the perceived willingness of the UK population, at the time the report was prepared, to learn and be less harmful consumers. And the evaluated UK willingness is extended globally with all people expected to want develop to live in ways comparable to the less harmful ways that the UK population was evaluated to be willing to live.

The following is a quote from the “Options and barriers to mitigating food system non-CO2 emissions - Agriculture” section of the Research Article:

“For both N2O and CH4, socioeconomic and environmental circumstances dictate the extent to which changed agricultural technologies and practices can deliver cuts in emissions at a systems level. Stakeholders suggested that important factors influencing uptake of mitigation options affecting the UK revolve around cost, dominant practices, the aging farming community and attitudes of ‘young farmers’, existing infrastructure, cultural norms, changing climate as well as a feedback linked to levels and patterns of consumption.”

A quote from the “Options and barriers to mitigating food system non-CO2 emissions - Consumption” section of the Research Article:

“Within the UK consumption-based scenarios, the most significant dietary change considered was a 70% per capita cut in meat consumption, with the deficit replaced with rises in other food types. However, even with changes to per capita meat consumption, absolute emissions levels are driven by population growth (consistent across the scenarios) as well as growth in per capita consumption levels. Population growth per se strongly constrains N2O mitigation, as crops for consumption and for feed for livestock continue to require manure or mineral fertilizer. Barriers to changing patterns of consumption are confirmed through consumer focus group analysis: moderate changes in meat consumption (20% per capita) were considered in line with financial pressures to reduce expenditure given the context of the 2009–2012 recession, whereas a 70% reduction was perceived too substantial a change for many [Citation33].”

That indicates that the evaluation was (likely unwittingly) biased by accepting questionable opinions like ‘the higher cost of being less harmful is a valid reason to be more harmful’ and ‘the developed popularity of eating more meat is a valid reason to not reduce meat consumption’. Note that I tried to present both of those points in a way that highlights that populist political misleading messaging significantly caused those attitudes to develop to be so influential that they compromise the evaluation and the way it is reported.

Quote from “Discussion - Implications for cumulative GHG emissions”

“Finding ways of reliably reducing non-CO2 emissions will become increasingly pressing as global demand for food rises. A wide range of feasible CH4 mitigation options were put forward by stakeholders, taken from the literature and quantitatively assessed during the scenario process, providing evidence for greater scope for achieving substantial CH4 mitigation than for N2O. This, coupled with the much longer lifetime of N2O compared with CH4 as well as the influence of carbon cycle feedbacks in raising the GWP of CH4 from 21 to 34, highlights the critical importance of fully exploiting CH4 mitigation potential whilst increasing the research effort towards developing agricultural systems that can minimize N2O production.”

That indicates that if the developed research bias is corrected there could be more reduction of N2O resulting in a lower ‘floor level’.

Quote from “Discussion - Implications for managing and mitigating CO2”

“The focus here on non-CO2 reinforces other studies that identify the existence of an emissions floor, further emphasizing an urgent need to mitigate CO2 emissions where it is most feasible and quickest to do so. The higher the non-CO2 floor, the more rapidly CO2 emission cuts are needed within the constraints of a chosen climate target. Conversely, relying on a low or non-existent emissions floor suggests a larger CO2 budget is available, again relaxing the rates of mitigation for a chosen climate change target, delivering a more palatable but less realistic assessment of the climate change challenge.”

This emphasizes that the learning from the report is that more rapid efforts to reduce fossil fuel use are required.

Quotes from the “Conclusion” of the research article:

“A continuation of absolute growth in global N2O emissions, despite assuming optimistic mitigation has, because of cumulative emissions, direct implications for how urgently and deeply to cut both CO2 and CH4 for an assumed climate target.”

This reinforces the need for more research to reduce N2O and the need to more aggressively cut CO2 and CH4 unless new research develops viable ways to rapidly reduce N2O.

“As energy systems become decarbonized, global non-CO2 emissions largely associated with food consumption and production will increase in the share of annually produced GHGs. Emphasizing the importance of making cuts in food-related emissions highlights an urgent need for policymakers in Annex B nations to consider not only technological and supply-side interventions, but tackle the thorny issue of levels and types of consumption. Unlike large-scale infrastructure developments, measures tackling consumption and demand have the potential to cut emissions of CO2 and non-CO2 alike in the short term and could improve the diminishing chances of remaining within the carbon budget commensurate with the 2ｰC threshold.”

That highlights the need for policymakers to “tackle the thorny issue of levels and types of consumption” because the reports conclusion is that current over-developed populations are not as willing to be less harmful as they should be.

A quote from the “Future perspectives” part of the research article:

“If the challenges posed by climate change are to be overcome, at least in part, a meeting of minds to define problems can offer new, much needed insights. This is already emerging in some quarters, with an increase in interest from research funders around the food–water–energy nexus as well as a rise in the number of researchers keen to engage in genuinely interdisciplinary activity. Of course disciplinary research may, out of necessity, continue to dominate, but the emerging expertise in interdisciplinary research needs support and encouragement given the extent of the systemic and complex challenges facing society.

"The climate change challenge becomes ever more urgent each year, with time limiting the options available for mitigating emissions to be largely those that can deliver change in the short term. Perhaps with agronomists, biologists, engineers, political and social scientists working increasingly in single units, systemic ‘solutions’ to the climate challenge can be found. Specialists in demand and consumption require the same prominence in the portfolio of research endeavour as technologists, physical scientists and engineers. Only then will resilient options be derived and ultimately implemented in a timescale befitting of the scale of change facing society.”

Extreme heat waves in Europe may be linked to melting Arctic sea ice

Bob Loblaw at 10:57 AM on 1 April, 2023

Thanks for the link, Gordon. For future reference, when you provide a quote like that one, it really helps if you give a proper link to the source, rather than leaving people guessing.

I can find that quote on page 22. There is very little context there. They repeat the 40,000 number on page 37, where they say:

Gallagher Re estimates that as many as or more than 40,000 excess deaths were recorded between June and August from heat-related activity in the region, which particularly hit the UK, France, Spain and Portugal. This was conducted based on national-level mortality analysis.

and then again in the appendix tables on page 52. In none of those cases do they provide any further details on the analysis method.

Without details on the analysis method, there isn't much hope in trying to come up with an explanation of why they attribute European summer deaths to heat, and other spikes are attributed to other causes. The original quote you provided does state that this was a "preliminary estimate", which suggests that it was not as thorough as they would like.

You may wish to read this Reaclimate post on heat-deaths vs cold-deaths under a warming climate. It mentions that winter mortality rates in Europe are normally higher - but hopefully an "excess mortality" assessment would take this into account.

