This is NeilT's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following NeilT's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
NeilT
Recent Activity
Should have put, Larger image
It is rather interesting how it is going, in comparison, isn't it.. Given ice dynamics between the two years and the impact that they play on the ice, almost an exact match so far. Except for the fact that 2017 is much, much, lower. I wonder if it will continue??
Thanks Bill. It makes my brain hurt too. You get to this stage where you can't verify anything because there are too many variables involved. However I had found that playing with the key main variables tends to make sense. This I've learned from realclimate. Solar is an oft ignored variable. This is very odd because it is the biggest single input of heat into the system and even tiny variations in the output of the sun has a large impact on our climatic variations. I'm just idling, pretty much, now. I expect 2017 to be something dramatic, 2018/19 to be something of a pause before the storm. If you look at everything I have written on this to date, 2018/19 will be smack in the solar minimum with a possible El Nino in the growth stage. What this means for 2022? Nothing good as far as I can see. The only wild card I can see in this picture is a VLE5, or above, eruption. That would set things back a couple of years. But not much more.
Toggle Commented Mar 12, 2017 on PIOMAS March 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Apologies I've been travelling, no cabin on the ferry Portsmouth Caen and a long drive after and we hosted a party last night. In short my spreadsheet says this. 1987-88 Medium El Nino smack on top of the peak solar with no volcano's higher than VLE4. El Chicon, I checked that at the time and just to check it again, it occurred at a time of extreme El Nino, just past the peak solar, almost exactly what we are seeing with 2015/16 in terms of how they coincide. In 1982/83 we should have seen a very strong bump up in CO2 but El Chicon shrank it. Bill. Why the article said what it did, I don't know. What I do know is that back in the early 2000's the scientists had to go back and include the Volcano's in the mix to shut the denialist rhetoric up. This is an extremely complicated system where weather, atmospherics, solar, CO2 and Volcanic ash in the troposphere play significant parts. I just wanted to see where CO2 and El Nino played along with Solar. I could not make it match well so I had a look at VLE5 eruptions as we know they have a global impact. So much I see. Whether it is right or wrong I don't know. But I do see it.
Toggle Commented Mar 12, 2017 on PIOMAS March 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Hans, Hence the reason I was talking about looking at what happens when a strong, or very strong, EN comes in on, or near, solar maximum. You can't just look at EN and CO2PPM. You have to look at solar peaks too. The impact of solar peak and trough is apparent and impacts the whole picture. @Bill. You made a very clear statement there, you said Mt Pinatubo has _no_ discernible impact on CO2 ppm. Remember I am talking Global, not ML. I'm also talking about influencing the environment and how that environment produces, or absorbs, CO2; not the amount of CO2 emitted by the volcano itself. Volcanic Dimming has an impact, SO2 from volcano's have an impact on temperatures, globally. There are a lot of impacts. OK, here is the years and the global ppm growth in each year for a 15 year block. So you tell me that Mt Pinatubo, 1991/1992 had no impact on CO2 ppm. 1982 1 1983 1.84 1984 1.24 1985 1.63 1986 1.04 1987 2.69 1988 2.24 1989 1.38 1990 1.18 1991 0.73 1992 0.7 1993 1.22 1994 1.67 1995 1.97 1996 1.07 I would be _very_ interested to year your reason for those two figures in those two years. Looking at the full table since 1959, there has been no year, other than the Mt Pinatubo years, since 1977, which increased by less than 1ppm. I did do some basic checking before posting.
Toggle Commented Mar 10, 2017 on PIOMAS March 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Hans, I was playing with the numbers a few weeks ago. If you map CO2ppm to solar maximum (flux and sunspots) and El Nino events it makes extremely interesting reading. But, of course, you have to also map in the volcanic eruptions too as Mt Pinatubo showed when it skewed two years of PPM figures. However the trend is quite clear. If even a moderate EN lands on top of solar maximum, the result is quite large. If it lands in the middle of solar minimum, the effect is there but much smaller.
