Global Surface Air & Sea Temperatures: Current Conditions and Future Prospects

[Derecho]

On 26/07/2023 at 11:11, SnowBear said:

Been nosing around on various articles and papers on the Amoc this morning. 

Most seem to agree the last time the Amoc stopped was around 14,500 years ago at the end of the last Ice Age. Now, when we began to come out of the last Ice Age there was a massive volume of fresh water run off from the melting of ice sheets across North America. This would have effected the circulation in the Atlantic hugely. 

Subsequently due to that shut down the Northern Hemisphere was pushed into a further 3,000 years of colder climate. 

Today, we have seen recently the Arctic losing ice, but more importantly in my view loss of land ice mass increasing fresh water into the system. 

Most papers seem to agree humans have effected the system a bit, but it's mostly still with the parameters of natural variability with the last time the Amoc being so slow was around 1000 years ago. 

The more I read into it the more I am beginning to think that perhaps we have not got the full picture here. 

The one thing that is certain is the Earth's climate has no constant state. It has over time shifted and quite drastically in short spaces of time too. 

This is not to take away from the fact humans are a dirty polluting species who are perhaps naively thinking they can work it all out and somehow control climate by changing singular factors within a chaotic system to prevent a change which is driven by a mechanism which is far larger and perhaps over a vastly longer time span than we can understand. 

It's not good to keep pumping CO² out, we know that, but I don't feel that everything we are seeing today is driven by that. 

We are perhaps witnessing one of the Earth's change periods, and humans being humans are looking for a cause, because humans don't like change, and are slow to adapt to that change. 

I think perhaps this year, Mother Nature is starting to show us just how much she can change, and very quickly, when she decides to. 

Yes as a climate researcher I think the potential changes to the AMOC are most interesting. Even under a warming scenario there is still forecast to be a cooler area to the south of Greenland when looking at the mean of the IPCC models.

Then there are other models in other studies which go for a much more dramatic slowdown, it is something that the scientific community doesn't understand much about. 

Such an event would have huge implications for our global climate. We know because of CO2 we are adding extra heat to our global atmosphere but how that heat is distributed depends upon atmospheric circulation and this is a grey area to say the least.

In an AMOC collapse our climate would become much colder because our winters would be long and snowy. The potentially hotter summers wouldn't make up for that when it comes to annual temperatures.

Globally, a collapse of the AMOC would have a negative feedback while the planet adjusts to a new overall atmospheric state, though the tropics would see a big step increase in warming because all that heat which usually gets pushed into higher latitudes will just get bottled up. How much can the oceans absorb?

Back in my uni days, I did an essay on the Younger Dryas, a glacial period in which the transition may have occurred in months. The cause is believed to be a huge influx of freshwater from a post-glacial Canadian lake and this influx led to a slowdown. 

However! scientists aren't particularly sure of this... with a few suggesting years ago it could have been caused by a meteorite.

As I say as a climate researcher I find this most fascinating, it would definitely increase site traffic on netweather if such a scenario happened.

The speculated increase in global temperatures because of the January 2022 eruption is interesting but the increase in global temperatures prior to that was also notable. The next El Nino was always going to beat global temperature records regardless of whether there had been an eruption or not. 

Global climate is like an elastic band with an underlying mean atmospheric state. The heat is making it stretch and contract more frequently but what happens if that elastic band snaps?

Edited August 5, 2023 by Derecho

[SnowBear]

22 minutes ago, Derecho said:

Yes as a climate researcher I think the potential changes to the AMOC are most interesting. Even under a warming scenario there is still forecast to be a cooler area to the south of Greenland when looking at the mean of the IPCC models.

Then there are other models in other studies which go for a much more dramatic slowdown, it is something that the scientific community doesn't understand much about. 

Such an event would have huge implications for our global climate. We know because of CO2 we are adding extra heat to our global atmosphere but how that heat is distributed depends upon atmospheric circulation and this is a grey area to say the least.

In an AMOC collapse our climate would become much colder because our winters would be long and snowy. The potentially hotter summers wouldn't make up for that when it comes to annual temperatures.

Globally, a collapse of the AMOC would have a negative feedback while the planet adjusts to a new overall atmospheric state, though the tropics would see a big step increase in warming because all that heat which usually gets pushed into higher latitudes will just get bottled up. How much can the oceans absorb?

