How We Know that Global Warming is Accelerating and that the Goal of the Paris Agreement is Dead

[jonboy]

20 minutes ago, SnowBear said:

Research does say that the increase of water vapour in the stratosphere, and also into the higher mesosphere, by the Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai volcano would probably cause a temporary increase in warming, bringing us close to the 1.5°c threshold. It would probably also increase rain fall and rain fall rates. 

Both of these we have seen this year in variius places with increased heat, and some extremely high rain fall across the globe. 

Unlike a land based volcano, or even Krakatoa, which blasted mostly ash, rock particles and other aerosols high into the atmosphere, Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai was mostly water vapour, one of the most efficient greenhouse gases, but short lived. But due to that extreme height reached it will not "rain out" in a matter of days or weeks as normally seen in lower altitude weather, the best estimate I've seen is 2-3 years. 

So, this year, with that high altitude injection of water vapour and also the turbulence caused in the upper atmosphere by Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai, combined with the El Nino, and also the introduction of the clean emissions laws for shipping, we have seen a big spike in heat.. And rain events. 

As that water vapour decreases I suspect we will see a return to more "normal" levels, eg: the levels we saw before Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai. 

So yes, its had a warming effect, but it should be only temporary, providing any tipping points are not triggered. 

We shall see. 

I agree with everything you have said snowbear. That's why we need to be cautious about this years heat extremes and saying it is down to co2 climate change. 

Hopefully with all the research being undertaken we may get a better understanding of the role of water vapour in the climate change  debate.

One other key impact of hunga tonga is the impact on ozone and its consequences on temperature. 

[SnowBear]

1 hour ago, jonboy said:

I agree with everything you have said snowbear. That's why we need to be cautious about this years heat extremes and saying it is down to co2 climate change. 

Hopefully with all the research being undertaken we may get a better understanding of the role of water vapour in the climate change  debate.

One other key impact of hunga tonga is the impact on ozone and its consequences on temperature. 

I personally do think the focus on CO² is perhaps a bit naive. Although water vapour is short lived, if there is a net increase or decrease over time then it will have an effect. As I understand it at the moment it's seen mostly as a consequence of a warmer world, where more water vapour is carried in the air. But I do wonder if it can also be a driver of climate change. 

One area where this becomes important is where just purely due to cleaner air, more sunlight reaches the Earth's surface and the seas, more evaporation, and hence a slow average increase in the water vapour content. This becomes a self perpetuating cycle where more rain, a warmer climate due to that water vapour, and so more melting... And so on. 

If... And we don't know for sure quite yet.... If Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai has caused the shifts in heat and rain fall we have seen this year, that's quite a marked change for a 10% increase in water vapour in the stratosphere from an isolated event in the Pacific Ocean, and to have such large world wide consequences. 

So what really drives what. 

In the decades since the introduction of the Clean Air Acts and a more general reduction in producing smoke and particulates we reduce the aerosols in the air around which water vapour can condense into droplets. This is cloud seeding. 

Right now we focus almost entirely on CO². I do wonder if that's actually wise. Although aerosols may not be good for human health, the chemistry of the atmosphere may need a certain amount to keep it in balance. 

Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai has a very special place in history, and is a very unique "natural experiment" which we need to learn from as much as we can, because I think it can teach us more about our atmosphere and way beyond just the CO² factor. 

 

 

[WYorksWeather]

3 hours ago, jonboy said:

I await with baited breath to see who utterly disagrees with you I for one agree we don't fully know the impact of hunga tonga and research clearly states it is likely to have had a warming effect on the climate system. 

I think the thing that matters is what the longer term trend is doing. The longer-term warming trend is sticking around 0.2C per decade (hence 0.3C / decade over land, where we all live). The question of whether that might accelerate to 0.3C per decade is one that can't be answered just yet. All that matters though is there's a consistent, uninterrupted trend, that when you filter out El Nino and volcanic eruptions, that is the underlying trend. Other things are just straight as a die like global ocean heat content.

