By "further warming" do you mean "warming at an increased rate"?
No. I mean no further warming once we stop burning fossil fuels.
It is interesting that we are to accept the predictions of non-climate scientists as fact when they agree with AGW scenarios, but insult and castigate the non-climate scientists when they talk about the opposite view.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but the quote I gave was from the literature: (Holden et al. 2018).
In any case, the "end of the century" is not a wall which will block incoming thermal radiation and cause warming to stop.
Right. That was my point when I said "Warming will not stop at the end of the century unless emissions cease," but if emissions do cease we can expect that the warming will stop.
Gaia's goal of removing all life from Planet Earth, there will be animals emitting CO2.
You've gone well deep into crazy land with that one. That's not sequestered carbon emitted by the animals. It has no effect on atmospheric CO2. AGW will stop when we stop burning fossil fuels.
Let's look at the other end. Any chance he included this 1989 study showing an increase of 1.6 C for the instantaneous doubling case and 0.7C for the transient forcing case? No way. Low estimate in the past. Doesn't fit the narrative.
How about this one from 1967 with an estimate of 2.3C for a doubling of CO2. Low estimate in the past? No good.
How about this one from 1997 which suggests sensitivity may be as small as 0.3–0.5C for a doubling of CO2, Better exclude that one!
etc etc etc. If you select studies from the past with higher sensitivities and more recent ones with lower sensitivity then you can show a trend towards lower sensitivity. Not to mention the fact that many of his sources aren't from the scientific literature at all but rather just references to other blogers. That's why you should look to the literature to understand the science rather than some trickster on the internet.
Followed by carefully selecting 1 study that presents your narrative.
It only took the very first result from 2018 on google scholar to give the lie to your assertion that "ECS seems to be trending downward"
mentioning you cited literature to brush off my argument, when my argument is literally a graph of dozens of peer reviewed studies
Yes, but apparently excluding results that don't support the narrative. But let's go down the list of results from 2018:
The first, as we mentioned earlier, is right in line with studies from 50 years ago. Better exclude it from the ironically named "No tricks zone"..
The second suggests that century-scale feedbacks can alter the climate sensitivity, so some lower estimates that rely on satellite data may be underestimating. That doesn't support the narrative. Better exclude it.
The third and fourth look at crop yields and forest growth for different sensitivities. No points either way. But the fifth finds a central figure of 3.2K with a range of (1.58.1K).
Uh oh. 8K on the high end! That's not good. Better exclude it.
It's not until the sixth when we find a study with a lower estimate.
Warming will not stop at the end of the century unless emissions cease, so it is only a matter of time before we reach 3.5C.
Warming will not stop even if emissions cease, because the warming comes not from the emission of CO2 or heat, but because of the trapping of heat from the sun by that CO2.
A widely held misconception is that given the approximately 1 C warming to date, and considering the committed warming (warming that will inevitably happen) concealed by ocean thermal inertia, the 1.5 C target of the Paris Agreement is already impossible. However, it is cumulative emissions that define peak warming. When carbon emissions cease, terrestrial and marine sinks are projected to draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), approximately cancelling the lagging warming. Although the sign of this ‘zero emissions commitment’ is uncertain, its contribution can be neglected for low-CO2 scenarios. Therefore, at least when considering CO2 emissions in isolation, keeping below 1.5 C of warming will remain physically achievable until the point that it is reached.
Wrong, but if you are interested in tricks you could carefully select a subset of studies to paint that narrative. Rather than tricks, I've cited the literature. For example, here's a study from this year that confirms a central figure of around 3C, and reduces uncertainty to the point where the probability of ECS being less than 1.5 degrees Celsius to less than 3 per cent, and the probability of ECS exceeding 4.5 degrees Celsius to less than 1 per cent.
Climate sensitivity is about 3C for a doubling of CO2 with an likely range of about 30% on either side (not 100%). So probably between 2 and 4C. However, it is a "right-skewed distribution" suggesting that if carbon dioxide concentrations double, the probability of very large increases in temperature is greater than the probability of very small increases. So to the extent that there is uncertainty, it is not our friend.