Back in my uni days, I did an essay on the Younger Dryas, a glacial period in which the transition may have occurred in months. The cause is believed to be a huge influx of freshwater from a post-glacial Canadian lake and this influx led to a slowdown. 

However! scientists aren't particularly sure of this... with a few suggesting years ago it could have been caused by a meteorite.

As I say as a climate researcher I find this most fascinating, it would definitely increase site traffic on netweather if such a scenario happened.

The speculated increase in global temperatures because of the January 2022 eruption is interesting but the increase in global temperatures prior to that was also notable. The next El Nino was always going to beat global temperature records regardless of whether there had been an eruption or not. 

Global climate is like an elastic band with an underlying mean atmospheric state. The heat is making it stretch and contract more frequently but what happens if that elastic band snaps?

Just goes to show just how uncertain all this is, and to be honest, we are along for the ride if we like it or not. 

[Derecho]

9 minutes ago, SnowBear said:

Just goes to show just how uncertain all this is, and to be honest, we are along for the ride if we like it or not. 

It certainly is, the 2009 slow down of the AMOC is what got me into climate research as opposed to being a more casual observer.

Sadly through the cost of living crisis I've decided to change my career for the time being but I'd love to get back into it again.

We only have global observations over a substantial part of the planet going back to the 1850s and even then before the 1950s there are issues with coverages and biases in the marine data, in the southern hemisphere this uncertainty kicks in before the 1970s.

In order to learn more about the future we need to learn more about the past and I have a lot of great ideas when it comes to climate reconstruction. I graduated with a PhD but only 2% of those graduates go on to become professors. It isn't a sustainable career path sadly.

Publishing is a particularly painful process in academia.

Edited August 5, 2023 by Derecho

[SnowBear]

12 minutes ago, Derecho said:

It certainly is, the 2009 slow down of the AMOC is what got me into climate research as opposed to being a more casual observer.

Sadly through the cost of living crisis I've decided to change my career for the time being but I'd love to get back into it again.

We only have global observations over a substantial part of the planet going back to the 1850s and even then before the 1950s there are issues with coverages and biases in the marine data, in the southern hemisphere this uncertainty kicks in before the 1970s.

In order to learn more about the future we need to learn more about the past and I have a lot of great ideas when it comes to climate reconstruction. I graduated with a PhD but only 2% of those graduates go on to become professors. It isn't a sustainable career path sadly.

Publishing is a particularly painful process in academia.

It's the lack of historical data that gets me. We just don't know what very long term cycles the planet has, each one interacting and perhaps at times canceling out or amplifying depending how the cycles play out. 

Have you thought about having a section here for say like a climate think tank? 

There are some very knowledgeable people here, bounce ideas about, look into possibilities etc

[Derecho]

8 minutes ago, SnowBear said:

It's the lack of historical data that gets me. We just don't know what very long term cycles the planet has, each one interacting and perhaps at times canceling out or amplifying depending how the cycles play out. 

Have you thought about having a section here for say like a climate think tank? 

There are some very knowledgeable people here, bounce ideas about, look into possibilities etc

We do have uncertainty estimates based on the confidence levels associated with the data which give us confidence of recent warming. It is the "unknown unknowns" that are the things we need to understand better, things like as you say ocean circulation. We only have a snapshot of our atmospheric circulation system and ocean observations.

It is the simplified statements and terms as a climate scientist that really annoy me. Global boiling is a term that really irks me, as was the time 2 years ago when the Met Office said ice days in England would become a thing of the past. I would never make such a statement if I was in that role.

I'm always happy to share my opinions on here. Twitter is just a bit crazy to me as is social media overall. I have thought about creating my own website and putting my research on there but hmmm it's tricky. One good thing about my PhD is that I found my hidden talent was computer coding so perhaps taking advantage of data visualisation may be useful. I tend to work very fast with python.

Though we shall see, at the moment I'm using some observations to try and build on my masters thesis. I think I can reconstruct daily European atmospheric circulation patterns in Europe from the 1720s to the present day. Shame I couldn't do that as a full time job.