Essentially, if we keep doing what we're doing, we'll hit 1.5C sometime in the early 2030s on the underlying trend, and will be somewhere near 2C by mid-century.

[WYorksWeather]

38 minutes ago, SnowBear said:

I personally do think the focus on CO² is perhaps a bit naive. Although water vapour is short lived, if there is a net increase or decrease over time then it will have an effect. As I understand it at the moment it's seen mostly as a consequence of a warmer world, where more water vapour is carried in the air. But I do wonder if it can also be a driver of climate change. 

One area where this becomes important is where just purely due to cleaner air, more sunlight reaches the Earth's surface and the seas, more evaporation, and hence a slow average increase in the water vapour content. This becomes a self perpetuating cycle where more rain, a warmer climate due to that water vapour, and so more melting... And so on. 

If... And we don't know for sure quite yet.... If Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai has caused the shifts in heat and rain fall we have seen this year, that's quite a marked change for a 10% increase in water vapour in the stratosphere from an isolated event in the Pacific Ocean, and to have such large world wide consequences. 

So what really drives what. 

In the decades since the introduction of the Clean Air Acts and a more general reduction in producing smoke and particulates we reduce the aerosols in the air around which water vapour can condense into droplets. This is cloud seeding. 

Right now we focus almost entirely on CO². I do wonder if that's actually wise. Although aerosols may not be good for human health, the chemistry of the atmosphere may need a certain amount to keep it in balance. 

Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai has a very special place in history, and is a very unique "natural experiment" which we need to learn from as much as we can, because I think it can teach us more about our atmosphere and way beyond just the CO² factor. 

 

 

 

Water vapour can never be a direct cause on a longer term timescale, though, because it doesn't have the lifetime in the atmosphere. There is no plausible causation loop. The total water content of the atmosphere is limited as a function of temperature.

In terms of aerosols, essentially the net forcing effect is negative, so if we reduce aerosol emissions, temperatures rise. James Hansen has described this as a Faustian bargain, which makes a lot of sense. We clean up the air, and the earth warms. And yes, there is evidence to support that reducing aerosols may also increase precipitation, at least from a brief search.

[WYorksWeather]

5 hours ago, cumbrian ice said:

We are in an unusual state with all the extra water vapour from the Hunga Tonga eruption. We need to see where we are in 3-4 years time when the water vapour has worked its way out. We don't know, but my hunch is we will have cooled.

Depending on what exactly you mean by cooled, I might agree. If you mean that for example 2025 and 2026 might be cooler than this year and next, I don't think that'd be that surprising. After all, the last global temperature record before this one was set in 2016. And we know that if there is a Hunga Tonga effect, it'll reduce over the next few years, and also El Nino will flip to La Nina again.

But if you mean that the longer term trend will turn negative, then no chance. For example, I think the odds are very high (90% or less) that 2026-2030 will be warmer than 2021-2025, and I'd almost bet my life on the fact that 2031-2040 will be warmer than 2021-2030. Has to be something like a 99% chance. I'd go so far as to say 100%, absent a massive volcanic eruption or a major asteroid impact.

[Methuselah]

8 minutes ago, WYorksWeather said:

Depending on what exactly you mean by cooled, I might agree. If you mean that for example 2025 and 2026 might be cooler than this year and next, I don't think that'd be that surprising. After all, the last global temperature record before this one was set in 2016. And we know that if there is a Hunga Tonga effect, it'll reduce over the next few years, and also El Nino will flip to La Nina again.

But if you mean that the longer term trend will turn negative, then no chance. For example, I think the odds are very high (90% or less) that 2026-2030 will be warmer than 2021-2025, and I'd almost bet my life on the fact that 2031-2040 will be warmer than 2021-2030. Has to be something like a 99% chance. I'd go so far as to say 100%, absent a massive volcanic eruption or a major asteroid impact.

Well, I've been on here for more than twenty years and, if there's one thing I've learned, it's that you'll never convince a Climate Change Denier that mankind is buggering up the planet. 