The Eurostat link in comment #1 does not tell us if the 19% "sharp rise" in December 2022 is within a normal range of variability for December, and it does not tell us if they use individual monthly averages for each "excess death" calculation, or an average over several months, a full year, or several years. The quote I gave in comment #2 contains values for four other peaks in the past three years - two in April, and two in November. That suggests that they might not be making monthly base/reference calculations - but it's really hard to tell.

Methodology is critically important in these sorts of calculations.

CO2 effect is saturated

MA Rodger at 18:41 PM on 24 March, 2023

Gootmud @680,

Responding to the individual detail of your post not addressed so far:-

☻ The blanket analogy is not useful when the detailed mechanism of AGW is considered. The temperature of the air against the outer blanket will remain effectively constant when extra blankets are added. The emission-to-space altitude of the planet at the CO2 IR-emitting frequencies (and thus the temperature which dictates the level of emission-to-space) varies with the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is well-mixed up to 50km and more.

☻ Convection is not a great player in cooling the planet. The atmospheric cells of the troposphere are responsible for the trade winds and if convection were significant, these would be premanently of super hurricane strength. It takes about two weeks for a packet of air to rise to the tropopause in these cells and potentially half the convection is seen in cyclones which are relatively rare events.

☻ Pretty-much all CO2 molecules excited by IR lose their excitation through collision. There are many many more CO2 molecules excited by collision and the level of IR-emission is thus determined by air temperature which sets the level of collision.

☻ Sympathetic emission from an excited CO2 molecule (your laser effect) occurs at all altitudes.

☻ The greenhouse effect from increased CO2 is not linear except when CO2 levels are very small. For higher levels, the relationship is rougly logarithmic. This the forcing resulting from CO2 levels increasing 200ppm to 400ppm would roughly equal that of 2,000ppm to 4,000ppm. There is actually a boost above that logarithmic relationship for high levels of CO2, beginning at ~1,500ppm, as an emissions frequency at around 10 microns begins to be significant. In this, you may find Zhong & Haig (2013) 'The Greenhouse Effect & Carbon Dioxide' a useful read.

The Big Picture

Bart Vreeken at 21:31 PM on 22 March, 2023

N R N P @168

Shall I have a try in answering your questions? I live in The Netherlands and here we have the same kind of discussions. Excuse me in advance for my English, it seems to be horrible.

A. Changing for the worse?
I hope we do agree that the earth is warming. It's an on going process and we (science) expect that it will go on for a much longer time. So it gives a lot of changes in the climate almost everywhere.

A key point is that the continents and the oceans are warming in a different speed. The oceans are warming much slower. This has consequences. When the atmosphere warms up it can contain more water vapor. But the less warming ocean can't deliver enough water vapour to keep the more warming continents humid enough. As a result there is more risk for drought at many places.
An other thing is that the air whole circulation will change. It means that local climates can change more than the global average. Wet climates can turn to dry climates, but also the other way round. Our agriculture, infrastructure and houses are not (always) prepared for that.
As you know, a warmer climate makes the sea level rise. The warmer water in the ocean expands, the ice sheets and mountain glaciers are melting to a certain extent. This sea level rise will give a lot of problems in many coastal areas. Here in the Netherlands the protection against the sea is very well organized, we can manage the first one or one-and-a-halve meter in this century. When it gets more we have a problem, but we are already try to prepare for that. Other countries, including deltas in Asia and parts of the US are less protected and will have large problems before 2100. By the way, it's not only the sea level rise there. Many of these places have also subsidence of the land, but these two come together and the problems are coming much faster then without sea level rise.

And then there is the unpredictable part. We don't know exactly how the ice sheets will react. Maybe there are mechanisms for a quick decline of parts of the ice sheets. In that case we have less time to prepare for it.
Of course, there can also be places where the climate gets better, or at least in a part of the year. And at least, we will need less fuel for warming the houses. (but more electricity for cooling in the summer.)

An interesting point is the direct effect of the increasing CO2 level to the vegetation and the agriculture. Plants can grow faster with that. Remote sensing shows something like 'global greening'. But it's a mixture of natural response and increasing agriculture. The last thing is tricky when water recourses are limited. And as we have seen, the increasing risk for drought is a cause for concern by itself. Maybe you know the story of the Aral See?
Then your question B) changing because of human activities?
Yes, we can be sure about this. We could calculate the effect of increasing CO2 hundred years ago and it's just what happening. Other possible factors, like changing sun power don't have much effect, these changes are too small. The less known part is how the atmosphere reacts (water vapor, clouds), how the ocean circulation reacts, how ice sheets react in detail.

"C) why this time it is different than the changes that have taken place?"
The changes are going very fast now, and as I said, the houses, the infrastructure, the agriculture and the water supply are not prepared for these changes. And there is the risk for sudden, even faster changes (tipping points).

The Big Picture

Bart Vreeken at 05:57 AM on 22 March, 2023

Hi Rob @153

"the gravitational effects from the Greenland ice sheet are not going to reduce the Netherlands' risk from sea level rise."

Looks like you still don't understand the topic completely. I stated that only 12.5% of the meltwater of Greenland comes to the Netherlands. So yes, the gravitational effect does reduce the risk from sea level rise in NL a little.

"You were not the first to create temperature bars on a graph"

When I started with that I hadn't seen it anywhere else. But of course I can't oversee everything. I didn't research the complete Internet then. My remark about the inspriration for the Climate Stripes was just my opinion, just a site remark and not my main message of @131. You make it more important then it was.

The Big Picture

Rob Honeycutt at 05:29 AM on 22 March, 2023

Bart... "You already do."

Yes. I tend to take exception when people accuse others without justification.

I also notice a pattern here where you don't fully research your claims once you've determined what you want to believe. You were not the first to create temperature bars on a graph, and the gravitational effects from the Greenland ice sheet are not going to reduce the Netherlands' risk from sea level rise.

When you make claims like these it's very important to take the time to be thorough and accurate with what you're stating, and I don't see that you're taking the time to do that.