[Gray-Wolf]

Most folk in here will know my mind on climate change

I hope a few will have read my input over the decades

If they have then they might recall me reporting a conversation I had, back in the mid-noughties, with the then (if not still?)  lead honcho with regard 'Orbital Forcings' based then in NASA

I was put in contact with Him by Bob Grumbine who, at that time, was down in McMurdo looking at 'My Crack'....

The Orbital forcings Guy was of the opinion that not only had the 'then' warming stopped the next 'Precessional Cooling' but, in His opinion, the one following too meaning that Humans had over-ridden 46K years of any Orbitally forced cooling (remember we have already reversed the 1K years of Far Northern Cooling that had chilled those regions by 1C up to its stopping, & reversal, in the late 1800's? of course, those regions are now the fastest warming on the Planet even though the orbital forcing for cooling remains in play?)

Why mention this?

Well, upthread, someone was talking about the return of 'Ice ages'?

Back in the mid-noughties the then 'Mass Loss from our Ice Sheets (if taken as a 'constant' from that time?) would see ALL Global ice gone before we saw the next 'precessional cooling', were that one to happen?, 69K years away

Just the albedo Flip of a 'No Ice Word' would mean any return to Ice ages would demand extreme forcings....

Remember also that below our ice sheets lurks a hibernating portion of our Ancient Carbon cycle which would be re-animated once uncovered (as we see in the Andes currently?) 

That would re-introduce at least the same amount of CO2 as we have thrown into the Atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution....another 'hurdle' for any 're-start' of Glaciation....

It, to me at least?, appears likely that Human kind has taken us out of the last ice age & back into the World of 36 Million years ago with no Antarctic/Greenland ice & a 200ft hike in Sea Level?

The other thing that 'Climate Scientists' never seem keen to mention is the 'Speed' of the forcings we have introduced?

Last week we were reminded we were in the 6th Mass Extinction

The other 5 took an average of 3.7 million years to complete.....we have done so in 100yrs

There are no parallels, in the geological record, of GHG's being increased at the speed we are increasing them

Be it Deccan trapps or PETM 'cook off' of petrochemicals they still took many thousands of years to do anything like we have in the past 60 years?

Try an experiment eh?

Put a glass under a tap running slowly & see how much 'sloppage' you get?

Now repeat with the Tap on full bore.....do you see the difference?

There is no modeling the second experiment just a broad knowledge that there will be 'sloppage' but just where & when is to chaotic to capture

Is this year our first hint of a step change to an 'Equitable Atmosphere'?

S. American Temps of near 40C, in mid-winter for them, needs some explaining eh?

Edited August 5, 2023 by Gray-Wolf

[matty40s]

 

[The PIT]

I've got  a question for you. If our life span was a million years would we even be discussing this.

The Deccan traps would have had a very rapid effect small eruptions in comparison like Tonga, Tambora, Pinatubo plus a few others have had a rapid effect within a year.

Edited August 5, 2023 by The PIT

[SnowBear]

1 hour ago, matty40s said:

 

To be honest I'm not interested in what is out there in the mass media, much like the pandemic it's not easy to discern between those with bias, those with vested interests,  and also political and commercial interests. 

I want to know what is really going on, how much do we really know and understand, how much is pure guesswork, how much is down to our perspective from a species with a very short life span. 

The planet is and has always been changing and the most successful species don't look to change the planet to suit them, they adapt. 

If we look at the age of the Earth on a clock face where the age of the earth is one hour we see that Modern Man appears about a tenth of a second before midnight. 

(Image courtesy of The University of Kentucky) 

Our recorded history is even shorter and in reality our reliable data log is almost not worth bothering with. 

To understand where we are, how the climate can change, we have to properly understand every variable part of the system. We understand CO² reasonably well, but do we fully understand water, particulates, aerosols etc, not from a human health point of view but from the point of view of the atmosphere and how it works and has evolved over time. We don't fully understand ocean current cycles, high altitude chemistry, how topographical changes effect the system, extremely long term cycles and a whole heap more. 

In my view we know very little. 

The biggest thing we can do is reduce our carbon footprint as we know pumping out CO² isn't good, and we can all do that if we stop being wasteful, travelling unnecessarily, making things to last and do away with much of the plastic we have in the today's world especially packaging (however did we get on before we had plastic ). But it doesn't mean to say that all we are seeing today is down to that CO², and the more I see this year pan out the more I'm convinced we are seeing the world going thorough a change after a fairly lengthy period of being benign (a split second in the age of the Earth). 