[SnowBear]

3 minutes ago, Methuselah said:

Well, I've been on here for more than twenty years and, if there's one thing I've learned, it's that you'll never convince a Climate Change Denier that mankind is buggering up the planet. 

Define "Climate Change Denier". 

[Methuselah]

Just now, SnowBear said:

Define "Climate Change Denier". 

I'm quite sure you know what I mean. . . 

[SnowBear]

30 minutes ago, WYorksWeather said:

Water vapour can never be a direct cause on a longer term timescale, though, because it doesn't have the lifetime in the atmosphere. There is no plausible causation loop. The total water content of the atmosphere is limited as a function of temperature.

In terms of aerosols, essentially the net forcing effect is negative, so if we reduce aerosol emissions, temperatures rise. James Hansen has described this as a Faustian bargain, which makes a lot of sense. We clean up the air, and the earth warms. And yes, there is evidence to support that reducing aerosols may also increase precipitation, at least from a brief search.

There is evidence that aerosols both increase and decrease rainfall depending on concentration. 

If the concentration is too high it doesn't allow water to condensate in large enough quantities around the particles to become large enough and heavy enough to fall as raindrops. 

Very low concentration, low rainfall, as concentration increases so does rainfall, until the threshold is reached where it then starts to reduce rainfall. 

[SnowBear]

5 minutes ago, Methuselah said:

I'm quite sure you know what I mean. . . 

Well, from what I see is there is quite an interesting discussion going on in here, with some varying opinions, and with the complexity and mountain of info out there, I expect to see varying opinions. 

It's good to question science, and we should do, continually, this is where break thoughts in understanding comes from.

The earths atmosphere is an extremely complex system, to say we completely understand it is naive. 

That is not the same as a denier, who out and out sees it all as a conspiracy and that there is no warning etc. 

We know the climate is changing, as it has done since the earth was formed, what we have to define, is each individual part precisely to understand the whole. 

Have humans effected the climate? Yes. Is there other things going on to? Yes. Is there things we still don't  understand? Yes. Should we keep questioning our current understanding? Yes. 

When you stop questioning and seeking answers, checking and double checking, looking for alternatives, science stops. 

[alexisj9]

1 minute ago, SnowBear said:

Well, from what I see is there is quite an interesting discussion going on in here, with some varying opinions, and with the complexity and mountain of info out there, I expect to see varying opinions. 

It's good to question science, and we should do, continually, this is where break thoughts in understanding comes from.

The earths atmosphere is an extremely complex system, to say we completely understand it is naive. 

That is not the same as a denier, who out and out sees it all as a conspiracy and that there is no warning etc. 

We know the climate is changing, as it has done since the earth was formed, what we have to define, is each individual part precisely to understand the whole. 

Have humans effected the climate? Yes. Is there other things going on to? Yes. Is there things we still don't  understand? Yes. Should we keep questioning our current understanding? Yes. 

When you stop questioning and seeking answers, checking and double checking, looking for alternatives, science stops. 

I actually agree with that.

[WYorksWeather]

Just now, SnowBear said:

Well, from what I see is there is quite an interesting discussion going on in here, with some varying opinions, and with the complexity and mountain of info out there, I expect to see varying opinions. 

It's good to question science, and we should do, continually, this is where break thoughts in understanding comes from.

The earths atmosphere is an extremely complex system, to say we completely understand it is naive. 

That is not the same as a denier, who out and out sees it all as a conspiracy and that there is no warning etc. 

We know the climate is changing, as it has done since the earth was formed, what we have to define, is each individual part precisely to understand the whole. 

Have humans effected the climate? Yes. Is there other things going on to? Yes. Is there things we still don't  understand? Yes. Should we keep questioning our current understanding? Yes. 

When you stop questioning and seeking answers, checking and double checking, looking for alternatives, science stops. 

Generally, I think there are three strands to the discussion. You have warming, the cause, and what we should do about it.

