👍 Ponder what is to come. The Arctic melt is about to accelerate as the Door stop to Thwaites is about to be pulled. This is short term Bad for man, long term good for the planet.
Nice presentation, but it would be nice if Jason could consult the work of Jim Massa about Deep Ocean Heat. The oceans have absorbed 93% of all heat in the last 4 decades. When I first knew of him in January 2020, there was 200 ZJ of heat. In 6 months, it increased to 226 ZJ, then it started rising. And it wasn't due to aerosols. Leon Simons and James Hanson can't explain their charts and the rise from 2010, so they blocked me instead of answering our questions. There is now over 500 ZJ. Thermodynamics are causing our problems today. A half of a degree rise this century? It will only be a couple of years at our present rate.
Considering these volunteers are far better than our fascist state and corporations at informing community, good to encourage more than give constructive criticism IMO. Love both their work and yes, the now deep sea heating has reached alarming rates, it should be included.
Thanks Jason, really well explained. Perhaps we need a dozen volcanos to erupt for some natural masking. But as you say, the unintended consequences, which are happening anyway. "Yea, here we go".
The trend in Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) has definitely been upward during the last 21 years, so from that point of view, ice melt will increase. Also, heat transfer from the tropics toward the poles will become more efficient as the tropics get warmer. Thus, from that point of view, one can expect that in the 2030s, only about 7/8 of EEI will go into making the ocean get warmer. Another way of saying the same thing is that the tropical portions of the ocean can only get so warm before the rate of ice melt greatly increases.
At the end of your talk you said that the observed sea level rise contribution was higher than model projections. Are observations within the margin of error of the model projections?
The real problem is: our climate models worst case scenarios are exceeded. Like temperature rise is above worst case scenario. Or same has been the case for emissions. So real data shows that models underestimate the reality. IPCC process is part of this problem, but also many scientists just does not want to see that reality is as bad as it is. Even when their own dara shows worse results itis often downplayed in piblications and for the public. Also hardly anyone wants to hear how bad the situation really is.
This can take several thousand years to work out though. the British isles are still adjusting after the last deglaciation following the Last Glacial Maximum. Central Scotland is rising by about 2mm/year where I am in Cornwall is going down by 1mm/year, because it was beyond the ice-sheets and never glaciated.
@@mawkernewek Isostatic Rebound Timing H results, here’s a summary of the timing and rates of isostatic rebound: Initial rapid rebound: Immediately after the ice sheets melt, the land begins to rebound quickly, with rates of up to several centimeters per year. This rapid rebound is due to the elastic response of the Earth’s crust to the removal of the heavy ice load. Slowing down: As time passes, the rebound rate slows down exponentially. This is because the asthenosphere, the Earth’s mantle beneath the crust, begins to flow more slowly, resisting the upward motion of the crust. Long-term rates: Over thousands of years, the rebound rate becomes much slower, typically measured in millimeters per year. For example: In the Hudson Bay region, it’s estimated that the land will take around 10,000 years to fully recover from the weight of the last ice age. In Fennoscandia (northern Europe), the rebound rate is around 1-2 cm/year, but slows down to around 0.5 mm/year over longer timescales. Regional variations: Isostatic rebound rates can vary significantly depending on the location and thickness of the former ice sheets. For example, areas with thicker ice sheets, like Hudson Bay, experience more rapid rebound, while areas with thinner ice sheets, like northern Europe, experience slower rebound. Holocene record: The study of Holocene strandlines (former shorelines) provides a continuous record of emergence over the past 8,000 years. At least 935 feet of recovery (isostatic rebound) has been recorded in this timeframe.
Solar cycle 25 and the polar vortex and insane proton flux fuelled solar winds and storms are going to contribute to the glare melting which we just cannot measure yet. Fun times! Let's hope the world takes notice and get some realistic expectations for climate migration quickly!
I'm pretty sure a fair share of current South to North migration in both Latin America and Africa, are caused because of land degradation intensified by climate change plus population surplus. Pop Surplus is relative of course, as harvests become unsure, less mouths can be fed and folks go on the move, first to the cities then on to the North. I've read several stories witnessing of grandfather's fields drying out and losing topsoil. It'll become increasingly dramatic as changes escalate. We'll be hearing more of this!