Ultimately though, how much warming will depend on how much we emit. We can decide to limit emissions and minimize warming. Or not. It's up to us.
From 850 CE to 1250 CE Vikings raised wheat, barley and cattle along the Greenland coast.
In 80 CE there were commercial vineyards taxed by the Romans in Scotland.
In 1250 CE there were commercial vineyards taxed by the English in Scotland.
Heatwave or not, it's still TOO cold for any of this to occur today.
Chateau Largo would beg to differ. The fact that the Romans are no longer taxing them has more to do with politics than temperature.
in Global Warming "Science" you can have both correlation and causation at the same time!
Duh. Of course you can. That's true of any science. The correlation comes from the data, the causation comes from the physics. The fact that the physics predicted the correlation before it was observed make the case all that much stronger.
I'm not sure why he has a problem with the coining of a term. Does he prefer they use another phrase, or rather that they not study the phenomenon at all? See no evil hear no evil I suppose? Regardless of what we call it, (and "marine heat wave" seems like a practical enough name) the evidence for the phenomenon is clear in the satellite data as well as in the economic impacts.
The rate of global heat accumulation is equivalent to about 4 Hiroshima bomb detonations per second. That blip represents over 2.5 billion atomic bomb detonations worth of heat accumulating in the Earth's climate system since 1998, It's a lot of energy.
The wide range of projections arise because warming depends on how much we emit. We can decide to limit emissions and reduce warming. Or not. It's up to us.
The write-up claims, the 3.5 degrees is the current projections by some unspecified researchers. There no "ifs" about that write-up's claims — SuperKendall is correct, while your narrative falls apart.
SuperKendall's own reference shows scenario A2 which projects ~3.5C by the end of the century. See table SPM.3: A2 scenario best estimate = 3.4, likely range = 2.0 – 5.4. The A1FI scenario has a best estimate of 4C by end of century.
How much we warm depends on how much we emit. Warming will not stop at the end of the century unless emissions cease, so it is only a matter of time before we reach 3.5C. We've warmed about 1.2C since the 1850s. Two thirds of that has happened in the last 50 years. At the current rate of warming since the 1980s - even assuming no further accelleration - we will hit 2.5C by the end of the century. Again, where we end up will depend on how much CO2 we emit.
All terms are made up. That's how language works. This one seems to trigger you, but the meaning is clear: "The term Anthropocene suggests: (i) that the Earth is now moving out of its current geological epoch, called the Holocene and (ii) that human activity is largely responsible for this exit from the Holocene, that is, that humankind has become a global geological force in its own right. "
Coral reefs live within a fairly narrow envelope of environmental conditions constrained by water temperatures, light, salinity, nutrients, bathymetry, and the aragonite saturation state of seawater. While many environmental extremes can cause coral to expel their symbiotic microalgae and bleach on local scales, only elevated ocean temperature has been shown to cause the widespread “mass” bleaching spanning hundreds of kilometers or more. Corals have, over millions of years, evolved strategies to cope with temperature extremes, but anthropogenic climate change has been increasing temperature much faster than corals have been able to adapt. As mass bleaching has increased in frequency and severity, the connection to unusually warm ocean temperature has become clear... We use long-term climatic datasets over the last 146 years and satellite records since the 1980s to document temperature and heat stress changes near coral reefs and the influence of large-scale climate patterns such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation. Since the 1980s, satellite-based observations of the oceans have dramatically increased our capability to observe ocean variations globally and synoptically and provide the basis for identifying recent changes in heat stress and patterns of coral bleaching. Furthermore, the latest advances in satellite-based sea surface temperature analysis and other products provide unprecedented means to detect and monitor, in near real time, environmental conditions related to coral bleaching events.
This one was published in July. It provides references showing that widespread coral bleaching and subsequent mortality have been clearly linked to elevated sea surface temperatures. It says that for global events there is not enough data to establish a trend (only five events on record), but that low-level bleaching has increased to the point where most regions and ocean basins are reporting some coral bleaching every year.
It is not a recognized term by the ICS, who are the arbiters of what geologic epochs actually are.
If a term isn't a recognized epoch then it has no meaning? Google scholar returns about 59,200 papers.