The Big Picture

peppers at 02:50 AM on 21 March, 2023

HI One World, and also Rob made some sea level comments as well.
Im sorry I don’t have more time, and some of you commit large swaths of time here and I appreciate that.
Using NASA data, presuming they have the best resources and equipment, satellites and those argo sea probes et al. to gather original data, they show sea level rising since 1993 to be 3.8 inches.
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/
But what I think you are trying to indicate, and what the graphs show mostly, are that the rate of sea rise increases as the warming continues higher and higher. An exponential effect is presented. So taking past temperature increases will not explain future expected gains. It is either an exponential increase or the suggestion is that the increase is delayed so that as we go up in temperature, the rise happens decades later and there is a build.
I think we have finished with the run away suggestions for nature. The train bearing down on a child and all that. I see that as tactics to get people to listen and pay attention, but nothing true in our environment. Nature balances. She reacts. This Co2 rise is a reaction and right now she is reacting to this human population boom, which is unprecedented in history. And all the energy use associated with all these new counts of people on earth, living longer and healthier than ever, this is increasing Co2 counts and enriching our surface world in all the ways Co2 can do that.
Nasa used 4-5 scales to predict sea rise, 1. tracking if nothing is done, 2. some is done and 3. complete zero new emissions is achieved ( which cannot happen until the population levels out in 60 or so years ).
By 2100 there is Nasa modeling of .4 to .8 meter rise, using the data set of 2. some is being done. Doing what we can will be instrumental in keeping high tide from being higher than usual in that future time. I’ve tries to stay with the median predictions, so this is not discrepancy conversation of the outer 5%’s.
Science American believes no new storms are made but the severity of moisture based storms may increase by 2-4 miles per hour. The threat of sea rise is about the most serious threat.
I understand better where you are coming from. I still have the higher philosophical orientation to grapple with.
If mankind has finally achieved the goal of conquering the mission of dreams pondered throughout the pain filled ages, of solving misery and pain and finding medical success beyond any expectations. Is this worth it? A sea level rise?
The highest gain has been with infant mortality, which has plummeted from the high middle ages at 400-500 per thousand to 5.5 infants per thousand today. Think of all the occasions of birth deaths which also took the mother too, to quantify misery. That and antibiotics alone have caused this phenomenon of Co2 rise. Life spans have increased 61%, living conditions have soared, medicine is in a wonderland of abilities and birth to adulthood stats are beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. The question is; is that worth a side effect of sea level rising a foot and a half, maybe 2 feet at high tide.
This endeavor appears to goad and cajole and shame people using fossil fuel and I suppose that is the fastest way to get attention. But I do not believe it to be honest. This appears to be unwittingly human caused and one must decide if it is worth the subsequent consequences ahead. It is not from derelict and wanton people, it is from the results of scientific achievement, sought after for ages and finally achieved within the science that coincided with the industrial revolution. The origin of this is important to be able to consider context to this issue. If I were there and had the choice in my hands, I’d have us standing exactly where we were today. Reducing Co2 is still important, but I wouldn’t be bullying any brothers from any mothers over this. It is important, but not that important all things considered.

It's not bad

peppers at 02:49 AM on 21 March, 2023

The Big Picture

Bart Vreeken at 01:29 AM on 21 March, 2023

And again the discussion isn't closed yet. It's a bit boring now.

I posted the figure of how the melting water from Greenland works out in the Netherlands. That's quite clear. The only question is the more exacte place on Greenland where the melting water comes from. There are differences in that from year to year, and between the sources (gravimetry, altimetry). But looking at the map below, I think my guess was not so very bad. It's the line through the middle of Greenland. And I never said that the number came from the IPCC, that's what Bob Loblaw makes of it.

Greenland contribution to sea level rise

The Big Picture

Bob Loblaw at 23:37 PM on 20 March, 2023

Ah, I see that Bart continues to do revisionist history on the discussions in this thread.

To start, Bart, the next time you make a "wild guess", please identify it as a wild guess.

Your 12.5% wild guess first appeared in comment 44, where you said:

"Do I have to explain basic geophysics here? When the ice in Greenland melts then only 10 - 15% of it will make the sealevel rise in The Netherlands.

No qualifications there - Bart expressed this as a pretty definitive statement. The context (there is that awful word again) was with respect to Bart's attempts to justify his use of a simple extrapolation of current trends to predict sea level rise by 2100, introduced in comment # 27. He doubled-down on that extrapolation in comment #35., where he also mentioned Greenland.

Bart refines the "10-15%" to "12.5%" in comment # 52, where he says:

"Also according to IPCC the addition to the global sealevel rise by Greenland in the SSP5-8.5 scenario in 2100 is 13cm. 12,5% of this comes to the Netherlands, that's 1,6 cm. Not very much to be worried about.

At this point, he is making it appear as if the 12.5% value is "according to the IPCC". Again, no qualifications to the statement, no indication that the context is changing from "according to the IPCC" to "according to a wild guess by Bart Vreeken".

When challenged for a source, Bart posts a link to a diagram (in Dutch) that gives an incomplete explanation. Then in comment #84, he provide another figure with no caption and no source. Eventually he provides more diagrams and (after a request) the original source of the diagram.

And now he finally admits that his 12.5% value was "a wild guess", after spending days trying to make it look like it was a definitive value supported by various sources.

Do you understand, Bart, that by leading these wild goose chases - as other try to understand where your wild guesses come from - you have largely lost credibility here?

The Big Picture

Bart Vreeken at 18:19 PM on 20 March, 2023

michael sweet @124, it's a discussion about nothing.

I made an estimation of the part of the meltwater of Greenland that makes te sea level rise in the Netherlands. I showed a map where this estimation was based on. You showed a map with more melting on the westcoast of Greenland, so according to that my estimation was wrong.

In fact, this 12.5 percent was a wild guess, to show that only a minor part of the meltwater will influence the Netherlands. But the number kept coming back; Bob Loblaw wanted to know exactly where it came from and called it a 'magical number'.

The Big Picture

Bob Loblaw at 04:47 AM on 20 March, 2023

Bart @ various posts...

You don't see the problem with comparing numbers in % and mm/yr? You do understand the importance of units in geophysical measurements, don't you? 32°F is not warmer than 15°C. A person walking at 6km/hr is not moving faster than an airplane doing mach 0.8.

% is a ratio between two values that use the same units. It has a numerator and a denominator. The mm/yr in your figure in comment 84 are a "relative sea level change" - they are a difference from some unspecified base. They need context to become meaningful, and comparison is only possible if you can resolve differences in context and produce numbers with the same units.

Repeatedly in this forum, you fail to give context to quotes, diagrams, papers, etc. You change contexts at a whim, making your comments hard to follow and difficult to perceive. If you think people are misunderstanding you, then spend more time preparing your comments.

Now, back to your diagram posting in #84 (and repeated in #94). You failed to give context - in particular, you failed to given any indication of what those values are relative to. You also failed to give any source, until I asked. You didn't even include the caption that goes with the figure. Here is the figure, with caption:

Bamber and Riva figure 2

Note that the caption says "relative sea level variations due to the gravitational and Earth rotational effects of ice mass loss". [Emphasis added]

Do we have any other things to consider as context? How about the last paragraph of the paper's introduction?