Toggle Commented Mar 8, 2017 on PIOMAS March 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Global CO2 for 2016 is finally in, 3.16 for the year. Making the average for the last two years 3.06. Extent continues to roughly track 2007, however the month on month volume change was exactly the same as 2011. If you cross check chartic with volume you find that 2016 extent jumped in the first nine days of Feb then stalled and 2017 overtook it, then it jumped up towards the end of Feb. I guess when around than half the ice is 1st year, any sudden increase in 1st year ice is going to impact the overall numbers more than in previous years. I'm expecting the peak in extent in the next week or so. What that will do for volume numbers I'm not so sure. I guess it depends on how fast the ice starts to drop. Judging by the way 2017 is below the curve, I would say that it should peak in volume no later than mid April. Which will be another large departure from the norm.
Toggle Commented Mar 7, 2017 on PIOMAS March 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Is your proposed outcome (e.g. greater Greenland SLR contribution) based on being below the "ice free" threshold for -three days -three weeks -three months From everything I've read, that is far too narrow a definition. Greenland SLR is three things. A consequence of the climatic change which is destroying the sea ice A disruptor of Arctic sea ice melt due to sea desalination locally A long term consequence of the loss of albedo due to the long term loss of sea ice. Personally I think it's daft to try and allocate blue ocean at the pole, in terms of weeks, as to Greenland SLR. Greenland is _already_ massively impacted just by the ice loss to date and will only be impacted _more_ and more rapidly by increasing sea ice loss. Greenland is also massive. So any impact will be delayed by that mass. The rapidity of ice loss will be felt years after the fist blue ocean event and then will mount up more and more rapidly thereafter. One of the reasons climate scientists have been clamouring for people to listen now and act NOW. Because once you can prove the impact it is far, far, too late.
Toggle Commented Feb 19, 2017 on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
There was a substantial increase in absorbtion in 1991 and 1992 which has some impact by flattening the trend line Yep, Mt Pinatubo really skewed the figures. But we won't see that happening more than once every 50 years or so. This week NOOA updated the CO2 Global figures. 2015 2.98 2016 3.36 2016 is provisional till mid next month when the December figures come in. However it's almost certainly going to be over 3ppm for 2016 even with the ending of El Nino and the roll on effects rather than the direct effects during it. If you take NSIDC Chartic and remove everything but 2017 and 2007, you see a similarity. Looking forward, a 2007 style melt and export year with 2017 volume should be.... Interesting.
Toggle Commented Feb 17, 2017 on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
I have a few issues here. Showing that the deep ocean has a "capacity" without having a clearly proven mechanism for transferring that CO2 absorption between the layers does not inspire confidence when the stakes are so high. Also the articles linked so far tend to be based on research which mainly end around 2005, more than a decade ago. Even research which is published in 2011 tends to lean heavily on decade old research. Just today, whilst looking over the articles, I found a NASA publication which shows that the CH4 being emitted by the Arctic through natural mechanisms is "massively" underestimated and that CH4 is being emitted for a large part of the winter by dry, higher, ground, not the wetlands. As the papers I did read rely heavily on the "assumptions" of where CO2 and CH4 is being produced, it tends to highlight errors. In fact the publication being discussed above and the conclusions written in Scrips clearly states that they assume the biosphere is absorbing all naturally occurring CH4. When the "assumptions" as to the levels of CH4 and where it comes from is incorrect, based on 2015 research, how much reliance can we put on the studies which attempt to determine the absorption capacity of the oceans in the future under certain conditions? The more I look, the more I find that I get more questions than answers. Not a position to make me believe that just reducing CO2 is going to do it.
Toggle Commented Jan 14, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
Rob, I never said that reducing emissions was not desirable. Not only is it desirable, it's critical. What I said was that waiting to see if emissions reductions will do the job, before starting on other mitigations, either in CO2 reductions or heat budget reductions, was not such a good idea and might do us in over the long run. The fact that the article finds that the biosphere responds to the forcing and, essentially, grows to "eat" the CO2 being emitted, therefore, most likely shrinking when the CO2 shrinks, is a concern. The fact that we have overwhelmed the ocean annual absorption rate is also seriously bad news. I was still working on the 50% figure. If it really is only 25% then things are much worse than I had expected and is the answer, in itself, as to why annual CO2 ppm increases continue to grow even though we have levelled off in emissions. I have no argument that cutting CO2 emissions right now is critical. I have issues that it is enough. I'm a cup half full kind of person. I prefer to plan for the worst. The issue right now is that we're not even planning for the very best possible case, we're planning for some wet dream vision of what life could be like if physics was not a real and ever present factor. What the arguments are over is whether we need to do enough for the very best possible case. Not only are we not planning for the worst. We're still arguing about whether the very best case will happen or not. My nightmare scenario is that we fight the good fight for a decade, get the world to "dig shallow" and reduce CO2 emissions, only to find that two decades after that we suffer the middle range catastrophe instead of the E.L.E. It's a slightly different position. The opposite of delaying, I want to run much faster. I'd rather convince Trump that a US base on the moon with a permanent colony is something the US really needs; in order to meet my goals; than try and force reductions in fossil fuels down his neck when I know he won't go for it. In fact if you look at it from my viewpoint, going all out for CO2 reductions ONLY on the basis that they'll do the job then playing "wait and see"; is a delaying tactic. Inflammatory as that statement might be I really don't want to cause offence or upset as we really are all arguing for the same thing. We just have different views as to how it will be achieved.
