Warming On Land is Double the Global Average
Posted by PlasticTheory6@reddit | collapse | View on Reddit | 33 comments
Posted by PlasticTheory6@reddit | collapse | View on Reddit | 33 comments
Playongo@reddit
I did not know this. It's amazing how the more you learn, the more you learn how bad things are. I was just introduced to calculations on CO2 equivalent (combining CO2 with other greenhouse gases like methane and nitrous oxide) that brings the actual value to more like 539ppm, rather than the 427ppm or so of simple CO2. (https://x.com/EliotJacobson/status/1821226605873918256?t=8qyoynft3oR7hXZX096gMg&s=19) It's no wonder that s*** is starting to the fan.
TotalSanity@reddit
Right, and we started at 280ppm CO2, so 539ppm is perilously close to a 560 CO2 doubling. There's a study from Netherlands Sea Research institute looking at 15 million year old ocean sediment where they found a doubling results in 7-14 degrees Celsius of warming. Fits with Hansen's 10C.
daviddjg0033@reddit
2X CO2 is 4C alone. Which is perilous For Anything On Land but Where do you get 10C from?
TotalSanity@reddit
Global Warming in the Pipeline paper, "Equilibrium global warming for today's greenhouse gas amount is 10°C" - from the abstract.
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research observed 7° - 14°C temperature increase historically for CO2 doubling.
daviddjg0033@reddit
I watched a video with @leonsimons8 and he said 4C is 2x CO2 (which is confusing because the start line always begins at t=0.)
TotalSanity@reddit
Well in their paper they estimate doubled CO2 to be 3.6 to 6°C while equilibrium warming after slow feedbacks (slow in human timescales, fast in geologic time) is equilibrium warming of 10°C. So I think there's some distinctions of how they're evaluating warming mechanism but bottom line is 10°C as I understand it.
This Netherlands study on the other hand they look at 15 million year ocean sediment, certain microorganisms optimize they're membrane to temperature, they correlate the fossil evidence to CO2, and come up with 7-14 degrees. But in this case they're seeing everything in geologic time, so 'slow' feedbacks would be included, while Hansen is treating them as distinct from straight CO2 forcing.
Overall though I think these studies compliment each other and fit together.
daviddjg0033@reddit
I think you get to 10C in the paleoclimate data Leon was a coauthor I believe with Hansen. He says 2X CO2 = 4C but that is also used to figure out where the imbalances are and why the W/m2 of energy is + (earth is absorbing and giving off more heat.)
TotalSanity@reddit
Yes, so like albedo change in ocean from ice melt in Arctic causes more thermal intake from solar energy. Aerosol demasking also causes more solar intake energy. (Less is reflected)
180,000 TW from the sun and some 57,000 TW is reflected back to space by clouds, ice, snow. That's a lot of potential energy balance to mess up thanks to ice cover changes and cloud formation changes. These are distinct from CO2 forcing.
So I think Hansen and Simons treat these things as more distinct while the Netherlands study is just looking at CO2 and temperature and connecting the dots of the end result, without worrying about the specifics of Earth's other feedbacks that also kicked in led to that point.
daviddjg0033@reddit
This would imply that 2x CO2 produces feedback loops that bring us to 10C by 2100++ because the paleoclimate data reflects hothouse earth with a doubling of CO2 equivalent (adding methane, N2O, SF6 refrigerants and subtracting aerosol sulfates.) In our lifetimes we shall see .5C/decade increase to get us beyond 3C, correct? 10C is coming: add your albedo (dimmimg of earth), methane tripling (has preceded a bunch of mass extinction events) and in time 10C is coming (to ur grandchildren.) I'm so sorry my generation was duped by Elon Musks that preached more but "sustainable." We got wind mills and cheap solar. I am so sorry, future earthlings, 4C is hell on earth, let alone 10C because of the rate of increase: The CO2 has never rose this rapidly and methane tripling within centuries means that sooner and faster than expected are to come.
TotalSanity@reddit
Yes, I think you've basically got it. The 10C I've heard Hansen say ~1,000 year timescale. All the ice will melt but that will take hundreds of years, and it takes the better part of a century for the ocean to reach thermal equilibrium, and all the feedbacks you mentioned. And probably things we don't even understand like changes to cloud formation.
I think it is conceivable to see 3C or more by 2050, Hansen says at least 2C but considering that we're already past 1.5C with no end in sight, a bunch of feedbacks kicking in, and accelerated warming. I worry about the exponential nature of our CO2 injection. Half of all CO2 has gone up in last 30 years. And in 2021 to 2030 we will put up 20% of all CO2 since 1750. But yes, CO2 rising faster than in 4.5 billion years of Earth's history, I don't think people appreciate just how abnormal our current mode of living on this planet is.
daviddjg0033@reddit
Leon Simons was the coauthor of papers with Hansen, correct? He is not easy to understand. We really need to teach carbon cycles because the climate is 'a changing and nitrogen cycles- because of agriculture. I had to learn the ATP cycle (ADP becomes ATP) in organic chemistry. This should be in every Chem 1002 course.
TotalSanity@reddit
Yes, Simons coauthored the paper, in fact, I believe he is the one who first convinced Hansen that the regulatory changes to ship fuels would have such a big climate impact.