We stress,however, that we consider, here, only the gravitationally consistent signature of ice melt. We do not include the response of ocean dynamics to the additional influx of fresh-water nor other changes in ocean dynamics due to predicted climate change, which can have a significant impact on RSL over decadal timescales. We also do not include spatially variable thermosteric effects on sea level.

So, figure 2 in their paper has a lot of context that you have left out. What do they say about their analysis? At the bottom of page 623, they say:

It is important to consider the separate fingerprints of RSL from the major sources to investigate their individual gravitationally-consistent “fingerprints”, but for present-day and future trends in sea level, it is the combined signal that is important. To first order, this can be approximated as the sum of the individual sources. We show the combined RSL changes, from all land ice sources considered, in Fig. 4.

And here is their figure 4:

Bamber and Riva figure 4

Things aren't looking so rosy for The Netherlands in that image. It certainly is not going to escape the effects of rising sea levels.

What else do Bamber and Riva have to say about their work?

In addition to GIA and surficial mass exchanges, there are two processes within the oceans that affect relative sea level. Steric effects (density changes due to salt and heat content variations) were responsible for about a quarter of the total SLR rise over the last 50 years, increasing to almost a half since 1993 but with large regional variations.

The paper clearly indicates that this regional fingerprinting (as displayed in their figure 2) is only one small part of a Big Picture (to get back to the topic of this blog post).

One more aspect of the paper you link to: it is doing an analysis base on Grace and other data up to 2008 - it is not a projection into the future. They even put a caveat in their Methods section (p622):

It is important to note, however, that this flux is time-evolving, including during the period of interest in this study. As a consequence, both the amplitude and pattern of RSL considered here may change in the future.

In short, you are frequently leaving out context of the information you provide - and as a result you are way over-stating the significance of what you present. Whether this in intentional or not, we cannot know.

All of this comes back to my very first question to you after your first comment here:

What exactly is your point?

You would be much better off with a small number of well-thought-out, reasoned, well-referenced posts than the scatter-blast that you've been doing.

The Big Picture

Bart Vreeken at 03:50 AM on 20 March, 2023

Rob Heneycutt, back to your original remark @74. There you say

"Hang on. Am I missing something or is Bart actually thinking that the gravitational mass of Greenland is going to pull sea level away from The Netherlands, when it's 3000km away, making their impacts of SLR nominal? Surely not."

Yes, I am actually thinking something like that. But it's a little different. At the moment the gravitational mass of the ice is attracting mass. 3000km is no problem, the influence goes much further. So, because of the ice mass the sea level here is higher then it should be without the ice. When the ice melts a part of this effect is gone, and because of that the sea level will drop here. On the other hand, there's the meltwater that distributes over the ocean. That aspect makes the sea level rise. The sum of these to is slightly positive.

And now you say:

"They're talking about fractions of a millimeter per year. So, at maximum, they're saying the effect around Greenland (deep blue) over the course of the next century would be on the scale of 5 cm, out of a potential of 1-2 meters of SLR."

Yes I do agree with most of that, so whats the point? The 2 m SLR is a bit to wild, KNMI talks about max 1.2 m in 2100.

The Big Picture

One Planet Only Forever at 13:33 PM on 19 March, 2023

I find Bart Vreeken’s comments interesting, but not in the same way that Bart appears to be interested.

My interest is the Big Picture of the future of humanity and the development of sustainable ways for humans to share the limited capacity of this planet to be lived on sustainably, to not be compromised by the impacts of human activity. A significant part of that interest is understanding the possible peak effects of the harmful accumulating impacts of continued fossil fuel use.

Bart @84, starts with: “MA Rodger @82 your quote is about the global sea level rise, not the local SLR.” The set of images Bart presents are about ‘global sea level impacts’ of the loss of ice due to global warming. But Bart’s interest is limited to the impact on the Netherlands of ice loss from Greenland. The other presented ice loss evaluations do not ‘interest’ Bart as much. This selective regional, rather than Big Picture, interest can be observed in many of Bart’s comments.

Bart’s comments @533 and @537 on the recently updated SkS Climate Myth “Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?” appear to be their first presentation (March 9, 2023) of what they find ‘interesting’. It is essentially the following: The most recent heavy snow fall on Antarctica, rather than all the other history of events on Antarctica, may be indicating the future of Antarctica. Why would that be ‘interesting’? Maybe because of what happens to the Netherlands due to ice loss from Antarctica as shown in the image set of Barts’s comment @84 referred to above.

And in Bart’s comment @560 indicates they live in the Netherlands and are concerned about sea level rise but “We have to monitor Antarctica very well, try to understand how it works, try to predict what will happen. But not with panic, that won't help us.” Their ‘interest’ in the potential that the most recent year of heavy snowfall on Antarctica indicating a very different future is like the claims that the lack of warming after 1998 indicated a very different future than the ‘panic about ending the harmful impacts of fossil fuel use, especially the global warming impacts. Many people tried to claim that post 1998 temperatures indicated ‘the end of the warming that some people were panicking about’. And Bart appears to be doing a similar thing by trying to claim that this recent year in Antarctica is a turning point of behaviour in Antarctica (as Bob Loblaw tried to point out in his comment @534 in response to Bart’s comment @533).

There is a wealth of evidence in Bart’s comment history that appears to indicate that their interests are not Big Picture. Their interests appear to be much smaller/narrower. They appear to be seeking ‘positive perceptions from the perspective of short-term regional interests’.

They may be correct about the interpretation of the Green lines of the images in their comment @84 and @87 ... but their lack of interest regarding the potential peak impacts (way beyond 2100 levels) on places like Bangladesh is what I find “Interesting” (and not in a Good Way). See My comment @68.

The Big Picture

Bart Vreeken at 08:53 AM on 19 March, 2023

Bob @96 here's the source of the figure:

LINK

I don't understand your problem with % and numbers in mm/yr.

Again: In the example on the map there is a mass loss of 166 Gt/yr. 361.8 Gt of ice will raise global sea levels by 1 mm. So, in this example the sea level rise will be 166/361.8 = 0,46 mm. 12.5% of this is 0,0575 mm/yr.

The Big Picture

John Hartz at 04:58 AM on 19 March, 2023

The following article may contain updated data pertinent to the ongoing discussion of sea level rise on this comment thread.

NASA Uses 30-Year Satellite Record to Track and Project Rising Seas, Staff, NASA's Global Climate Change, Mar 17, 2023

The Big Picture

Bart Vreeken at 04:22 AM on 19 March, 2023

Hi Bob Loblaw, I'm afraid you don't understand the figure well.

