February Shatters Monthly Temperature Record

[Lexicus]

We're not that far gone. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is estimated to be 3 +/- 1.5 C per doubling of CO2. Even at the upper end, we would have to double CO2 from pre-industrial levels (from 280 to 560 ppm) in order to get an increase of 4.5 C, only part of which would occur quickly. The best estimate would be 3 C. We're 'only' just above 400 ppm now, increasing at about 2.2 ppm/year, so avoiding the 560 ppm mark should be achievable.

What worries me is that the models don't take enough of the feedback cycles into account, because we don't know everything that's going on yet. I know that 'uncertainty' is typically a denialist talking point but I worry very much that the uncertainties may go in the other direction.

I'm not climate expert or anything, but it does seem like by many measures (sea ice loss in the Arctic for example) the actual change is proceeding faster than many of the models anticipated.

 

[s0nny80y]

there will be warmth.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yet most climate models are well above where the actual temperature is right now.

I know you don't believe in physics. The idea that a known mass of CO2 will have a predictable forcing is just not to be believed

But while the climate models were not bang-on, the total observed heat increase is pretty good. And, obviously, vastly higher than the deniers predicted.

"But the ice melted faster than you predicted, and you forgot to factor in middle-ocean heating!!! Clearly there's no warming!!!"

 

[Lexicus]

But while the climate models were not bang-on, the total observed heat increase is pretty good. And, obviously, vastly higher than the deniers predicted.

Often left out is that some of the models made more modest predictions than were actually borne out. Having seen the "prediction space" (a term I just made up but I think you can guess what it means) compared with the actual temperature record, it looks as if the models have been pretty accurate on the whole.

Of course the denialists seem to forget that the ocean is also part of the "globe".

Spoiler :

 

[EgonSpengler]

Bugs are fine, I can deal with them, as long as they're not wasps.

Ticks and mosquitoes, man. Ticks and mosquitoes. Lyme disease, anaplasmosis, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, tularemia, malaria, West Nile virus, Dengue fever, chikungunya, equine encephalitis, and of course the much-in-the-news zika (and, if you have a dog in the family, heartworm). Add to that the declining efficacy of antibiotics, which is the treatment for at least some of these diseases, and you've got a decent premise for a sci-fi/horror novel.

 

[El_Machinae]

1992, people. 1992

Wattsupwiththat

DrRoySpencer

Look at that 1992 dip. We still had solid enough science to come to a global consensus. Record cooling year, and the scientists and regulators knew WTH they were talking about.

 

[Martin Alvito]

there will be warmth.

The Starks are no longer right in the end; summer is coming.

 

[tokala]

We're not that far gone. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is estimated to be 3 +/- 1.5 C per doubling of CO2. Even at the upper end, we would have to double CO2 from pre-industrial levels (from 280 to 560 ppm) in order to get an increase of 4.5 C, only part of which would occur quickly. The best estimate would be 3 C. We're 'only' just above 400 ppm now, increasing at about 2.2 ppm/year, so avoiding the 560 ppm mark should be achievable.

Unfortunately not.
There are more greenhouse gases than just CO2 that increase in concentration due to human activity.
The timescale of "equilibrium" climate sensitivity is long enough that mostly CO2 matters, but for timescales relevant for people living today, CH4,CFCs etc. will add significantly to the CO2 effect:

This means we are already at about 480ppm CO2 equivalent (image from http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/aggi.html).

By the way, in direct comparison to the 1997/8 El Nino, the current one is about 0.4°C warmer, in line, if not a bit higher than expected from the temperature trend of 0.15 to 0.2°C per decade since about 1970.

Once again showing that there is/was no pause in the warming trend, and all the denier spin-doctoring was heavily relying on that one exceptional 1997/8 El Nino.

So prepare for another decade or so of "But there was no warming since 2016!!!!"

 

[warpus]

Ticks and mosquitoes, man. Ticks and mosquitoes. Lyme disease, anaplasmosis, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, tularemia, malaria, West Nile virus, Dengue fever, chikungunya, equine encephalitis, and of course the much-in-the-news zika (and, if you have a dog in the family, heartworm). Add to that the declining efficacy of antibiotics, which is the treatment for at least some of these diseases, and you've got a decent premise for a sci-fi/horror novel.

It's not that bad around these parts, I'm not that close to a body of water. There is a river that runs through town, but at least 2km away. Not too many mosquito problems around here, ever, but yeah, if this climate change nonsense leads to an amount of mosquitoes that is annoying, then I wouldn't like that one bit.

 

[El_Machinae]

Now imagine if you were told by Westerners who had literally flooded your shoreline by miles and miles that you weren't entitled to emit the amount that they had emitted since they first learned in 1992 that we were collectively on a budget.

 

[Bootstoots]

Unfortunately not.
There are more greenhouse gases than just CO2 that increase in concentration due to human activity.
The timescale of "equilibrium" climate sensitivity is long enough that mostly CO2 matters, but for timescales relevant for people living today, CH4,CFCs etc. will add significantly to the CO2 effect:

This means we are already at about 480ppm CO2 equivalent (image from http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/aggi.html).

Granted, of course. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is usually quoted in terms of CO2 doubling, but the other GHGs matter too.

One thing I've tried looking into, and came away confused about, is what exactly is happening with methane. It shot up quite rapidly through most of the 20th century to reach over 1700 ppb by 1990, and then barely climbed to about 1775 by the end of that decade, then plateaued out at right around that level until about 2007, and finally started slowly rising again. It's not as though we raised less cattle or rice in the 1990s and 2000s than before that date. Papers I've read express a lot of uncertainty about what exactly happened there. It seems to me that methane dynamics are really poorly understood despite being the second most important GHG.

 

[tokala]

Do you have a link to a decent paper that discusses that issue?
I'm very curious as well.

Naively one would suspect either the fracking boom (higher losses due to a bazillion small wells compared to a few big ones) or permafrost (thawing) as a source.
But if it were that easy, someone would have pointed this out already, I think.

 

[Bootstoots]

Here is a decent Nature paper from 2013 about methane over the past three decades. They don't really say anything about fracking only to say that it could be a factor. I think I've seen some other source(s) that seemed to indicate from C-13 ratios that it wasn't the major reason for the renewed increase, but I can't remember where that was.

 

[tokala]

Thanks

 

[EgonSpengler]

It's not that bad around these parts, I'm not that close to a body of water. There is a river that runs through town, but at least 2km away. Not too many mosquito problems around here, ever, but yeah, if this climate change nonsense leads to an amount of mosquitoes that is annoying, then I wouldn't like that one bit.

I'm not sure what temperature or humidity range mosquitoes flourish in. I know that they can lay eggs in the water inside an upturned bottlecap. I also know they can hibernate through a New England Winter and then come out in force in a New England Summer.

Oh, I forgot to mention the mysterious fungal infection that is killing bats by the millions. You know what bats eat by the ton? Mosquitoes (well, insects of all kinds, really - bats just scoop 'em up by the mouthful).

EDIT: Oh yeah, "White Nose Syndrome."

Current estimates of bat population declines in the northeastern US since the emergence of WNS are approximately 80%.

In temperate regions, bats are primary consumers of insects, and a recent economic analysis indicated that insect suppression services (ecosystem services) provided by bats to U.S. agriculture is valued between 4 to 50 billion dollars per year.

As if US agriculture didn't have enough to worry about.