tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046701423623795423.post4711034045293012105..comments2024-03-10T00:59:44.185-08:00Comments on Arctic News: Ocean HeatSam Caranahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12376449209858411775noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046701423623795423.post-8284948043941901032015-11-16T13:15:06.726-08:002015-11-16T13:15:06.726-08:00Excellent question David and thanks for picking u...Excellent question David and thanks for picking up the thread Sam Carana.<br /><br />I read things then forget where I read them. <br /><br />I think more people should be aware that albedo and methane drivers are about to overtake CO2.<br /><br />This is conjecture but I think thats the point that we watch it all slip away. I cannot think of a technology or policy that could turn thst around. We would have to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere to very low levels and wait 1000's of years for a signal.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17297894155332175892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046701423623795423.post-41580054791987870292015-11-14T23:51:49.252-08:002015-11-14T23:51:49.252-08:00Peter Wadhams' calculation was made in 2012. T...Peter Wadhams' calculation was made in 2012. The link to the respective post is included in above comment. That post compares the radiative forcing impact of albedo changes to the figure of a NET 1.6 W/sq m warming due to people's emissions, which incorporates the masking effect of aerosols and the cumulative impact of all CO2 emissions from 1750, estimated by the IPCC at ~2000 Gt CO2 by 2011. By comparison, global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement and metal production in 2013 was 35.3 Gt. So, when only looking at the current CO2 emissions, their impact will clearly be a lot lower than the joint impact of the all CO2 emissions since 1750. Also, as said, Flanner's 0.45 W/m2 figure refers to the period 1979-2008, so the figure for the impact of albedo changes in the Arctic now will be higher than that. Sam Caranahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12376449209858411775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046701423623795423.post-41866600756098554502015-11-14T22:14:46.535-08:002015-11-14T22:14:46.535-08:00What is the citation to Wadham's paper?
Note...What is the citation to Wadham's paper? <br /><br />Note that 0.45 W/m2 is nowwhere near CO2's RF of about 1.7 W/m2?David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046701423623795423.post-1350765704200648902015-11-14T21:40:27.636-08:002015-11-14T21:40:27.636-08:00David, note that the estimate by Pistone et al, re...David, note that the estimate by Pistone et al, refers to the period between 1979 and 2011. Furthermore, note that it refers to Arctic sea ice loss only. <a href="http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n3/full/ngeo1062.html" rel="nofollow">Flanner et al. earlier concluded</a> that snow and ice on the Northern Hemisphere was reflecting 0.45 watts less energy per square meter in 2008 than it did in 1979, with nearly equal contributions from changes in land snow cover and sea ice. <br /><br />The combined impact of TOTAL loss of ice and snow cover in the Arctic could be well over 2 W/sq m globally, as <a href="http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2012/07/albedo-change-in-arctic.html" rel="nofollow">Prof. Peter Wadhams concluded back in 2012</a>. By comparison, this would more than double the radiative forcing resulting from the emissions caused by all people of the world, which at that time was estimated by the IPCC at a net 1.6 W/sq m. <br /><br />So, it makes sense to say that the combined loss of snow and ice cover in the Arctic could soon contribute more to global warming than CO2 emitted by people. Moreover, decline of snow and ice cover is just one of multiple feedbacks in the Arctic, with methane releases looming as an even larger threat. Sam Caranahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12376449209858411775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046701423623795423.post-87692707403001987372015-11-14T05:29:40.946-08:002015-11-14T05:29:40.946-08:00Matthew wrote: "Ice loss in the Arctic will t...Matthew wrote: "Ice loss in the Arctic will take over CO2 as the main driver of climate change soon." <br /><br />I'm interested to know the source for this claim, and hopefully this time the moderator will let this comment through. The latest paper I know about in this regard is <br /><br />K. Pistone, I. Eisenman, and V. Ramanathan (2014). Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing Arctic sea ice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 3322-3326. <br />http://eisenman.ucsd.edu/papers/Pistone-Eisenman-Ramanathan-2014.pdf<br /><br />which found that the albedo decrease from Arctic sea ice between 1979 and 2011 corresponds "to an additional 6.4 ± 0.9 W/m2 of solar energy input into the Arctic Ocean region since 1979. Averaged over the globe, this albedo decrease corresponds to a forcing that is 25% as large as that due to the change in CO2 during this period."<br /><br />Has there been research published since this paper that shows this is now approaching 100%? I'm dubious.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046701423623795423.post-46969970511748154872015-11-13T09:11:20.782-08:002015-11-13T09:11:20.782-08:00Second to Matthew Peterson. Much appreciate your b...Second to Matthew Peterson. Much appreciate your blog.Margarethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13918930641077687873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046701423623795423.post-41085055545703883982015-11-11T13:06:02.606-08:002015-11-11T13:06:02.606-08:00Hottest October on record by a country mile in sou...Hottest October on record by a country mile in south east Australia. The world could hit 1C by years end. Aerosols have a dimming effect in the mid latitudes of the northern hemisphere equal to the best part of a degree. Ice loss in the Arctic will take over CO2 as the main driver of climate change soon. Then methane steps in as a rapid amplifier. The ice is still accumulating in the Antarctic as it has for 10,000 years but at a decreasing rate. The AMOC is slowing which will confound the climates along its length. This is one of the most intricate and engaging problems I have ever come across. How it is possible to construct predictive models given the complex interplay of feedbacks is beyond me. <br /><br />Thank you for maintaining this blog. Its one of the few places where a layman get a big picture of whats going on. Most other sites are more reductive. They're useful too but in a diferent way. <br /><br />Our conversation in the west is dominated by sea level rise. Most people know nothing about feedbacks or food security or looming droughts or the massive changes in ocean ecology and how this impacts on our daily lives or the future of all species on this planet.<br /><br />ThanksAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17297894155332175892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046701423623795423.post-65978960199378992172015-11-11T06:37:30.375-08:002015-11-11T06:37:30.375-08:00This is really out of any current scenario from th...This is really out of any current scenario from the IPCC. And worst, in Paris they will discuss fairy tail scenarios that put the bulk of the issue around 3 generations from now... conveniently...Gajo Filosofalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04446816569301151194noreply@blogger.com