Above a) you see the mass loss of Greenland where the calculation is based on. It says -166 Gt/yr. This causes a global sea level rise of something like 0,46 mm/yr. Due to the gravitation effect there are places on earth where the sea level rise is less then that, and places where it's more then that. The border between these two area's is the green line on the map between Africa and South America and in the Pacific. So, the Netherlands are in the area with less then 0,46 mm/yr sea level from Greenland, but it's more then zero. Then there is an other line, between yellow en blue. In the blue area there is no sea level rise by Greenland at all. Instead there is a drop of the sea level.

The Big Picture

Bob Loblaw at 03:26 AM on 19 March, 2023

Bart @ 87:

Thank you for your clarification of your position, and for providing such an excellent example of your complete incompetency in this matter.

Yes, 12.5 is larger than zero.

The problem is that your 12.5 magic number is a percent. As in "1 is 12.5% of 8", or "25 is 12.5% of 200".

In my comment 86, I am looking at the figure you provided in comment 84. The zero value in that figure has units of mm/yr. A value of zero means no difference from the global mean. If you want to convert any of those numbers to a percent, you need to know what the global mean value is, in mm/yr.

...except for one of those values. Regardless of what the global mean value is, a location where the relative sea level change differs from the global mean by 0.00 mm/yr will have a sea level rise that is 100% of the global mean.

So, the skill-testing question is:

Which is larger? 12.5% of the global mean, or 100% of the global mean?

Remember, you've already claimed that 12.5% is higher.

The Big Picture

Bob Loblaw at 22:32 PM on 18 March, 2023

Bart @ 84: "but not enough to avoid sea level rise from Greenland completely."

....and none of these diagrams or papers you refer to support your original claim that The Netherlands would only see 12.5% of the global mean sea level rise.

The Big Picture

Bart Vreeken at 22:30 PM on 18 March, 2023

MA Rodger @82 your quote is about the global sea level rise, not the local SLR.

This is how it works. The Greenland Ice Sheet has a lot of mass, so it attracts sea water. Due to that, the sea level in a large area around Greenland is higher then it should be without the mass of the ice. When the ice starts to melt a part of this effect disappears. So, around Greenland the sea level will drop, not rise. Netherlands are close enough to Greenland to take profit of this effect, but not enough to avoid sea level rise from Greenland completely.

The Big Picture

MA Rodger at 21:42 PM on 18 March, 2023

Bart Vreeken @80,

That is a curious quote about the Greenland contribution to Netherland SLR given the KNMI Report also says on P22:-

The mass loss of the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland and glaciers continues unabated. Since 1993, this component has been the largest contributor to sea level rise.

The idea that the melt water from Greenland, part of the largest contribution to SLR, should somehow choose to avoid the seas off the Netherlands is somewhat silly. I think the idea being expressed is that (as explained within the KNMI Report) SLR is not appearing so much off Netherlands due to altered weather in the North Sea and so the 'Greenland melt' is being used in your quote synonymously for SLR.

The Big Picture

Bart Vreeken at 19:48 PM on 18 March, 2023

Thank you michael sweet @72 for the map of Greenland, based on altimetry. I didn't know this one, it's different from what I expected. I was too quick with my map of the SMB anomaly of only this year, it turns out to be untypical. Never the less we don't expect so much contribution from Greenland here. From the KNMI-report we discussed before:

"Many factors have been taken into account in the calculation of sea level rise on the Dutch coast, including the expansion of the oceans due to warming, self-gravitation, the changes in salinity, and the mass loss of glaciers and ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. Because the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet hardly contributes to the sea level rise off the Dutch coast, we expect that the increase here will lag slightly behind the world average."

The Big Picture

Bart Vreeken at 19:30 PM on 18 March, 2023

michael sweet @78

Good summary of the gravity point. I hope that it's clear for everyone now.

About the KNMI-report: the 2 meter sea level rise is not in the summary on page 2. Mayby you were confused by the european notation of the number? "de zeespiegel kan tot 1,2 meter stijgen" means: "the sea level can rise up to one point two meter.

An other thing is that the report has changed from the original version. We don't know what was in the original version now.

KNMI Klimaatsignaal21

The Big Picture

michael sweet at 12:36 PM on 18 March, 2023

It is a real phenomenom that when the great ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctia melt that means there is less gravity there and the sea flows away. I remember that around Greenland itself that could be tens of meters less water and more around Antarctia. There are papers describing where in the globe there will be less water and where there will be more water (ths article describes the affect). By looking at the pattern of sea level rise (upthread I posted a map of sea level rise) and seeiing where it is higher and where it is lower scientists can get an idea of where the water is coming from.

Bart Vreeken posted a map upthread, it is probably accurate. They suggested that melting in the Antarctic will result in higher sea level rise than the global average but melting in Greenland will result in less sea level rise than the global average in Holland. Different parts of Greenland affect Holland differently.

There are other effects on sea level rise that are not intuative. The Gulf Stream carries water from North America to Europe. Sea level in Europe is about 1 meter (!!!) hgher than off North America. If the Gulf Stream stopped, sea level in Europe would decrease substantially while the East coast of the USA would flood. Who wudda thunk.

The Big Picture

michael sweet at 10:44 AM on 18 March, 2023

Bart Vreeken,

I am sorry, the summary page showing 1.2-2.0 meters of sea level rise is page 2 of the document I linked. This was widely reported in newspapers like here, here and here. When a number is in the summary page at the start of a report many people do not read the rest of the report. I have difficulty reading the report, my computer does not translate PDF's.

The Big Picture

One Planet Only Forever at 08:58 AM on 18 March, 2023

The comments have improved my understanding of sea level rise.

Thank you Rob, Bob and Michael.

Though I lack detailed background knowledge regarding sea level rise I feel confident about pointing out that the 'peak sea level rise', not 'sea level rise by 2100', is what the future of humanity will have to deal with.

From an ethical and moral perspective, the people who benefit(ed) most from causing the harmful result should be responsible for paying for the required mitigation and adaptation. The more that they suffer because of the 'mitigation actions to rapidly end the harmful impact' the less they will have to pay in advance for the required adaptations. This avoids the problem of 'benefiting from harm done while evading the consequences of the harm done'.

What is happening today is serious unethical and immoral attempts to make the future impacts worse and avoid paying for the required repairs and adaptations. The 'highest harming' portion of the global population is not building CO2 removal devices now required to bring harmful impacts back down to 1.5 C levels of warming. And that group is also not planning to pay for the required adaptation in places like Bangladesh (or the island nations being submerged).

I will go one step further on the point of the real problem being the peak impact that has to be adapted to. There is uncertainty regarding how much adaptation is 'enough'. As a structural engineer I am very familiar with the requirements for all load resisting aspects of a structure to have a very low probability (less than 2%) that very severe potential future impacts would exceed the performance capability of the aspects of the structure. And aspects of the structure that are Primary, where their failure would cause significant overall structure failures, would have redundant mechanisms that would keep the structure system from collapsing due to the failure of a Primary element.