For once humans need to just stop being know alls, and watch, listen and learn. 

It wont happen though, politics, money and greed will overrule any need to look at the long term survival of the species.

[SnowBear]

3 minutes ago, The PIT said:

I've got  a question for you. If our life span was a million years would we even be discussing this.

That depends on whether we took the conscious decision to adapt, as the animal kingdom have before and also early humans, to migrate to more favourable areas etc or perhaps live more underground to escape heat. 

Right now, we don't have that option, too many of us, we are no longer nomadic, and we are territorial.

[SnowBear]

16 minutes ago, alexisj9 said:

Speaking of migrating to favourable areas, it's not really that easy to do is it, you be come a migrant, and unwanted, end up living in camps and called names, and shamed for having to move away from where you came from.

Hence I said we are territorial. 

Most of the migration at the moment is due to political reasons and that's the territorial/tribal element. 

If we were to see a country become uninhabitable due to the climate, would those territorial behaviours be put aside? 

[Gray-Wolf]

Can I remind folk of what was discovered in those Siberian caves in the Permafrost region please

The folk studying the stalactites discovered that whenever Global temps have been above what is the equivalent of 1.5C above those of Pre-Industrial the stalactites began growing.....

That requires running water depositing calcite...

That means 'no Permafrost'.....

July was over 1.5C above Pre-industrial....

Melt the Permafrost & you Free those immense reserves of carbon, current safely in cold storage, & expose them to 'normal processes'....i.e. decomposition & the release of CO2/CH4

[richie3846]

21 hours ago, SnowBear said:

That depends on whether we took the conscious decision to adapt, as the animal kingdom have before and also early humans, to migrate to more favourable areas etc or perhaps live more underground to escape heat. 

Right now, we don't have that option, too many of us, we are no longer nomadic, and we are territorial.

Adapt or die, this is nature's way. Us humans aren't immune to this, and if our current lack of flexibility is preventing us from surviving, if the climate changed dramatically, then we'd revert to survival of the fittest instincts, or die. If it came to the crunch, the fittest and most adaptable would be the ones to continue our species. This may sound extreme from our viewpoint of comfort and societal order, but history shows us that each stage of civilisation doesn't last long at all. Tracing history from prehistoric times to now, I'd bet money on this current phase of bounty and comfort, to be a passing blip in the wider story of humanity. 

[SnowBear]

14 hours ago, Gray-Wolf said:

Can I remind folk of what was discovered in those Siberian caves in the Permafrost region please

The folk studying the stalactites discovered that whenever Global temps have been above what is the equivalent of 1.5C above those of Pre-Industrial the stalactites began growing.....

That requires running water depositing calcite...

That means 'no Permafrost'.....

July was over 1.5C above Pre-industrial....

Melt the Permafrost & you Free those immense reserves of carbon, current safely in cold storage, & expose them to 'normal processes'....i.e. decomposition & the release of CO2/CH4

And so we come to the question... What is "normal" for our planet. Are we living in a normal or abnormal period or is there no "normal". 

[richie3846]

21 hours ago, SnowBear said:

Hence I said we are territorial. 

Most of the migration at the moment is due to political reasons and that's the territorial/tribal element. 

If we were to see a country become uninhabitable due to the climate, would those territorial behaviours be put aside? 

I doubt it very much, because if a country became uninhabitable, then other places are likely to be under pressure also. When times get tough, survival instincts will kick in. 

[Midlands Ice Age]

1 hour ago, richie3846 said:

Adapt or die, this is nature's way. Us humans aren't immune to this, and if our current lack of flexibility is preventing us from surviving, if the climate changed dramatically, then we'd revert to survival of the fittest instincts, or die. If it came to the crunch, the fittest and most adaptable would be the ones to continue our species. This may sound extreme from our viewpoint of comfort and societal order, but history shows us that each stage of civilisation doesn't last long at all. Tracing history from prehistoric times to now, I'd bet money on this current phase of bounty and comfort, to be a passing blip in the wider story of humanity. 

This view accords with my own.

I had come to the same conclusion from a different direction.