I would call any position that denies that the Earth is warming noticeably to be a non-consensus view (using the IPCC / scientific consensus view as a starting point). I would also include any position which suggests that the human factor is responsible for say, less than a pretty clear majority of the warming over the last century (say less than 70%, for argument's sake). Beyond that, there are genuine disagreements within the scientific mainstream over the magnitude and sign of the natural trend over the last 100 years if you exclude human activity, so 70% is a good guide I think.

I think all other views I would not call denial. For example, even if someone said to me, I accept that the Earth is warming, and that we're responsible for most of it, but we shouldn't cut emissions because it would cost too much / affect people's quality of life / we can adapt to the change / other countries need to do more, then I would disagree with that person, but they're not a denier.

[WYorksWeather]

8 minutes ago, alexisj9 said:

I actually agree with that.

I still think there's a point to be made about the precautionary principle. How sure would you have to be to take action? I would argue that even if someone's personal confidence in the science were only, say, 50% (of course my own view and most people who hold the mainstream view would say it's more like 99%), there'd still be a strong argument to do whatever we could to mitigate that risk.

Take weather warnings, which we're all familiar with. The case in Scotland recently - some people who refused to evacuate during Storm Babet and had to be rescued later. Would you prefer to be the person who evacuates your house and suffers quite a lot of disruption to your life, only perhaps to find that your house was fine and you could have stayed, or would you stay and take your chances with the storm if it was as bad as the authorities said?

Of course, there are some who might say that their quality of life in a world that massively reduced emissions might be so bad that it's not worth living, and that my house evacuation analogy doesn't really work. But it's an interesting debate nonetheless!

[Wold Topper]

29 minutes ago, Methuselah said:

I'm quite sure you know what I mean. . . 

Why not extrapolate your thoughts rather than post meaningless 'one liners' ...

[alexisj9]

34 minutes ago, WYorksWeather said:

I still think there's a point to be made about the precautionary principle. How sure would you have to be to take action? I would argue that even if someone's personal confidence in the science were only, say, 50% (of course my own view and most people who hold the mainstream view would say it's more like 99%), there'd still be a strong argument to do whatever we could to mitigate that risk.

Take weather warnings, which we're all familiar with. The case in Scotland recently - some people who refused to evacuate during Storm Babet and had to be rescued later. Would you prefer to be the person who evacuates your house and suffers quite a lot of disruption to your life, only perhaps to find that your house was fine and you could have stayed, or would you stay and take your chances with the storm if it was as bad as the authorities said?

Of course, there are some who might say that their quality of life in a world that massively reduced emissions might be so bad that it's not worth living, and that my house evacuation analogy doesn't really work. But it's an interesting debate nonetheless!

That's an easy one, if I was asked to evacuate, and I could do so, some would need help, and I'm pretty sure that was on offer re Scotland, I would. It does make me quite angry to here people say, "we stayed, we didn't expect it to be this bad, it's been ok before, etc" the fact is they could have been nice and safe, and no one would have had to go into a dangerous situation to rescue them.

[Methuselah]

9 hours ago, alexisj9 said:

I actually agree with that.

So do I! 

[SnowBear]

Not had a chance to study these closely yet as work demands are manic at the moment but here is the latest on Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai

 

Article in Phys.org on the changes in chemistry and dynamics following the eruption. (Phys.org, 20th Nov, 2023).

Study examines how massive 2022 eruption changed stratosphere chemistry and dynamics

PHYS.ORG

---

When the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai volcano erupted on January 15, 2022 in the South Pacific, it produced a shock wave felt around the world and triggered tsunamis in Tonga, Fiji, New Zealand...

 

Publication on the efects on ozone. (ACP, 23rd Oct, 2023)

Stratospheric ozone depletion inside the volcanic plume shortly after the 2022 Hunga Tonga eruption

ACP.COPERNICUS.ORG

---

Abstract. Near-term in-plume ozone depletion was observed for about 10 d by the Aura Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) right after the January 2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai (HTHH) eruption...