Sea level rise impacts would be equivalent to impacts on Primary Structure elements. So the sea level rise that the biggest beneficiaries of fossil fuel use in the current generation are ethically obligated to build globally, for all of the inhabited areas affected by the future sea level rise that they benefited from causing, would be the 'peak sea level increase' that has far less than 2% chance of being exceeded.

The big question is not the different evaluations (uncertainty) regarding the ways that Greenland and Antarctica will respond to human caused global warming. The big question is: What level of warming is almost certain to be the maximum level of the harmful human impacts.

The Big Picture

Rob Honeycutt at 08:48 AM on 18 March, 2023

Yes, Bart, they are different for important reasons. Once again, you're trying to cherry pick information to support your position without fully (or even partially) understanding what you're talking about.

Once again, your own citations are saying The Netherlands are at greater risk of sea level rise, not less.

The Big Picture

Bart Vreeken at 08:39 AM on 18 March, 2023

Michael sweet, are you playing games? In your link at 39 I see the town of Hindeloopen on the cover, behind a dike. The figure I posted comes from this report, it's on page 30. Please have a look. No 1-2 m sea level rise there.

Rob Honeycutt, offcourse SMB is different from the total mass balance. But not very different. The negative anomaly along the coast comes from high temperatures, not from shortage of precipitation. So the discharge will also have a negative anomaly there.

The Big Picture

michael sweet at 08:13 AM on 18 March, 2023

Bart Vreeken,

My link at 39 appears to be the KNMI climate change report published at the end of 2021. It contains the new sea level rise projections. On the cover it gives 1.2-2.0 meters as projected sea level rise. It was widely reported in the newspapers at the time. My link at 38 was to a newspaper summary of the KNMI report.

The Big Picture

Bob Loblaw at 07:33 AM on 18 March, 2023

Bart @ 57:

Yes, I could use Google Translate, but why should I? You are the one trying to make a case here, and if you can't be bothered to provide proper references, proper indications of what you expect people to see in those references or diagrams, then why should we make the effort to guess at what you are trying to show us?

Now that you have provided a translation of the caption and some of the text for the figure that shows "the magical 12.5% figure", I see that the main text says "the rise in the Netherlands could amount to 60% of the global average sea level rise". No 12.5% there, and a direct refutation of your 12.5% claim.

What about the caption? It says that the map is showing "the consequences on the Dutch coast of the disappearance of ice in different parts of the Greenland ice sheet".

The values on that map range from maybe -30% to over +45%. You stated "The mean value of the southern half of Greenland is someting like 12,5%. My assumption is that the mass loss in this century will come from the southern part."

So, that diagram does not demonstrate that sea level rise in The Netherlands from Greenland ice melt will be 12.5% of the global average. The 12.5% value is a value you picked out of the figure purely on the basis of that's what you want to believe. You have assumed your conclusion.

Once again, you have no scientific basis for your claim. You have no justification for saying that the mass loss will come from the southern part of Greenland.

It is obvious that you are just making stuff up, with a smattering of out-of-context quotes or diagrams, with no real understanding of any of the processes.

The Big Picture

michael sweet at 07:01 AM on 18 March, 2023

Bart:

I do not see the graph you posted at 35 in your paper. You have a graph at 52 that shows considerably more sea level rise than your graph at 35, but still much less than the KNMI report.

The KNMI report that I linked was put out after the IPCC updated their sea level rise projections in 2021. Apparently the paper you link was written before the IPCC updated their projections.

The Netherlands National Weather Institute's (KNMI) most recent projections, made after the publication of the paper you linked, are 1.2 - 2.0 meters of sea level rise in Holland by 2100. If you prefer to look at outdated projections by lesser authorities that is your business. Every time sea level projections are updated they are increased. I suggest you try to keep more up to date.

At 35 you said " I don't see many projections between 1-2 meters here." That is incorrect, the Dutch National Weather service best estimate is 1.2-2.0 meters.

Rob at 42: The link to Tamino (copy of link) that I posted at 30 shows the sea level data and explains why you cannot use the average of 1900-2020 to project to the future with a straight line. He used the data from 1970-2020 and a quadratic fit for the most accurate projection.

Peppers: Tamino explains how to project future sea level rise. He only projects to 2050 because the uncertainty bars become too big after that.

The Big Picture

Bart Vreeken at 06:41 AM on 18 March, 2023

Bob Loblaw, the magical 12,5% figure comes from this message:

www.knmi.nl/over-het-knmi/nieuws/de-groenlandse-ijskap-smelt-steeds-sneller

In Figuur 2 we see the influence of the melting of different parts of Greenland to the sea level rise in the Netherlands. As we see, melting at the east coast of Greenland gives a sea level decline in the Netherlands becourse it's at a short distance. The mean value of the southern half of Greenland is someting like 12,5%. My assumption is that the mass loss in this century will come from the southern part.

The Big Picture

Bob Loblaw at 06:08 AM on 18 March, 2023

Actually, I see that Bart's 13cm is the proportion of the overall total of sea level rise that is due to Greenland. That's not in the figure he refers to. He must be getting that from a different source - one he has not provided a reference to.

On top of that, he's said "12.5% of this comes to the Netherlands, that's 1,6 cm." That is a claim that appears to be a figment of his imagination.

Where does this magical 12.5% figure come from, Bart?

The Big Picture

Bart Vreeken at 05:48 AM on 18 March, 2023

Bob Loblaw @50

"let's start with you explaining what you think makes The Netherlands any different from any other part of the globe that is a long way away from Greenland?"

Why should I explain it when you know allready know the answer? Back to @35. There we see the projection of the sea level rise for the Netherlands, according to IPCC.

Also according to IPCC the addition to the global sealevel rise by Greenland in the SSP5-8.5 scenario in 2100 is 13cm. 12,5% of this comes to the Netherlands, that's 1,6 cm. Not very much to be worried about.

Sea level contribution

The Big Picture

Bob Loblaw at 05:21 AM on 18 March, 2023

Bart @ 44:

do I have to explain basic geophysics here? When the ice in Greenland melts then only 10 - 15% of it will make the sealevel rise in The Netherlands. That's due to the self gravitation of the ice sheet.

You have yet to say anything in any of your comments here that represents anything that you can teach me, but let's start with you explaining what you think makes The Netherlands any different from any other part of the globe that is a long way away from Greenland?