You are right to point out the rebound effect on land masses from which the ice load is reduced; this isn’t a simple Northern hemisphere vs Southern hemisphere effect though; the UK for example has land rising in the northwest and falling in the southeast- still ongoing after the last ice age. This effect will determine the local effects of global sea level rise. We are way off the pace in responding to the realities of climate change
What I never understand about global warming presentations is the fact historical facts show it was warmer in the past than now, but somehow we are in a crisis. Greenland was farmed by the Vikings for hundreds of years, there are ancient vineyards 200 miles north of current growing ranges, the bubonic plague was able to move into Northern Europe and the mountains in Asia due to warmer temps. None of these things are close to being possible today so why is there so much drama? And no, the medieval warming was not local….its impossible for a “heat wave” to be in one small area for 700 years, it had to be global.
The paleo-climate had the time, thousands of years, to equilibrate. ie. the on-ground effects had plenty of time to catch-up to the limited CO2 forcing. Presently, as shown by the slide 4:25 that had the present/last inter-glacial/previous inter-glacial CO2 vs sea-level-rise, we have raised CO2 at break-neck speed and the warming/ice-loss/SLR are pressured to keep up. Therefore we eventually will reach our commitment (via forcing by CO2) of 4-8 degrees C and 6m-40m SLR. That much heat causes catastrophes untold. That much SLR causes human migration not by the millions, by the billions. Unless we bring the forcing (CO2) down. Subtext: This crisis is critical to the survival of at least half of all life on the planet, humans included. ps. This is not like the Viking or Medieval warming's. This would cause global agricultural collapse and wide-spread desertification, plus the flooding of every coastal region and river delta.
@ Hate to break it to you sweetie but the Greenland ice cores show it was much warmer in the past….but it was also much colder. Here is the part that crushes your argument….the rise in temp always preceded the rise in C02. C02 cannot be a greenhouse gas, it sits at the surface and cannot trap heat.
The observation here is that phasing out pollution based sulfates causing asthma for young Jill, and Jack we have lost the battle for climate control. Planet stability was better off with dirty energy than with so called clean energy.
The vast majority of people have neither the time nor the intellectual curiosity to sit down and absorb this kind of knowledge. And part of this vast majority is virtually all politicians. The vast majority is preoccupied with themselves now and tomorrow, not the rest of the world in the next ten, twenty, thirty years. It's a shame climate change is so slow. Even if it was 10x faster, I doubt the majority would wake up to the approaching cliff up ahead.
All this ice melt and sea level rise DOES NOT contribute to more water vis a vis the Colorado River and the subsequent filling of Lakes Powell and Lake Mead. This means that Las Vegas and the rest of the region i.e. Los Angeles, the valley, Phoenix etc., will experience extreme water deficits and a subsequent crash in real estate prices as people sell in panic and flee/migrate to the northern states and regions where the atmospheric rivers have also moved/shifted to.
Land use is that other leg of climate change swept under the computational rug. It doesn’t help that every piece of landscape is now a carbon source. Not surprising because we’ve paved over or cleared natural it, with cities, and farms. And when you tear up biome and the vegetation that grows upon it, their water and temperature management and carbon cycles are all obliterated, modernity papers over the lost fertility with fossil fuels; every unit of land under cultivation is related to 10 cal of fossil fuels for every calorie brought to table. I don’t quite know if the climate models account for the amount of ecological damage a storm like Helene inflicted. 150 trillion liters of water dumped on landscape scoured away good deal of topsoil and vegetation. US South won’t be exchanging CO2 for oxygen anywhere the same rate for a little while. It is an ecological disaster these regions will not have a chance to really recover from.
