[Graeme]

Maybe aerosols could be used to cool the Earth. That's another subject and the wrong thread.

[dorlomin]

Firstly here is how the actual gas concentrations changed.

Picture is a bit big for the page.
The change in forcing for CH4 is given by the formula
ΔF = β(M½ - Mo½) - [f(M,No) - f(Mo,No)]
Where β is a constant at 0.036
f(M,N) = 0.47ln[1 + 2.01x10-5 (MN)0.75 + 5.31x10-15M(MN)1.52]
M is CH4 in ppb
(Mo is CH4 in 1750 which is 700 ppb)
and N is N2O in ppb

(edited because someone has done the heavy lifting for me)


Anyway, NOAA runs these numbers to produce this.....



Link if the image does not work

Of the five long-lived greenhouse gases that contribute 96% to radiative climate forcing, CO2 and N2O are the only ones that continue to increase at a regular rate. Radiative forcing from CH4 increased from 2007 to 2011 after remaining nearly constant from 1999 to 2006. While the radiative forcing of the long-lived, well-mixed greenhouse gases increased 30% from 1990 to 2011 (~0.66 watts m-2), CO2 has accounted for nearly 80% of this increase (~0.52 watts m-2). Had the ozone-depleting gases not been regulated by the Montreal Protocol and its amendments, it is estimated that climate forcing would have been as much as 0.3 watt m-2 higher in 2010 [Velders et al., 2007], or more than half of the increase in radiative forcing due to CO2 alone since 1990.

So the rate of radiative forcing has been markedly slower than pre 1991. This is to be expected as non CO2 greenhouse gasses have not been added to the atmosphere with at the expected rate.

Either a) these gasses have no impact on the energy balance of the earth or b) their not being added will have slowed the rate of increase of the radiative forcing from all human sourced gasses.

Take your pick folks.


E2A
Global Radiative Forcing 1979-2010 (W m-2)
Year CO2 CH4 N2O CFC12 CFC11 15-minor Total
1990 1.293 0.472 0.129 0.154 0.065 0.065 2.178
2011 1.817 0.506 0.178 0.169 0.060 0.109 2.838

[rockdoc123]

So the rate of radiative forcing has been markedly slower than pre 1991. This is to be expected as non CO2 greenhouse gasses have not been added to the atmosphere with at the expected rate.

OK....so then the IPCC in 1990 got it wrong didn't they? After all this is what the thread was about. Whether they could have been right or should have been write is moot, they weren't.

One of the important points you alude to here, however, is that each and everyone of the scientists who warn about catastrophic global warming due to man made additions of CO2 need to preface their comment in a manner such as "if the models are correct and all forcings have been properly identified, and all other factors behave as predicted then a doubling of CO2 will create X degrees of additional warming". This is a projection (with no certainty of occurrence given all the variables) versus a prediction.

[Pops]

Good! That is what I was looking for and especially doc's last comment: these are guesses based on guesses. Yea there is warming and yeah it's manmade, I buy all that but just like $500/bbl oil it isn't a given.

[ffkling]

Television anchor Edward R. Murrow is credited with this expression: “Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn’t mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”

Murrow understood the power of television to misinform the masses. This strategy has worked brilliantly on every front, but none more pronounced than the all-important issue of global climate change. Seeking “balance” on the idiot box has meant presenting two sides to a one-sided issue until it’s become too late to address the crisis.

It’s now too late.
Feel the burn

By the end of June 2012, the U.S. had witnessed its hottest 12 months and hottest half year on record. And July 2012 was the hottest month in U.S. history, with records dating to 1895. Extreme events have arrived:

“The kind of blistering heat we used to experience once every 20 years, will now occur every two.”

Even as the sun cools, record high temperatures exceeded record low temperatures by a ratio of 2:1 in the last decade, relative to an expected ratio of 1:1. The ratio hit 9:1 in 2012.

As was pointed out in this space last year, I concluded a decade ago that we’d set into motion climate-change processes likely to cause our own extinction by 2030.

I mourned for months, to the bewilderment of the three people who noticed. And then, shortly thereafter, I was elated to learn about a hail-Mary pass that just might allow our persistence for a few more generations: Peak oil and its economic consequences might bring the industrial economy to an overdue close, just in time.

Like Pandora with her vessel, I retained hope.

No more.

Stick a fork in us. We’re done. Broiled beyond hope wishful thinking.

It seems we’ve experienced a lethal combination of too much cheap oil and too little wisdom. Yet again, I’ve begun mourning. It’s no easier the second time.