Toggle Commented Jan 12, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
Rob, I think the article D-Penguin linked is pretty clear. It assumes that human CO2 emissions will continue, but decrease, until 2050. Then it assumes that Negative Emissions Technology (NET's) will take the CO2 towards negative in the next 50 years, finally going negative within the following 50 years. The following is the findings of the article (you have to read it). •2000–2050. The application of NETs begins but anthropogenic activity remains dominated by positive emissions (figure 4(a)). Land and ocean sinks persist. The AF remains close to half of emissions and CO2 concentration continues to rise. •2050–2100. Fossil fuel emissions decline and NETs grow further in this scenario. The anthropogenic total is still positive but much smaller (figure 4(b)). Natural sinks persist—a little reduced but still absorbing carbon due to past history and therefore CO2 begins to decrease, despite the anthropogenic total still being positive. •2100–2150. NETs exceed fossil inputs and human activity removes more CO2 than it emits at a global scale (figure 4(c)). During this first 50 years of anthropogenic net carbon removal, the natural sinks weaken significantly due to the rapid decrease in atmospheric CO2. Hence there is an atmospheric CO2 reduction due to the combination of net negative anthropogenic emissions and land and ocean still absorbing carbon, however not as strong as might have been expected if strong natural sinks had persisted. •2150–2200 and on to 2250. Behaviour is qualitatively similar to figure 4(c), but now natural sinks have weakened further and CO2 decrease is slowed. Towards 2250 natural sinks are all but gone. In fact 3 out of 4 ESMs simulate a reversal of the land carbon sink to become a source. •2250–2300. In the final stage the land and ocean system has become a net source of CO2. Most ESMs still simulate the ocean as a sink, but the overall (land plus ocean) flux is positive (figure 4(d)). The atmospheric CO2 decrease is weakened as the natural carbon cycle is releasing carbon to the atmosphere, working in the opposite direction to the anthropogenic removal via NETs. In short, the faster we stop producing CO2 the faster the natural sinks stop absorbing. The faster the CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, the faster the carbon sinks (including the oceans), will start to emit carbon back into the atmosphere. This makes sense, because in the natural scheme of things, without humans, the planet always trends towards balance. Humans have been acting like a strong solar brightening. So the CO2 emitted is sored away for the next solar dimming. Because that CO2 will be needed to keep the planet warm and the biosphere as close to liveable as possible. What this article, essentially, says, is that the faster you stop emitting CO2, the faster the carbon sinks will stop absorbing it. It also says that the faster you remove CO2 from the atmosphere, the faster the carbon sinks will top it back up again. In short if we want to bring the planet back to balance, we're going to have to remove ALL the carbon we put into the atmosphere and ALL the carbon we put into the carbon sinks, using NET's such as forestation or even direct CCS from the atmosphere. In the meantime what about all that heat we're going to sequester? This just goes full circle. All over again, about what I'm saying. There is no quick fix like "just stop emitting". Because of the signature lag in the natural carbon sinks recognising the stopping of emissions, this article, essentially, says that the carbon sinks themselves will cause the flip from net consumers to net emitters. In essence if we just stop what we are doing now, the planet will finish the job for us by flipping backwards and forwards between emitting and absorbing whilst maintaining the CO2 levels close to 400ppm. If we reduce our emissions to 50%, the oceans, within a decade or two, will reduce their absorption to ensure that our emissions continue as a net growth. The article states that Reducing uncertainty in projected carbon sinks behaviour, especially under low emissions scenarios, is a pressing research priority. No Kidding!