Here's more research on the accelerating trend towards bleaching. This time in Nature:
Coral reefs across the world’s oceans are in the midst of the longest bleaching event on record (from 2014 to at least 2016). As many of the world’s reefs are remote, there is limited information on how past thermal conditions have influenced reef composition and current stress responses. Using satellite temperature data for 1985–2012, the analysis we present is the first to quantify, for global reef locations, spatial variations in warming trends, thermal stress events and temperature variability at reef-scale (~4km). Among over 60,000 reef pixels globally, 97% show positive SST trends during the study period with 60% warming significantly. Annual trends exceeded summertime trends at most locations. This indicates that the period of summer-like temperatures has become longer through the record, with a corresponding shortening of the ‘winter’ reprieve from warm temperatures. The frequency of bleaching-level thermal stress increased three-fold between 1985–91 and 2006–12 – a trend climate model projections suggest will continue. The thermal history data products developed enable needed studies relating thermal history to bleaching resistance and community composition. Such analyses can help identify reefs more resilient to thermal stress.
Got anything better than a conspiracy blog showing otherwise?
Not sure who the alarmists are, but maybe look to the scientific literature instead. The IPCC report at the time suggested that we shouldn't expect 2 feet of sea level rise until 2100 (and certainly not by 2020!) , but may only get 1 foot by 2100. See figure 12 of the IPCC FAR WG1: https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreport...
So maybe fuck the alarmists (whoever those folks are) but trust the science?
If you aspirations are to be tolerated then you may want to find better sources.;) This is a "news for nerds" site, not a conspiracy blog after all. Maybe avoid Ken Hamm and Samuel Shenton as well.
The global body tasked with naming geological eras, the International Commission on Stratigraphy, has rejected the proposed Anthropocene epoch
And yet the term does have meaning in the scientific literature, though it may trigger readers of conspiracy blogs.
For example, Paul Jozef Crutzen (Nobel Prize-winning atmospheric chemist) describes it thusly in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: "The term Anthropocene suggests: (i) that the Earth is now moving out of its current geological epoch, called the Holocene and (ii) that human activity is largely responsible for this exit from the Holocene, that is, that humankind has become a global geological force in its own right. "
Seems an apt description of what the paper shows is happening to coral, with the global proportion of coral being hit by bleaching per year rising from 8% in the 1980s to 31% today. The average reef was affected once every 25 to 30 years in the 1980s but now experiences bleaching every six years.
How much is normal? How often would you say this happens?
Severe coral reef bleaching is now ‘five times more frequent’ than 40 years ago, with climate change playing a significant role in the rise.
The longest-lasting recorded global bleaching event began in 2014 and continues to affect coral reefs worldwide. Few areas in the Southern Hemisphere escaped bleaching in the recently ended summer; surveys of the Great Barrier Reef suggest that more than 90 percent of it has been affected by bleaching.
Scientists first recorded a mass coral bleaching, one which affects entire reef systems and not just a few individual corals, in 1979. Sixty recorded events occurred between 1979 and 1990. Global coral bleaching events are mass bleaching across all three tropical ocean basins—the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. The first global event took place from 1997 to 1998, with at least 15 percent of global reefs dying, and the second occurred in 2010. Number three, still happening today, looks on track to be the worst ever, affecting 38 percent of the world’s reefs.
Slashdot Mirror
By "further warming" do you mean "warming at an increased rate"?
No. I mean no further warming once we stop burning fossil fuels.
It is interesting that we are to accept the predictions of non-climate scientists as fact when they agree with AGW scenarios, but insult and castigate the non-climate scientists when they talk about the opposite view.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but the quote I gave was from the literature: (Holden et al. 2018).
In any case, the "end of the century" is not a wall which will block incoming thermal radiation and cause warming to stop.
Right. That was my point when I said "Warming will not stop at the end of the century unless emissions cease," but if emissions do cease we can expect that the warming will stop.
Gaia's goal of removing all life from Planet Earth, there will be animals emitting CO2.
You've gone well deep into crazy land with that one. That's not sequestered carbon emitted by the animals. It has no effect on atmospheric CO2. AGW will stop when we stop burning fossil fuels.