As always, I’m open to alternative views — in fact, I’m begging for them, considering the gravity of this particular situation.

But the supporting evidence will have to be extraordinary.

By the way, irrationally invoking Al Gore doesn’t count as evidence. Ditto for unsubstantiated rumors about global cooling. A small dose of critical thinking might be required rather than the ability to repeat lines touted by neo-conservatives and their puppet-masters in the fossil-fuel industries.

We know Earth’s temperature is nearly one degree Centigrade higher than it was at the beginning of the industrial revolution. And 1 C is catastrophic, as indicated by a decades-old cover-up.

Already, we’ve triggered several positive feedbacks, none of which were expected to occur by mainstream scientists until we reached 2 C above baseline global average temperature.

We also know that the situation is far worse than indicated by recent data and models (which are reviewed in the following paragraphs).

We’ve known for more than a decade what happens when the planes stop flying: Because particulates were removed when airplanes were grounded, Earth’s diurnal temperature range increased by more than 1 C in the three days following 9/11.

If the change in range leans toward warming, in other words, Earth’s temperature is already nearly 2 C higher than the industrial-revolution baseline. And because of positive feedbacks, 2 C leads directly and rapidly to 6 C, acidification-induced death of the world’s oceans, and the near-term demise of Homo sapiens.

That would be people. Us. You and me. Your kid. And your little dog, too.
Suicide isn’t painless

We can’t live without life-filled oceans, home to the tiny organisms that generate half the planet’s oxygen while comprising the base of the global food chain (contrary to the common belief that Wal-Mart forms the base of the food chain).

So much for the wisdom of the self-proclaimed wise ape.

With completion of the on-going demise of the industrial economy, we’re there: We’ve crossed the horrifically dire 2 C rubicon, as will be obvious when most of the world’s planes are grounded.

Without completion of the on-going demise of the industrial economy, we’re there: We’ve crossed the horrifically dire 2 C rubicon, as described below.

Joseph Heller, anybody?

I’ve detailed the increasingly dire assessments. And I’ve explained how we’ve pulled the trigger on five positive-feedback events at lower global average temperature than expected, while also pointing out that any one of these five phenomena likely leads to near-term human extinction.

None of these positive-feedback events were expected by mainstream scientists until we exceed 2 C warming above the pre-industrial baseline.

My previous efforts were absurdly optimistic, as demonstrated by frequent updates (for example, here, and here, and here, in chronological order in this space). Yet my frequent writing, rooted in scientific analyses, can barely keep up with increasingly terrifying information about climate change.

Every day, we have more reliable knowledge about the abyss into which we’ve plunged. Consider, for example, the International Energy Agency’s forecast of business-as-usual leading to a 6 C warmer planet by 2035.

Malcolm Light, writing for the Arctic Methane Emergency Group, considers one of the many positive feedbacks we’ve triggered in one planetary region and reaches this conclusion:

This process of methane release will accelerate exponentially, release huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere and lead to the demise of all life on earth before the middle of this century.

Please read that sentence again.

Light is a retired earth-systems scientist. As nearly as I can distinguish, he has no hidden agenda, though he believes geo-engineering will save us (an approach that would take several years to implement, and one that we’d almost certainly FUBAR).

Forecasts by the International Energy Agency and the Arctic Methane Emergency group match the recent trend of increasingly dire assessments based on collection and interpretation of more data and increasingly powerful models. If these forecasts are close to accurate, we’ve only a requiem to write for human beings on Earth.

Even mainstream scientists writing in Science have finally noticed that ocean acidification threatens all marine life with near-term extinction. In the very near future, coral reefs will disappear. Think of the deprivation we’ve brought to the world as we rape, pillage, and plunder Earth’s glorious bounty for a few extra dollars with which to purchase the food high fructose corn syrup that’s killing us and tons of toxic toys to titillate.

Deniers take note: “Recent warming of the top 2300 feet of the ocean alone corresponds to an energy content of more than one Hiroshima atomic bomb detonation every second over the past 40 years.”

This “remarkable warming can only be explained with man-made greenhouse gas emissions.”

According to fancy sensors, those greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for a temperature increase of about 1 C in New England since the beginning of the industrial revolution (graphical depiction is here).

The plants paint a considerably more dire story, indicating average temperature in the region has increased 2.4 C during the same period. If you trust plants more than human sensors, as I do, this single statistic is sufficient to induce despair.
In cold blood

Climate chaos is only a small part of the big story, though it is among the phenomena poised to cause our extinction within a single human generation. In addition to triggering climate chaos, we’ve initiated the Sixth Great Extinction, and we revel in its acceleration as one more sign of progress.