Having lived over 50 percent of the last century, and trying to put my life's weather  into 'perspective' what has stood out for me was the period from the 90's to half way through the noughties which to me seemed to be abnormally quiet and placid. Mild dry weather was in abundance. 

More recently (since 2007) we seemed to have moved back to the weather types we experienced in the middle of the last century, though I accept it has remained milder. 

People seemed to think that this 'washout' weather is not typical, and maybe it is not for the youngsters of today. However I remember several summers camping in the UK as a youngster which were washed out. We returned home on 1 or 2 occasions. I also remember the huge waves that were seen around the North Bay in Scarborough on quite a few occasions in midsummer, and my disappointments when the 'Belle' had to be cancelled. (that was the local trip boat).

These periods coincided with the advent of the continental holiday, which obviously then took off. 

Perhaps we will need to get used to the current weather types.

The above view is based solely upon the UK 'climate'. 

I also accept that the hotter bands of weather which in the main start in the Sahara seem to be marching gradually Northwards. This trend has been evident since the end of the last mini ice age.  (as exemplified by the rise of the Egyptian and then Roman empires which flourished in favourable climate regimes).

Looking to North Africa and one can see the extension of the desert areas further North from the equator in botanical and geological studies. 

Perhaps we need to accept  that this process is also ongoing.

What also interests me, is what is happening in Southern Africa. Is the equatorial band simply moving Northwards or is it expanding?

MIA 

Edited August 6, 2023 by Midlands Ice Age

[The PIT]

On 05/08/2023 at 11:25, SnowBear said:

That depends on whether we took the conscious decision to adapt, as the animal kingdom have before and also early humans, to migrate to more favourable areas etc or perhaps live more underground to escape heat. 

Right now, we don't have that option, too many of us, we are no longer nomadic, and we are territorial.

My point is we would simply say we've seen this before and carry on regardless.

[Gray-Wolf]

Again I'd like to reiterate I have never come across any historical/geological time period where 'forcings' were applied so rapidly to the climate system

Pleqse feel free to correct me if I am mistaken but, as I pointed out with regard to 'mass extinctions' the previous 5 took , on average, 3.7 million tears to accomplish what we have in 100yrs

The same is true of our 'loading' of our atmosphere with GHG's....

I haven't a Scooby how Mother N. deals with such but I know Her 'remedy' will be in keeping with the 'scale of forcings' we have applied & I, personally, find that terrifying!

just work out for yourself how 100yrs compares to 3.7 million.....even if the 'forcings' we have applied to our climate system are a fraction of that it is still a pretty heavy loading no?

As for the 'IMBYs'?

How the hell does that tell you anything about Global climate shift???

"Well last tues was cloudy"......meanwhile the Inuit are shifting Villages & failing to hunt due to the scale of their experience of climate shift......should we take their 'IMBY' experience as the global norm???

[alexisj9]

On 05/08/2023 at 11:53, SnowBear said:

Hence I said we are territorial. 

Most of the migration at the moment is due to political reasons and that's the territorial/tribal element. 

If we were to see a country become uninhabitable due to the climate, would those territorial behaviours be put aside? 

No cause that is why some are traveling north or south already.

[Addicks Fan 1981]

On 05/08/2023 at 01:53, Daniel* said:

It’s the evolution of ENSO which is unprecedented in all our lifetimes, first 3 year La Niña (rare) this stores a lot heat in oceans of mild latitudes as wind evaporation is reduced but then now with abrupt —> El Niño it is now being expelled also into atmosphere, meanwhile the tropics aggressively warm with quick formation of El Niño, typically we see a year or two of neutral ENSO, this allows mid latitudes to cool in time of developing El Niño we have not seen this and this is reason why global temperatures are particularly elevated right now. The good news this is temporary by next La Niña possibly in 2024/2025 things should normalise a tad.

Also @Daniel* i believe we need some ENSO neutral years as well so the overall pattern consensus should normalise things even more from year to year.   Quite often in ENSO neutral years you get the weather how it should be from my understanding broadly speaking.   

[SnowBear]

1 hour ago, Gray-Wolf said:

Again I'd like to reiterate I have never come across any historical/geological time period where 'forcings' were applied so rapidly to the climate system

Pleqse feel free to correct me if I am mistaken but, as I pointed out with regard to 'mass extinctions' the previous 5 took , on average, 3.7 million tears to accomplish what we have in 100yrs

The same is true of our 'loading' of our atmosphere with GHG's....