Toggle Commented Jan 11, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
I was careful to talk about current scientific articles and logical deductions. What bothers me more is that our CO2 emissions levelled in 2013, but our CO2 ppm count continued to rise. Yes there was a huge El Nino, yes EN raises CO2 levels. But, our emissions were flat but the jump was significant. 2.9ppm globally in 2015. 2016 is still to be seen but ML came out with 3.3ppm. What Global will be we won't know till mid Feb, but I'm betting it will be over 3ppm. So my problems are three fold and overlap D-Penguins issue too. 1. Fristly we're not going to reduce emissions any time soon. Simply put, it will take at least 2 more decades to engineer the worst excesses of fossil fuel dependency out of the environment and to engineer the replacement solutions in place. 2. The planet has a finite CO2 uptake capability and we don't know what that is. We don't know if we have already exceeded it or not. So postulating that x will happen when y action is done, in an environment which is not fully quantified, is a logical strategy but carries risks which are not fully mitigated 3. There are feedbacks in place which we already know but are not fully reflected in scientific articles because they are logical deductions and not observed effects (so far). Those feedbacks amplify the CO2 growth for the same input. So I worry if we have already passed one CO2 amplification milestone without recognising it and that it will take us a decade of recording to prove and document it in a peer reviewed paper. It is two decades since I used my rolling stone as an analogy for what we are doing to our climate and our biosphere. It is like rolling a huge stone (miles in diameter), up a hill towards a saddle. The emissions to around 2000 rolled the huge stone up to the top. The emissions since are rolling it over the flat top land, faster and faster. If we don't start putting retarding barriers in place, it's going to start rolling down the hill. At the bottom of which is going to be Village Earth, blithely unaware of what is rolling down on them. It is harder to push the stone if you make the ground more resistant. It is harder to generate momentum, downhill, if you put retarding force on it. Once you have it over the edge, it doesn't matter if you stop pushing or not. Momentum and gravity will do the rest. This analogy and the way the climate works is what leads me to say that just stopping pushing is not going to do the trick. We need to kill some of the momentum we've already imparted to it and we need to try and halt it before it starts going downhill and we need to make those retarding actions stronger and stronger. Stopping is one thing. Assisting nature in retarding is another. But. In the end. The momentum, heat, has to be reduced. I don't want to be here, 20 years from now, having finally stopped emissions, only to find that 10 years ago we pushed the climate over the edge and it's happy on it's own finishing the job for us. Which is why I say active mitigation activities today are a vital tool in the armoury of the fight against AGW. Not the only one, but, potentially, the most important in the long run. I won't be standing here 20 years from now saying "Hmmmm, I wonder how long it will take us to actively get rid of all that climate destroying heat". I might be standing here 20 years from now saying "I told you so". That would be very sad.
Toggle Commented Jan 10, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
Rob is assuming, based on current findings, that the planet would absorb the other 50%. Leading to a complete halt to any growth in CO2. Can't fault the logic behind the argument. I just don't believe we'll do it.
Toggle Commented Jan 9, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
RobertS, yes I had the same problem with my Grandson. "We're clever we'll just fix it if it's really a problem". My response was simple. "It's already more than a problem, it's going to impact your later life more than any event we have seen in the 20th century and unless you get your head around it and learn about it and make your politicians do the right thing now, then you are totally screwed. Your generation is already screwed. Me, I'll be dead, so it won't be a concern of mine". But I totally understand your fears, they are mine too. Introduce some kind of "quick fix" and they will procrastinate. It's why I'm careful to say that we need to do ALL of the fixes but if we don't do THAT one the end result will be a lot worse. Nothing in my life to date has confirmed that doing one thing badly and praying it will have the desired effect, even though the evidence is that even 1.3c warming will be catastrophic, is as constructive as working out all the things we could do then driving forward on all of them. Yes we have scarce resources. Yes we need to change attitudes. But, no, failure is not an option and we've been doing far too much of that. My day job is to ensure that the light at the end of the tunnel is not a train coming. To ensure that you have to anticipate the bad stuff and do everything you can to head it off. It's also to anticipate the actions of others and put in place a regime which will deliver despite them.