Do you actually think that the people that do sea level rise for a living are missing some aspect of geophysics that only you understand? Do you actually think that they do not know about the factors affecting regional patterns of sea level rise? That's the way you are coming across.

The Big Picture

One Planet Only Forever at 03:17 AM on 18 March, 2023

Peppers @36,

In spite of all that you have claimed the evidence-based understanding continues to be:

1. The climate impact problem of developed human activity is real.

2. The climate impact to date has already seriously compromised the future of humanity, especially due to the locking in of significant sea level rise). And because of the inertia of harmful developed over-consumption by the most harmful portion of the population things will be worse before humans stop making it worse. The continued harmful activity requires more repair (adaptation). And ‘adaptation effort’ delays human development of sustainable improvements. And the required adaptations will not be done for every body (I see not plans for the current portion of the population responsible for the rising sea levels to build flood mitigation systems that will be required for Bangladesh). And in some cases the harm is not repairable (The rising sea level impacts on Bangladesh may not be possible to adaptively mitigate).

3. The problem is the portion of the total population that is most harmful per-person. The total population increasing is a concern. But the problem of the total harm done is the real concern. And that can be understood to be due to the portion of the population that has developed a liking for over-consumption, not just unnecessary energy over-consumption. And the problem within that problematic ‘highest harm’ portion of the population is the portion that has less interest in learning about the harm caused (or the risk of harm) by their pursuits of ‘more personal enjoyment or benefit’

4. The problem can be solved. It just requires all people, even with an increasing population, to understand and accept the need to limit how harmful they are and to want to be more helpful to Others. There is a planetary limit on how many humans can live sustainably, concurrently live basic decent lives into the distant future. Many studies have established a consensus understanding that the maximum sustainable global population is a function of how much harmful over-consumption develops within the population. The planet can sustainably support more than 10 billion humans living basic decent lives (doing what is needed to live a decent basic live, and limiting the harm done by that essential activity). The planet cannot sustainably support the current 8 billion (or the most harmful 800 million) because of the developed harmful over-consumption within the population (and not just the harmful climate change impacts). Also, the developed systems fail to ensure that every body has the necessities of a basic decent life, including failing to provide basic minimum energy needs to every body and failing to have the ‘needed energy’ be as harmless as possible.

What is tragically missing from most discussion of the climate change problem, and other human harmful impact problems, is that the solutions require everybody to be governed by the desire to learn to be less harmful and more helpful to others. Some people 'doing their best to be less harmful and more helpful, and trying to help others be less harmful and more helpful' face the uphill challenge of overcoming the harm done by 'people who have developed other interests and related harmful misunderstandings'.

The Big Picture

Bart Vreeken at 01:42 AM on 18 March, 2023

michael sweet @ 39

I took my figure (@35) from exactly this report. And here you find an overview of all the different kind of sea level projections (april 2022):

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2021EF002576

Bob Loblaw @40

do I have to explain basic geophysics here? When the ice in Greenland melts then only 10 - 15% of it will make the sealevel rise in The Netherlands. That's due to the self gravitation of the ice sheet.

The Big Picture

Rob Honeycutt at 00:54 AM on 18 March, 2023

Peppers @36... Do you honestly need me to explain why you can't just take historical sea level rise data, run a straight line through it, and extrapolate sea level in 2100? This is basic enough that it might be a challenge to find citations. How about you make a guess and we'll see if you can work out why and perhaps, from that, we can help you understand why SLR projections show 1-2 meters for 2100.

I'll even get you started: Think about ice.

This is also wrong: "66M years ago we had the meteor strike, and the world went dark under dust for 3-4 years. Everything died, except the microorganizms around the rim of the oceans, around the world."

Though it is off-topic, it's a good demonstration of how you're simply making things up as you go along. In the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event about 75% of species went extinct. We are direct decendants of small mammals that survived the event.

Most of the rest of what you state there is also BS (for instance, much of the world's oil actually originates from the Cretaceous and Jurassic periods, not just the Tertiary period following the C-P event) but I'm not going to waste my time.

The Big Picture

Bob Loblaw at 00:50 AM on 18 March, 2023

Bart @ 38 responds to Rob @ 35 by saying "I don't make a mistake", and then proceeds to explain that he (Bart) has done exactly the mistake that Rob said he was doing: using historical data to extrapolate out SLR over the coming century. Bart even included the quote from Rob saying you can't do that, so Bart has no excuse for not paying attention to what Rob said.

Bart says he included "an extrapolation of the change by year" - but this is still using historical data to extrapolate. Mistake confirmed.

Anyone who is reasonably well-informed about sea level rise projections understands that such projections need to include physics and processes that will cause sea level rise - glacier dynamics and their response to temperature and precipitation changes; climate warming and associated changes in ocean temperatures (including horizontal and vertical distributions of temperature change). Projections require understanding the future path of these factors - and the past sea level is not necessarily an indicator of the future of glaciers and global temperatures.

RealClimate often covers this topic, and covers it well. A few related pages there:

dont-estimate-acceleration-by-fitting-a-quadratic

sea-level-in-the-ipcc-6th-assessment-report-ar6

why-is-future-sea-level-rise-still-so-uncertain

Another mistake made in Bart's short comment: the Netherlands doesn't need to worry about Greenland's contribution to sea level because it is "not very much here". (Granted, the last few sentences of Bart's comment are very poorly worded, so it's hard to understand exactly what point he is trying to make.)

The Big Picture

michael sweet at 00:40 AM on 18 March, 2023

Bart Vreeken:

This link appears to be the KNMI report (in Dutch). The illustration on the front page shows 1.2 - 2 meter sea level rise (I cannot read the report).

The Big Picture

michael sweet at 00:27 AM on 18 March, 2023

Bart Vreeken:

According to the Dutch Weather Institute (KNMI),

"sea levels will rise 1.2 to 2 meters (3.3 feet-4 feet) over the next 79 years if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced immediately and the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet accelerates."

I found a description of the Dutch Weather Institute as the national weather authority in the Netherlands. Certainly there are projections of up to 2 meters of sea level rise in the Netherlands. Can you provide a link to support your claims? I cannot read most of your graph but it appears to be dated 2005. More recent projections have been much higher than older projectins.

The Big Picture

peppers at 00:18 AM on 18 March, 2023

HI Rob!

Do you have cites for your 'abundantly obvious reasons?", Thx

One Planet, huge effort and thanks for it!

In that rise in population from 1B to 8 B ( Im going to use 1900 to present, although 1B was in the 1800's), the USA rose from 76.3M to the 335M now. China went from 336M to 1.3B, and so on. The world gained porportionally and if a household used blank amount of energy, it increased 5 fold in the US in quantity and so on. The new population was not all in low production regions.