Let's look at the other end. Any chance he included this 1989 study showing an increase of 1.6 C for the instantaneous doubling case and 0.7C for the transient forcing case? No way. Low estimate in the past. Doesn't fit the narrative.
How about this one from 1967 with an estimate of 2.3C for a doubling of CO2. Low estimate in the past? No good.
How about this one from 1997 which suggests sensitivity may be as small as 0.3–0.5C for a doubling of CO2, Better exclude that one!
etc etc etc. If you select studies from the past with higher sensitivities and more recent ones with lower sensitivity then you can show a trend towards lower sensitivity. Not to mention the fact that many of his sources aren't from the scientific literature at all but rather just references to other blogers. That's why you should look to the literature to understand the science rather than some trickster on the internet.
Followed by carefully selecting 1 study that presents your narrative.
It only took the very first result from 2018 on google scholar to give the lie to your assertion that "ECS seems to be trending downward"
mentioning you cited literature to brush off my argument, when my argument is literally a graph of dozens of peer reviewed studies
Yes, but apparently excluding results that don't support the narrative. But let's go down the list of results from 2018:
The first, as we mentioned earlier, is right in line with studies from 50 years ago. Better exclude it from the ironically named "No tricks zone"..
The second suggests that century-scale feedbacks can alter the climate sensitivity, so some lower estimates that rely on satellite data may be underestimating. That doesn't support the narrative. Better exclude it.
The third and fourth look at crop yields and forest growth for different sensitivities. No points either way. But the fifth finds a central figure of 3.2K with a range of (1.58.1K). Uh oh. 8K on the high end! That's not good. Better exclude it.
It's not until the sixth when we find a study with a lower estimate.
Solar output has been declining since 1950 yet the globe as a whole has been warming considerably.
To illustrate, here's a plot of sun spots vs temps vs atmospheric CO2: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/b...
Warming will not stop at the end of the century unless emissions cease, so it is only a matter of time before we reach 3.5C.
Warming will not stop even if emissions cease, because the warming comes not from the emission of CO2 or heat, but because of the trapping of heat from the sun by that CO2.
To clarify, I meant further warming. And yes, AGW is expected to stop (approximately) when we get to zero emissions because of terrestrial and marine syncs:
A widely held misconception is that given the approximately 1 C warming to date, and considering the committed warming (warming that will inevitably happen) concealed by ocean thermal inertia, the 1.5 C target of the Paris Agreement is already impossible. However, it is cumulative emissions that define peak warming. When carbon emissions cease, terrestrial and marine sinks are projected to draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), approximately cancelling the lagging warming. Although the sign of this ‘zero emissions commitment’ is uncertain, its contribution can be neglected for low-CO2 scenarios. Therefore, at least when considering CO2 emissions in isolation, keeping below 1.5 C of warming will remain physically achievable until the point that it is reached.
Wrong, but if you are interested in tricks you could carefully select a subset of studies to paint that narrative. Rather than tricks, I've cited the literature. For example, here's a study from this year that confirms a central figure of around 3C, and reduces uncertainty to the point where the probability of ECS being less than 1.5 degrees Celsius to less than 3 per cent, and the probability of ECS exceeding 4.5 degrees Celsius to less than 1 per cent.
Climate sensitivity is about 3C for a doubling of CO2 with an likely range of about 30% on either side (not 100%). So probably between 2 and 4C. However, it is a "right-skewed distribution" suggesting that if carbon dioxide concentrations double, the probability of very large increases in temperature is greater than the probability of very small increases. So to the extent that there is uncertainty, it is not our friend.
Ultimately though, how much warming will depend on how much we emit. We can decide to limit emissions and minimize warming. Or not. It's up to us.
In order to understand the apparent disparity between past temperature and levels of atmospheric CO2 we must appreciate that CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Other drivers of past climate change include variations in solar output, continental drift, orbital variations (known as Milankovitch cycles), volcanism, and ocean variability. Any conclusions that we draw from a perceived lack of correlation in the climate record between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures must take into account these factors.