Toggle Commented Jan 9, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
Rob, there are some quite large error bars on that chart. Also the Direct effect Aerosols would go away almost immediately, which are as large or larger than N2O and Halocarbons. We would expect CH4 to continue or even increase with the breakdown of the cyroshpere due to increased warming and also due to cloud warming effect in the Arctic at least. I don't have time to read the entire article, but that table doesn't read to me like we'll get 1.3 warming only. Also we have the heat budget in the Oceans which will be released over at least 40 more years from when that article was written. Still not looking like 1.3C to me. I recall the rapid warming of the late 90's. I also recall it was at a time of world wide efforts to reduce Sulphur from the atmosphere because of acid rain. Of course Sulphur is a reflectant and adds to the Aerosol albedo effect. I just don't believe we can blithely assume that we will get Utopian heat increases with a total removal of gas emissions tomorrow. I believe we need to plan and engage to do multiple things at the same time. I happen to think our window of opportunity for only doing one thing at a time has expired and that people really need to take that on board. That's my belief.
Toggle Commented Jan 6, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
Ah the joy of statistics. 1969 2.1%, 3.6billion people. Annual growth 72 million. 2017 1.1%, 7.4 billion people. Annual growth 81.4 million. Slowing? Yes, only on a spreadsheet.
Toggle Commented Jan 5, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
I'm with Neven on that. As long as we can talk solutions, then it is better than talking doom all the time. Yes, I don't like being called a troll just because I don't agree with the mainstream. But I'm a big boy and will get over it. It won't stop me posting what I think. I recall reading a speech by Obama, just a few weeks after I had publicly defended his stance on climate change. His speech writer had lifted chunks of my post Alost verbatim. You never know who is reading or what the impact of what you write will be. So better to write it than not..
Toggle Commented Jan 4, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
To paraphrase, to Python fans, saying "this climate is dead" would elicit the right response immediately...
Toggle Commented Jan 4, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
Neven get well soon. I was sick most of November. I always get sick when I'm working with a lot of people who take the flu vaccine. GSK (who make it), was the worst I've ever experienced. Needless to say it was "free" so about 60% of the people took it. I do try to keep things shorter but when you are trying to cover many points raised it just gets longer and longer. Yes the forum is better, but, I think, the blog is more visible. Some things need to be visible.
Watch the youtube link. The Monty Python parrot sketch is a classic on denialism and hugely funny too.
Toggle Commented Jan 4, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
Rob, you force me to make another comment. Your point is that we must take the cheapest and most effective measure to reduce CO2 emissions to 0% as fast as possible and everything else is a sideshow. My point is that whilst reducing CO2 emissions to 0% is critical, other mitigating factors to remove CO2 and to reduce the energy entering the atmosphere and the CO2 sequestration zone (not the sea or the land), are critical to the survival of humanity as we are currently constituted today. I'm wondering which part of the Abstract of that article you were not conversant with? The observed increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) since the preindustrial era has most likely committed the world to a warming of 2.4°C (1.4°C to 4.3°C) above the preindustrial surface temperatures.. That is "observed" or to put it another way, what has happened and been recorded so far. The estimated warming of 2.4°C is the equilibrium warming above preindustrial temperatures that the world will observe even if GHG concentrations are held fixed at their 2005 concentration levels So we'll see 2.4 regardless. Now if I read the IPCC statements, over 2C is catastrophic warming. Yes they excluded aerosols, but as we're removing them faster than we are removing CO2 (not at all), expect that impact to be nearer to the upper end. About 90% or more of the rest of the committed warming of 1.6°C will unfold during the 21st century So, yes, if we stop CO2 at 2005 levels we'll see equalisation around 22xx some time long after a few billion people are dead of famine and territory wars. The accompanying sea-level rise can continue for more than several centuries Comforting to know that if we just stop CO2 at 2005 levels we'll still be flooded out, hit by bigger storms etc, etc. Lastly, even the most aggressive CO2 mitigation steps as envisioned now can only limit further additions to the committed warming, but not reduce the already committed GHGs warming of 2.4°C. Remember that this was based on 2005 levels, rising at circa 2ppm pa. In the last two years alone we will have seen (I'm sure when the figures come in), 6ppm rise. In the 11 years since that figure was set at 2005 we have emitted more than 25ppm CO2, additional, over the 2005 baseline of the article, into the atmosphere. Honestly how you can turn even the abstract of that article into "stop CO2 now" as the best, fastest and cheapest option I have no idea. Personally I would have thought that introducing CO2 reduction means right now alongside reductions in CO2 emissions would have meant that by the time we finally stopped emitting CO2, we would immediately go into reduction mode faster and faster as we turned the entire efforts to reduction rather than both reduction and stopping emitting. But then I'm not a scientist, don't write articles and only read them.