I am minded of the basic business principal of the 3 terms, reduce outgo, increase income (per unit), and doing more of it. The doing more of it is the mark of the run away businesses. I would not dilute the 800% rise in population with trace factors, to not tell yourself the truth that population, the 'more of it' is the core of this issue.

And it is important. Because if one realizes this, you can consider if this is in the solar system's realm of inevitibles rather than in our hands. I mean, the sun is moving 828k/hr around the milky way, we are orbiting 18.5 miles per second around the sun, and all the countless other intricacies of our solar system which would be folly to address. Might be dangerous even...

Its a question, as Rob poses above, of doing the best we can. He says what is being done is at least stemming the flow. I disagree, but if population is the cause we may be better oriented to aid in adaptation to the changes. Nothing really is wrong and there is no reason to fear a runaway cycle as the cause is not mysterious then.

Nasa concludes more warmth likely adds more energy to the environment, but they do not know if, how much or where. I would think it does add. But what of it is my mext question. The problem is addressable in the quality of our shelter.

Hurricane Dorian was the largest in 84 years ( an example on the Nasa Site), so it matched one as large before the industrial revolution was in great effect. Nasa's point it, its still a guess.

But Florida level of sheltering, where 150 died in 200mph Ian last Sept, was better than the 200k who died in crumbling buildings in Syria. Thats what we can put hands on, to aid in this issue.

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2956/how-climate-change-may-be-impacting-storms-over-earths-tropical-oceans/

I would like to add one more mode of thought, which I dont see addressed here much. And it is only remote, so please do not categorize me as conspiracy oriented. My thoughts are how we best use our hands and feet on this. Not whether the problem exists.

But I find this interesting.

66M years ago we had the meteor strike, and the world went dark under dust for 3-4 years. Everything died, except the microorganizms around the rim of the oceans, around the world. The myth is that oil deposits are decomposed dinosaurs, but really it it the rotted countless trillions of these happy cells which had a heyday for a millions years with no other competition for the enriching co2 and oxygen in the environment. These tiny crustaceans died with the oxygen in its calcium and sequestered away ox as well as co2, of which these 2 chemical elements are bossom brothers.

As such, an inordinant amount of oxygen was also captured and the current level of oxygen dimishment has us at about 900 feet altitude now compared to sea level saturation back then. Saturation is going down and the equivolent as altitude is increasing.

Forbes: Air bubbles trapped within ice provides clues to the atmospheric composition at the time of "deposition" and can be analyzed for paleo-oxygen levels. The study finds that over the past 800,000 years the amount of oxygen found in the atmosphere has decreased by 0.7% and continues to decline.

I think it is something like 14M years before oxygen reaches where we would need masks to visit the beach, so this is a mild bit of input on this supercharged forum.

But what is the solution to this? More weather and rain is needed to wash the shells with all this captured oxygen back in to the oceans, to restock the active environment with the element.

Do we know what we are doing to pick any possible cycle of earth or the solar system itself, and interfer with all these conclusions and guesses. Why is it not prudent to ask these questions?

I dont think it is invasive to make umbrellas, levee's, bunkers and warm towels!

Thanks everyone, D

The Big Picture

Bart Vreeken at 18:07 PM on 17 March, 2023

Rob Honeycutt @ 32

"You're making exactly the same mistake as Bart. You can't use historical data and merely extrapolate out SLR over the coming century, again, for abundantly obvious reasons."

I don't make a mistake. First, I don't say that the sea level rise isn't change. I make an extrapolation of the change by year, so the increase is allready included. As we can sea, there's a lot of noise in the data, so the trendline is not very clear. Second, we all know that such a simple trendline does not include everything.

When I look at the latest projections for the Netherlands (I live there) my extrapolation is not too bad. I don't see many projections between 1-2 meters here.

On global scale it's little different, for the part of Greenland is not so very much here.

Projected sea level in Holland

The Big Picture

Rob Honeycutt at 10:42 AM on 17 March, 2023

Peppers @26... "sealevel.nasa.gov has the sea level rise 2mm a year historically..."

You're making exactly the same mistake as Bart. You can't use historical data and merely extrapolate out SLR over the coming century, again, for abundantly obvious reasons.

The Big Picture

michael sweet at 10:08 AM on 17 March, 2023

Peppers:

Here Tamino (a statistician) reviews the NOAA forecasts for sea level rise in the USA for the time period 2020-2050. For Florida they forecast 0.48 meters of sea level rise (over 18 inches). For the For Texan and Louisiana they forecast 0.59 meters (23 inches). Sea level rise after 2050 will be much more rapid. Current sea level rise in Florida is over 10 mm per year or about 4 inches per decade. (That means 4 inches in the decade of 2011-2021) Your suggestion at 18 of "top out in about 3-5 more inches" is completely absurd.

Many parts of Florida already have severe problems with "sunny day floding" at high tide. With 18 inches more water many locations will have to be abandoned. Billions of follars of real estate will be worthless in 2050. It is impossible to build levies in Florida because the ground is porous.

The Big Picture

michael sweet at 09:15 AM on 17 March, 2023

I note that on the US East coast the sea level is rising about 1.5-2 times the global average and on the West coast the rise is about 1/2 the global average.

On the US Gulf coast in addition to rapid sea level rise the land is subsiding from removal of oil and water.

sea level rise

The Big Picture

michael sweet at 09:03 AM on 17 March, 2023

This is the graph of sea level rise from the Sea Level Research Group at the University of Colorado. It is based on satalite measurements.

sea level rise

From the quadratic curve in 2015 sea level is 40.0 mm and in 2020 it is 60.0 mm. That is 4.0 mm/yr and increasing.

The sea level rise is related to the temperature. When CO2 is controlled and no longer increasing the sea level will continue to rise for centurys. The last time CO2 was at this level the sea level was over 23 meters higher than it is now. The suggestion that sea level rise will stop when population stops increasing is completely uninformed.

The Big Picture

Bart Vreeken at 08:45 AM on 17 March, 2023

Hi peppers,

Here you see the sea level rise for every single year. As you can see, the sea level rise goes faster and faster. When we make a simple extrapolation of this the sea level in 2100 will be 53 cm higher then in 2000. But we can't predict it very well, due to the unpredictable behaviour of Antarctica and Greenland.

Sea Level Rise By Year

"at 66M years ago we were at 1000ppm and 14+ degrees C higher"

You can't simply compare 66M years ago with the present situation. 66M years ago the sun had less power. Like all stars, the power of the sun increases during the time. And 66M years ago the position of the continents was very diferent, resulting in different ocean currents and a different temperature balance of the earth.

More than 100 comments found. Only the most recent 100 have been displayed.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Comment Search Results