Let's look at the combined radiative forcing from CO2 and sun through the Phanerozoic and see how they line up with global temps. Pretty good match!
From 850 CE to 1250 CE Vikings raised wheat, barley and cattle along the Greenland coast. In 80 CE there were commercial vineyards taxed by the Romans in Scotland. In 1250 CE there were commercial vineyards taxed by the English in Scotland.
Heatwave or not, it's still TOO cold for any of this to occur today.
Chateau Largo would beg to differ. The fact that the Romans are no longer taxing them has more to do with politics than temperature.
in Global Warming "Science" you can have both correlation and causation at the same time!
Duh. Of course you can. That's true of any science. The correlation comes from the data, the causation comes from the physics. The fact that the physics predicted the correlation before it was observed make the case all that much stronger.
In 2007 IPCC FAR projected 0.2C/decade over the next two decades. So far we've seen 0.3C/decade since 2007, but it's early yet.
I'm not sure why he has a problem with the coining of a term. Does he prefer they use another phrase, or rather that they not study the phenomenon at all? See no evil hear no evil I suppose? Regardless of what we call it, (and "marine heat wave" seems like a practical enough name) the evidence for the phenomenon is clear in the satellite data as well as in the economic impacts.
It's blips in the noise.
The rate of global heat accumulation is equivalent to about 4 Hiroshima bomb detonations per second. That blip represents over 2.5 billion atomic bomb detonations worth of heat accumulating in the Earth's climate system since 1998, It's a lot of energy.
The wide range of projections arise because warming depends on how much we emit. We can decide to limit emissions and reduce warming. Or not. It's up to us.
The write-up claims, the 3.5 degrees is the current projections by some unspecified researchers. There no "ifs" about that write-up's claims — SuperKendall is correct, while your narrative falls apart.
SuperKendall's own reference shows scenario A2 which projects ~3.5C by the end of the century. See table SPM.3: A2 scenario best estimate = 3.4, likely range = 2.0 – 5.4. The A1FI scenario has a best estimate of 4C by end of century.
How much we warm depends on how much we emit. Warming will not stop at the end of the century unless emissions cease, so it is only a matter of time before we reach 3.5C. We've warmed about 1.2C since the 1850s. Two thirds of that has happened in the last 50 years. At the current rate of warming since the 1980s - even assuming no further accelleration - we will hit 2.5C by the end of the century. Again, where we end up will depend on how much CO2 we emit.
All terms are made up. That's how language works. This one seems to trigger you, but the meaning is clear: "The term Anthropocene suggests: (i) that the Earth is now moving out of its current geological epoch, called the Holocene and (ii) that human activity is largely responsible for this exit from the Holocene, that is, that humankind has become a global geological force in its own right. "
Here's another report showing the acceleration in bleaching: Monitoring Data and Evidence for Increased Coral Bleaching Stress:
Coral reefs live within a fairly narrow envelope of environmental conditions constrained by water temperatures, light, salinity, nutrients, bathymetry, and the aragonite saturation state of seawater. While many environmental extremes can cause coral to expel their symbiotic microalgae and bleach on local scales, only elevated ocean temperature has been shown to cause the widespread “mass” bleaching spanning hundreds of kilometers or more. Corals have, over millions of years, evolved strategies to cope with temperature extremes, but anthropogenic climate change has been increasing temperature much faster than corals have been able to adapt. As mass bleaching has increased in frequency and severity, the connection to unusually warm ocean temperature has become clear... We use long-term climatic datasets over the last 146 years and satellite records since the 1980s to document temperature and heat stress changes near coral reefs and the influence of large-scale climate patterns such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation. Since the 1980s, satellite-based observations of the oceans have dramatically increased our capability to observe ocean variations globally and synoptically and provide the basis for identifying recent changes in heat stress and patterns of coral bleaching. Furthermore, the latest advances in satellite-based sea surface temperature analysis and other products provide unprecedented means to detect and monitor, in near real time, environmental conditions related to coral bleaching events.
This one was published in July. It provides references showing that widespread coral bleaching and subsequent mortality have been clearly linked to elevated sea surface temperatures. It says that for global events there is not enough data to establish a trend (only five events on record), but that low-level bleaching has increased to the point where most regions and ocean basins are reporting some coral bleaching every year.