Furthermore, we continue to ratchet up the madness of human-population overshoot on an overpopulated, overheated, increasingly depauperate planet.

Environmental degradation proceeds apace as we gleefully trade in living soil for smart phones, clean air for fast computers, potable water for high-definition televisions, healthy food for industrial poison, contentment for exhilaration, decent human communities for hierarchical death camps, and life for death.

All the while, we take truth-tellers to task while looking to corrupt governments for leadership. Truth is treason in an empire of lies, so we don’t protest governments that spy on their citizens and then kill them.

The people, largely convinced they are consumers instead of citizens, keep seeking guidance from the television and nourishment from GMO-tainted faux food, all while seeking happiness from exhilaration instead of introspection.

My heart aches to the breaking point. Industrialized humans are destroying every aspect of the living planet with all the joy one would expect from homicidal maniacs. We don’t think about what we’re doing. If we did, we wouldn’t. Or perhaps, driven by a culture of madness promoted by our contemporaries, we would.

I’m guilty, too, of course.

The thought of continuing to stare, alone, at the world of wounds, causes the terror to rise in me. Walking away from empire doesn’t mean I’ve done enough to terminate the omnicidal set of living arrangements known as industrial civilization. Haunted by the wonder and beauty of nature and fully recognizing my efforts as insufficient, bitterness nearly overshadows my overwhelming, debilitating sadness. How could I have been be so self-absorbed?

What irreparable damage have I wrought?
Revolting for real

I feel nature slipping out of my grasp as we rush to destroy every species on Earth. With no decent solutions, my mind wanders between sadness and madness, between reality and the despair induced therein.

What, then, shall we do?

As I contemplate the shackles we’ve created for ourselves, the words of Albert Camus come to mind:

The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.

In terms of action, I hardly know what that means for me, much less for you. But I encourage any and every act of liberty and rebellion, particularly as the world burns.

I’m often asked why people living in industrialized nations shouldn’t relent to hopelessness and party like hedonists as the world burns. My typical response is to ask how our lives would be different if we suddenly starting acting like hedonists?

With the words of Edward R. Murrow in mind, curse your television. Then shoot it. It’s not much, and it’s too little, too late. But it’s a therapeutic start to a much-needed revolution.

–Guy McPherson, Transition Voice

[dohboi]

Hi ffkling,

So was that whole long screed McPhersons? Using the "Quote" function just above the window you type into will help avoid confusion about attribution.

Just a couple point for now:

"record high temperatures exceeded record low temperatures by a ratio of 2:1 in the last decade, relative to an expected ratio of 1:1. The ratio hit 9:1 in 2012."

The first part of December saw that ratio go up to 92:1!

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/1 ... s-history/

On the AMEG folks, keep in mind that some of them are more reliable on the science than others. But yes, methane is a biggie.

What is your (or his) source for the claim that we have already reached nearly 2 degrees C above the pre-industrial levels? Some Arctic regions may have already exceeded that, but I have not seen any other claim like this for global temps. The standard amount usually given for warming above pre-industrial levels so far is .8 degrees C.

[Tanada]

When lightning sparked a big fire in the tundra of Alaska's Arctic North Slope nine years ago, scientists were stunned. The Anaktuvuk River fire grew to more than 400 square miles and burned for months. It was bigger than the cumulative total of all prior North Slope tundra fires dating back to the 1950s.

If Alaska's warming trend continues, such fires will no longer be so extraordinary, according to a new analysis led by University of Montana researchers.

Their study, published online in the Sweden-based journal Ecography, uses past fire behavior and conditions to calculate probabilities of wildfires in 30-year timespans. If July temperatures average 13.4 degrees Celsius (56.1 degrees Fahrenheit) and moisture levels are relatively low, wildfires will become significantly more frequent, according to the analysis.

"The probability that an area will burn increases a lot," said co-author Philip Higuera, an associate professor of fire ecology at the University of Montana.

The biggest jump in probability of big fires is for areas that don't typically burn — the usually moist tundra of the North Slope and similar areas in western Alaska. If the 13.4-degree threshold is reached there, the probability calculations predict up to a fourfold increase in wildfire.

In tundra regions like the North Slope and the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, the fire danger will be "unprecedented" compared to the last 6,000 to 32,000 years, the study says.

The Anaktuvuk River fire in the northern Brooks Range foothills might have been a signal of what is to come.

http://www.adn.com/alaska-news/science/ ... ble-cycle/

[dohboi]

Wow.

Not good.