You know the polar centers move. It has taken a million years, but the northern polar center is north of Greenland. As the polar region moves over water the planet will warm. Which we were only 8*C from snowball earth last glaciation. As the northern polar center moves over the Arctic ocean next glaciation won't be as cold. Which inter-glacials or interstadials only last so long and we are towards the end of the current one. We see a spike in CO2 at the end of every interstadial. That's not CO2 lag. That's CO2 super cooling. Insulation works both ways to keep stuff hot and to keep stuff cold. CO2 makes a better coolant than insulation. Perhaps do your own research. The new study makes clear that the deep ice at Camp Century -- some 75 miles inland from the coast and only 800 miles from the North Pole -- entirely melted at least once within the last million years and was covered with vegetation, including moss and perhaps trees. The new research, supported by the National Science Foundation, lines up with data from two other ice cores from the center of Greenland, collected in 1990s. Which shows the reason the planet has gotten so cold is the polar centers being over land. This is shown in Antarctica too. That the polar center there has been moving to one side of the continent. Which is why it now rains one side of Antarctica. And the cold water corals have flourished there. The climate is always changing. Egypt was once a bread basket. And let's not forget the Antarctic and Arctic are the biggest deserts on the planet. Satellite data have recently revealed that between 2002 and 2019, the mesosphere and lower thermosphere cooled by 3.1 degrees F (1.7 degrees C ). Mlynczak estimates that the doubling of CO2 levels thought likely by later this century will cause a cooling in these zones of around 13.5 degrees F (7.5 degrees C), which is between two and three times faster than the average warming expected at ground level. Imagine the ice melting and ending up in the Sahara. Less fossil fuels actually means a hotter planet. IPCC even recognized cutting SO2 would raise the temps. As in the 70's we were seeing global dimming. Now we have global brightening adding to global warming making every thing under the sun hotter.
"northern polar center" what is that? You mean the geographic north pole? "As the polar region moves over water the planet will warm." what would be the mechanism? "We see a spike in CO2 at the end of every interstadial." Where does it come from? " CO2 makes a better coolant than insulation." under what conditions? Afterall, Venus is quite hot. "entirely melted at least once within the last million years and was covered with vegetation" That was understood for several decades now (Gris). You probably refer to publication in 2021 (DOI:10.1073/pnas.2021442118). "Which shows the reason the planet has gotten so cold is the polar centers being over land. " Explain, how do the ice cores show that? "the mesosphere and lower thermosphere cooled by 3.1 degrees F (1.7 degrees C )" Yes, as predicted by the climate models. Which btw is evidence against the usual claim of "it is the sun". "Less fossil fuels actually means a hotter planet." And you think that because you see the cooling effect of CO2 in the upper atmosphere? I am sorry, but I got the impression you do not quite understand what you were writing about.
A better geological time frame to look at, from an point of view of partial dry air pressure of CO2 at sea level is toward the end of the Langhian Age, around the year 14,000,000 BCE. Partial pressures are most often expressed in units called "pascals", representing 1 newton per square meter of pressure. Even 1 pascal can make a difference with CO2. Around the year 1500 CE some 500 years ago, the partial pressure for CO2 was about 28 1/2 pascals. Greenland was mostly frozen over in year round ice then. During a time known as the Eemian, around the year 130,000 BCE, the value for CO2 was about 29 1/2 pascals, about 1 pascal higher. Combined with ideal astronomical conditions, that extra pascal allowed Greenland's year round ice cover to temporarily almost melt completely away. Now in the year 2024, the value is about 43 pascals. Ideal astronomical conditions are no longer needed to melt Greenland. Interestingly, 43 pascals was the approximate value near the end of the Langhian Age around the year 14,000,000 BCE. During the Langhian Age, both West Antarctica and Greenland had near zero year round ice cover. Keeping in mind that 1 extra pascal of CO2 can make a real difference, now in the 2020s CO2 has been increasing by a little over 1/4 pascal per year. Around January 2028, one can expect CO2 to rise to the 44 pascal mark. Year round ice on Greenland and West Antarctica can no longer, starting then, survive for a geologically lengthy time frame. Geologists often say, "The past is the key to the future." A new hotter climate equilibrium, once forced, will take time to re-establish, 600 years or so. People therefore should look to the Langhian Age to get a reasonable idea what Earth's climate will be in the 27th Century.
As recommended reading, see figure 3 in "Global Mean and Relative Sea-Level Changes over the 66 Myr: Implications for Earth Eocene Ice Sheets", in the scientific journal of the "Earth Science Systems Society", volume 3 - 2023. Peak sea level during the Langhian Age was about 50 meters above modern sea level, and can be thought of as an approximate worst case scenario for Langhian concentrations of atmospheric CO2. Of course, if mankind goes beyond Langhian Age amounts of CO2, worst case sea level rise becomes even higher.
Journal article title correction: The part of the title above that reads "Over the 66 Myr" should instead be "Over the Past 66 Myr". Also, there was an omission of a formal date of publication, which was 17 January 2024.