I haven't a Scooby how Mother N. deals with such but I know Her 'remedy' will be in keeping with the 'scale of forcings' we have applied & I, personally, find that terrifying!

just work out for yourself how 100yrs compares to 3.7 million.....even if the 'forcings' we have applied to our climate system are a fraction of that it is still a pretty heavy loading no?

As for the 'IMBYs'?

How the hell does that tell you anything about Global climate shift???

"Well last tues was cloudy"......meanwhile the Inuit are shifting Villages & failing to hunt due to the scale of their experience of climate shift......should we take their 'IMBY' experience as the global norm???

Lets not go quite so far back. In the time of the Egyptians the Nile was a fertile land much bigger than it is now. Great Britain looked very different to how it is today only a few thousand years go with a land bridge still connecting us to mainland Europe and people lived in a land called Doggerland, and the Inca abandoned and moved whole cities over time as a dry line advanced northwards. And the Inuit were being pushed out of the far Eastern parts of Russia and into the American mainland and moved down that continent over time. As time has gone on they have moved back to the north lands, but once again they are on the move as the climate changes again. 

I will agree that green house gasses that we have added is unprecedented but what we don't know is the longer term cycles which may or may not have even greater changes in store than just those gasses. 

We simply haven't been on this planet long enough to understand a tenth of it yet in my view and especially the long term climate and oceanic systems and cycles. 

[alexisj9]

19 minutes ago, SnowBear said:

Lets not go quite so far back. In the time of the Egyptians the Nile was a fertile land much bigger than it is now. Great Britain looked very different to how it is today only a few thousand years go with a land bridge still connecting us to mainland Europe and people lived in a land called Doggerland, and the Inca abandoned and moved whole cities over time as a dry line advanced northwards. And the Inuit were being pushed out of the far Eastern parts of Russia and into the American mainland and moved down that continent over time. As time has gone on they have moved back to the north lands, but once again they are on the move as the climate changes again. 

I will agree that green house gasses that we have added is unprecedented but what we don't know is the longer term cycles which may or may not have even greater changes in store than just those gasses. 

We simply haven't been on this planet long enough to understand a tenth of it yet in my view and especially the long term climate and oceanic systems and cycles. 

I'm with you on the watch and learn side of things by the way, think things have gone to far for us to be able to stop whatever might happen. But we can always document it for others later on 

[SnowBear]

7 hours ago, alexisj9 said:

I'm with you on the watch and learn side of things by the way, think things have gone to far for us to be able to stop whatever might happen. But we can always document it for others later on 

The danger in saying we can probably not stop climate change has its own pit falls, humans being humans will then just say, "Oh well, we may as well just carry on then". 

Regardless of whether climate change, or at least what we are seeing this year, is down to us or not, we are filthy species and we need to start clearing up after our selves. Tbh, animals live in less trash than we do, and unfortunately we make them live in ours. 

[Gray-Wolf]

I don't think folk are 'hearing' me?

Again I'd ask for some 'parallel' of what we have done this past 60 years?

'WHEN' have we seen, in the geological record, forcings piled on as we have seen this past 60 years?

Give me an analog to what we have seen over 'your' lifetime....coz there ain't none is there?

I understand if you dare not imagine what is coming down the line, I know our weaker members will resort to the 'La, la, la,la" to keep at bay the horrific truths...but you guys? Really?

[SnowBear]

3 hours ago, Gray-Wolf said:

I don't think folk are 'hearing' me?

Again I'd ask for some 'parallel' of what we have done this past 60 years?

'WHEN' have we seen, in the geological record, forcings piled on as we have seen this past 60 years?

Give me an analog to what we have seen over 'your' lifetime....coz there ain't none is there?

I understand if you dare not imagine what is coming down the line, I know our weaker members will resort to the 'La, la, la,la" to keep at bay the horrific truths...but you guys? Really?

Nobody is saying that we have had no effect. This isn't about denying that we have either. 

The questions being asked are by just how much are we really effecting the climate and also making sure we are not missing something. 

With so many unknowns about our planet it is only right to keep asking questions, having sensible debates and seeking knowledge because we don't know it all.