I too wish that our education system had done a better job, instead we get a world full of superstitious, irrational, uneducated, horny fire apes.
daviddjg0033@reddit
Don't thraten me with a good time. I read a conspiracy that we did not get the satellite to map aerosols because of Big Carbon Capture. Which one will make the decisions on who gets a Monsoon season or not when the kids geoengineer our way out of 2C? But at least I realized it was just mania and it sounded like technobabble. Simons is the newer generation if Hansen is the old? The kids are going to be OK. Humanity maybe not so much.
mooky1977@reddit
"Warming here shockingly high compared to average"
"Warming there shockingly high compared to average"
I'm starting to think our averages are wrong and our estimates are vastly under estimated.
Faster than expected!
dumnezero@reddit
It's more like...
You don't get an ought from an is.
Just because there was an average in the past, a "normal", it does not mean that it has to continue and remain average. This goes against a lot of human culture which is reflected in Business As Usual. What's the corporate term... https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/hybrid-work/what-is-business-continuity.html
There are also a lot of cognitive bias errors that feed into this from the bottom up.
No only is "Normal" going away, but a "New normal" is not yet possible. Climate chaos means that there's just going to be "New", without the "Normal". And the crying about "no new normal" is going to get deafening, which, in class society, translates to: "Normal for me, but not for thee". Normality as a luxury for the "right people", at the cost of everyone else (usually starting with the poorest / most vulnerable).
fedfuzz1970@reddit
As Hansen has posited (supported by his studies), the earth will take a long time seeking stasis as humans continue to destabilize the atmosphere with GHGs. Under BAU, he claims global heating already in the pipeline will lead us to 8-10 C by 2100.
teenwent11@reddit
Can you provide a reading source for me? kinda unfamiliar with the 8-10C figure by 2100. If that's true, it's insane levels of death. what's gonna survive?
fedfuzz1970@reddit
https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889?searchresult=1&login=false. James Hansen.com has all his studies and messages
Zestyclose-Ad-9420@reddit
sounds like a social feedback loop as well, where the less sustainable "normalcy" is, the more people hold onto it until you have a completely backwards looking culture.
dumnezero@reddit
There's a recent movie that portrays that pretty well. I have to finish watching it, it's a bit grinding.
The Zone Of Interest, 2023
Here's a related interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4ge5is4JCE
Indigo_Sunset@reddit
I always liked 'normal is highly relative to the running average of weird'
dumnezero@reddit
I listened to this when it came out. It's a good presentation. His tone is a bit too calm, so he's mastered the art of scientific presentations. Like with the sign language translators, such scientific presentations need an actor nearby who can scream and mime appropriately (with props) in order to translate for the masses. SciComms, get on it!
MtNak@reddit
In case you haven't seen it, I highly recommend another interview he did like a month before this one, with Corey Bradshaw. It's the best interview I have ever seen about the subject.
https://youtu.be/qJwsJhFK98o?si=vwfFYeYWTt7bv00s
dumnezero@reddit
I've seen it and I'm well aware of the crisis.
Which-Moose4980@reddit
You mean dumb it down and make it a spectacle. Hasn’t lead to a more informed population yet.
dumnezero@reddit
You should send this comment in a letter to John Oliver.
ChristinAdler@reddit
If you want to have some fun just Google: warming faster than the average. You will find such articles on every country.
gmuslera@reddit
You are looking wrong at it. The global part matters a lot in that number, because that number doesn’t mean that your local weather will be like today but 1.5 or 3°C higher . Those numbers mean the yearly global average temperature and how that will increase.
And the higher the increase, the global climate system will have more energy to make more extreme weather events (and that will be what you’ll see locally, including heatwaves bringing far more heat than that, but more things, even record cold because disruptions on what used to be stable currents) and triggering and powering up positive feedback loops that will increase the speed of warming (some of which happens in poles or ocean).
trickortreat89@reddit
And also, land warming globally means that it’s less close to the equator and more closer to the poles. Which again means that 1.8 in the next decade on land probably means more like 3 degrees near the poles and maybe 1.5 near equator. So there we have it. And that’s the next decade! What about the decade after it? We have to start thinking long term now, if we don’t stop this tendency we’re screwed in just 20 years
leoseta@reddit
Global heating JOI?¿
StatementBot@reddit
The following submission statement was provided by /u/PlasticTheory6:
Submission statement: a good interview with a climate scientist. He reveals a stunning and scary fact:land warming is 2x the global average. Global average integrates the oceans, oceans have enormous heat capacity. Lands don't. It means that for 3 C in global warming is 6 C (10.8 F) on land. In the next decade, with ~0.5 C of warming, we are looking at a 1.8
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1g2fvve/warming_on_land_is_double_the_global_average/lrnvvby/
PlasticTheory6@reddit (OP)
Submission statement: a good interview with a climate scientist. He reveals a stunning and scary fact:land warming is 2x the global average. Global average integrates the oceans, oceans have enormous heat capacity. Lands don't. It means that for 3 C in global warming is 6 C (10.8 F) on land. In the next decade, with ~0.5 C of warming, we are looking at a 1.8
kiwittnz@reddit
I have known this for ages.
"It's only going to be 3C higher by 2100, what is so bad about that" people will say. What they forget is land will heat 2x or even more in some areas. i.e. it will be uniformly. I strongly suspect the colder areas will warm more than the already warm areas of the planet. e.g. Permafrost melts, Glacier retreats, etc.