It is not a recognized term by the ICS, who are the arbiters of what geologic epochs actually are.
If a term isn't a recognized epoch then it has no meaning? Google scholar returns about 59,200 papers.
Here's more research on the accelerating trend towards bleaching. This time in Nature:
Coral reefs across the world’s oceans are in the midst of the longest bleaching event on record (from 2014 to at least 2016). As many of the world’s reefs are remote, there is limited information on how past thermal conditions have influenced reef composition and current stress responses. Using satellite temperature data for 1985–2012, the analysis we present is the first to quantify, for global reef locations, spatial variations in warming trends, thermal stress events and temperature variability at reef-scale (~4km). Among over 60,000 reef pixels globally, 97% show positive SST trends during the study period with 60% warming significantly. Annual trends exceeded summertime trends at most locations. This indicates that the period of summer-like temperatures has become longer through the record, with a corresponding shortening of the ‘winter’ reprieve from warm temperatures. The frequency of bleaching-level thermal stress increased three-fold between 1985–91 and 2006–12 – a trend climate model projections suggest will continue. The thermal history data products developed enable needed studies relating thermal history to bleaching resistance and community composition. Such analyses can help identify reefs more resilient to thermal stress.
Got anything better than a conspiracy blog showing otherwise?
Nothing conspiratorial about that site. That's the issue - just because they report actual, published science
Cite the science if you have any.
Not sure who the alarmists are, but maybe look to the scientific literature instead. The IPCC report at the time suggested that we shouldn't expect 2 feet of sea level rise until 2100 (and certainly not by 2020!) , but may only get 1 foot by 2100. See figure 12 of the IPCC FAR WG1: https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreport...
So maybe fuck the alarmists (whoever those folks are) but trust the science?
How "tolerant" of you!
If you aspirations are to be tolerated then you may want to find better sources. ;) This is a "news for nerds" site, not a conspiracy blog after all. Maybe avoid Ken Hamm and Samuel Shenton as well.
The global body tasked with naming geological eras, the International Commission on Stratigraphy, has rejected the proposed Anthropocene epoch
And yet the term does have meaning in the scientific literature, though it may trigger readers of conspiracy blogs.
For example, Paul Jozef Crutzen (Nobel Prize-winning atmospheric chemist) describes it thusly in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: "The term Anthropocene suggests: (i) that the Earth is now moving out of its current geological epoch, called the Holocene and (ii) that human activity is largely responsible for this exit from the Holocene, that is, that humankind has become a global geological force in its own right. "
Seems an apt description of what the paper shows is happening to coral, with the global proportion of coral being hit by bleaching per year rising from 8% in the 1980s to 31% today. The average reef was affected once every 25 to 30 years in the 1980s but now experiences bleaching every six years.
Referencing a conspiracy site to rebut something published in "Science" is laughable.
Bottom's up I guess, but not for me. "I'm not stupid" as Patrick Moore says when offered a glass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Nuts. Let me try that again: Hughes, T. P. et al. (2018) Spatial and temporal patterns of mass bleaching of corals in the Anthropocene. Or go here for the PDF: https://repository.kaust.edu.s...
How much is normal? How often would you say this happens?
Severe coral reef bleaching is now ‘five times more frequent’ than 40 years ago, with climate change playing a significant role in the rise.
The longest-lasting recorded global bleaching event began in 2014 and continues to affect coral reefs worldwide. Few areas in the Southern Hemisphere escaped bleaching in the recently ended summer; surveys of the Great Barrier Reef suggest that more than 90 percent of it has been affected by bleaching.
Scientists first recorded a mass coral bleaching, one which affects entire reef systems and not just a few individual corals, in 1979. Sixty recorded events occurred between 1979 and 1990. Global coral bleaching events are mass bleaching across all three tropical ocean basins—the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. The first global event took place from 1997 to 1998, with at least 15 percent of global reefs dying, and the second occurred in 2010. Number three, still happening today, looks on track to be the worst ever, affecting 38 percent of the world’s reefs.