 

 

Publication in PNAS on the "Impact of the Hunga Tonga volcanic eruption on stratospheric composition" (PNAS, Oct 30th, 2023)

Just a moment...

WWW.PNAS.ORG

 

 

When I get the chance I'll have a good read I think, looks interesting. 

 

[cheeky_monkey]

my position is this:

The world is warming there is no denying that

human activities are wholly or a large part of that warming agreed

a warmer world would lead to worldwide catastrophe and threaten the very existence of mankind in the next 50 years ..now here is where you have lost me..who is to say that a warmer world is a bad thing or at what point does warming threaten the global eco system..is it 3c or 5c or 10c? we have no historical data set showing a massive ecological disaster caused by a warmer world save the mass extinction of 250million years ago to my knowledge.

Also who is to say that mankind isn't intelligent enough to reverse the warming in the next 50 years ..lets be honest in the goodness of time fossil fuels will become obsolete anyway due to the developing of more efficient forms of cheap and limitless energy (it wont be batteries, solar or wind) once AI reaches the point of singularity i believe the whole issue of global energy and global warming will disappear and be just a footnote in history.

on that note AI is a bigger threat to Humanity than Global warming

[cumbrian ice]

17 hours ago, Methuselah said:

Well, I've been on here for more than twenty years and, if there's one thing I've learned, it's that you'll never convince a Climate Change Denier that mankind is buggering up the planet. 

Who's denying? 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, cheeky_monkey said:

my position is this:

The world is warming there is no denying that

human activities are wholly or a large part of that warming agreed

a warmer world would lead to worldwide catastrophe and threaten the very existence of mankind in the next 50 years ..now here is where you have lost me..who is to say that a warmer world is a bad thing or at what point does warming threaten the global eco system..is it 3c or 5c or 10c? we have no historical data set showing a massive ecological disaster caused by a warmer world save the mass extinction of 250million years ago to my knowledge.

Also who is to say that mankind isn't intelligent enough to reverse the warming in the next 50 years ..lets be honest in the goodness of time fossil fuels will become obsolete anyway due to the developing of more efficient forms of cheap and limitless energy (it wont be batteries, solar or wind) once AI reaches the point of singularity i believe the whole issue of global energy and global warming will disappear and be just a footnote in history.

on that note AI is a bigger threat to Humanity than Global warming

It's the rate of change that's most damaging. A warming planet is fine over 10000 or 100000 years, but over 100 years, that's hell for all ecosystems.

[Guest]

Wouldn't surprise me if something is thrown together in space to reflect a portion of the sun's light away from our planet. 2050's? 

Might be a Musk or another billionaire wants the badge of 'mankind's saviour'.

Do you think that might be successful?

Edited December 7, 2023 by DCee

[WYorksWeather]

32 minutes ago, DCee said:

Wouldn't surprise me if something is thrown together in space to reflect a portion of the sun's light away from our planet. 2050's? 

Might be a Musk or another billionaire wants the badge of 'mankind's saviour'.

Do you think that might be successful?

It could be successful in terms of reducing temperature. The key issues as I see it are as follows:

1. Ethical point - what if some countries / ecosystems would stand to benefit from continued warming? They might oppose stopping it?
2. Practical point - you'd need a system that could easily be scaled up and down depending on emissions, and that didn't create asymmetries - e.g. having a situation where the average temperature is closer to pre-industrial but there's a day/night bias or a seasonal bias.
3. Scientific point - merely dealing with the temperature problem doesn't deal with the ocean acidification problem, and some aspects of the Earth system like ice sheets have massive inertia.

[cheeky_monkey]

36 minutes ago, DCee said:

It's the rate of change that's most damaging. A warming planet is fine over 10000 or 100000 years, but over 100 years, that's hell for all ecosystems.

says who? again in that respect we have a data set to refer to of exactly zero..its pure supposition..there has been 100+ years of warming without any collapse of ecosystems..which goes against what the doomsayers have been saying for the last 40 years ...i 100% guarantee that in 40 years time you will still be able to honeymoon in the Maldives and wont be wading through the streets of London knee deep in water. i also guarantee in 40 years we will have technologies at hand you cant even think or imagine today.

[WYorksWeather]

Just now, cheeky_monkey said:

says who? again in that respect we have a data set to refer to of exactly zero..its pure supposition..there has been 100+ years of warming without any collapse of ecosystems..which goes against what the doomsayers have been saying for the last 40 years ...i 100% guarantee that in 40 years time you will still be able to honeymoon in the Maldives and wont be wading through the streets of London knee deep in water. i also guarantee in 40 years we will have technologies at hand you cant even think or imagine today.

Actually, we do have quite a lot of data on this. The thing is that geologic time / evolution is very, very slow. 100 years seems like a long time to us, but it's nothing. In terms of collapse of ecosystems - huge numbers of species have gone extinct and are continuing to do so, far more than the background rate. See here: 

Just a moment...

WWW.SCIENCE.ORG

 

Life's biggest defence against change is time. Over many millennia, life on Earth can literally adapt to almost anything, and species that have the ability can move their habitats.

None of that process can happen in 100 years. The best historic analogues to what is happening to the climate now are things like asteroid impacts, gamma ray bursts, major volcanic eruptions. Every single such instance has been massively catastrophic for life on Earth, simply because of the lack of time to adapt. What we're doing now also gives life no time to adapt. Climate change over a century might feel very different to an asteroid impact, but as far as the Earth is concerned, they both occur effectively instantaneously.

In terms of technological solutions - there may be a techno-optimist take on this that means we can just solve the problem. But I don't think it would be sensible to rely on that. We may hit something like fusion power, a way of removing CO2 on a massive scale, or a much more efficient / reliable source of energy that we can't even envisage right now, but equally we might not.

 

[SnowBear]

1 hour ago, WYorksWeather said:

Actually, we do have quite a lot of data on this. The thing is that geologic time / evolution is very, very slow. 100 years seems like a long time to us, but it's nothing. In terms of collapse of ecosystems - huge numbers of species have gone extinct and are continuing to do so, far more than the background rate. See here: 

Just a moment...

WWW.SCIENCE.ORG

 

Life's biggest defence against change is time. Over many millennia, life on Earth can literally adapt to almost anything, and species that have the ability can move their habitats.

None of that process can happen in 100 yearso. The best historic analogues to what is happening to the climate now are things like asteroid impacts, gamma ray bursts, major volcanic eruptions. Every single such instance has been massively catastrophic for life on Earth, simply because of the lack of time to adapt. What we're doing now also gives life no time to adapt. Climate change over a century might feel very different to an asteroid impact, but as far as the Earth is concerned, they both occur effectively instantaneously.

In terms of technological solutions - there may be a techno-optimist take on this that means we can just solve the problem. But I don't think it would be sensible to rely on that. We may hit something like fusion power, a way of removing CO2 on a massive scale, or a much more efficient / reliable source of energy that we can't even envisage right now, but equally we might not.

 

In the past we too were able to adapt. The inuits, Native Americans, and also most other tribes around the world were able to move as the climate changed, on to more suitable areas to farm, hunt or graze. 

The Native Americans of South America moved many times over the course of hundreds of years, mostly northwards towards the Yukatan as the "dry line" shifted during that period. 

We have lost that ability, we have country borders, cities, over population, and all sorts of reasons now which means we can no longer adapt so easily to any changes in the climate where we can leave those areas which become inhabitable and move to better areas. 

Climate change itself is not a problem for the Earth, it can change hugely and it will still be here, and life will go on albeit perhaps in different forms. For humans though it is a big issue, and we do have to learn to adapt. But humans are funny, they hate change and they are now too slow to adapt, too political, and too comfy in their modern luxury. 

Edited December 7, 2023 by SnowBear