The canary doesn't sing, it stops singing, or dies. Allowing the miners time to protect themselves from the present danger or exit the mine. This, I believe, is the time to trot out the Monty Python Parrot sketch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218 You can see who is denying what... It is a sad fact that few democracies are doing enough about CO2 emissions which cause Climate Change. Two of the strongest proponents, right now, are China and the EU. Neither of which are representative, or accountable, governments. There is a message there somewhere. Something like the old joke about a man who falls out of a window in a high rise. He can be seen to be saying something. On opening a window he is heard to be saying: "Looking good so far". I prefer Forrest Gump. "Stupid is as Stupid does".
Toggle Commented Jan 3, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
Rob, I'd love to keep it civil. However I do have a legitimate gripe. I was arguing the case for the economic drivers for PV and EV on renewables, before this site existed. The "climate lobby" was shouting about TAX, TAX, TAX, driving the deniers into a frenzy. I note Obama used the economic method and the regulation method and not the TAX method. He got more done than any president before him. What did the "climate lobby" do to him? They vilified him for using the wrong words and doing the wrong thing. Where has the TAX ranting got us? I humbly submit Trump. You think for the next 8 years we're going to see reductions in the US? I suspect not. Go figure. So when I talk about my frustrations, I was not trolling and I was not trying to delay. I was trying to get people to see that we need to MOVE FORWARD right the hell NOW, on all fronts. Cost cannot be seen as a factor any more. If we can't sell the cost we need to sell the opportunity of the spend. Wind will never get the money that coal does because it is simply not enough. PV, tidal and HDR Geothermal, yes, but not wind. We all hate the subsidies on Coal but they are there because they produce jobs and wealth for companies. PV subsidies, up until the financial crisis, were beginning to replace this. In the end they were the first real cut after the crisis. You say I've produced no study. I've told you to take Hansens work and turn it on it's head. It produces all the figures you require. I don't care about costing. This is no longer a money thing, per se, this is a survival thing. I note people can come on the blog and say "move to a war footing to remove CO2" and it is accepted as both possible and an acceptable method. Because it talks about CO2 emission mitigation. As a minor study of human behaviour, I respectfully submit that moving to a war footing with everyone having their lives restricted, without having made the case for the catastrophic impacts of 2C and above AGW, is a fantasy. People are less likely to vote for that than they are to vote for Clinton. On the 0% emissions and the halting of CO2 rises. I have an issue with this too. A warming planet already has an increasing CO2 signature. The oceans actually absorb less CO2 as the planet warms, exacerbating the problem. I didn't mention the mitigating factor of the oceans because there is growing evidence that the oceans are beginning to reduce their CO2 uptake. It will take another 3 decades for the studies to produce the results. But the trend is beginning. As for warmth and ongoing CO2? I noted that our CO2 emissions, from 2013, were flat, if not reducing slightly, globally. I also note that 2015 and 2016 saw the largest jumps in CO2, either side of 1998, that we have ever recorded. Granted the El Nino helped a bit, but something boosted that CO2 figure and it was not increased emissions from the human element. I've noted that the heat signature from a huge El Nino tends to be incorporated into the base temperature scenario within about 1.5 to 2 decades. We have now overwhelmed the 1998 temperature spike in the baseline and it was done on CO2 emissions much lower than we have reached today. Meaning we have, at max, 2 decades before we reach 1.5C. Let's be realistic here. You are not going to go from 3ppm increase to 0ppm increase in those two decades. That's FACT, not surmise. Kyoto, Copenhagen, Paris, the CO2 ppm signature has risen, not fallen. That doesn't mean we have to stop trying, it means we have to TRY HARDER. But there is an element of realism which is missing here. If we can't stop we have to kick start sequestration. Not now but 10 years ago. Nobody was talking sequestration 10 years ago because of CCS and the "case for coal". More than 10 years ago I argued the case for making PV and EV an economic initiative which drove GDP growth and made the Renewables industry a darling of the stock market. Years later it began only to be smacked down by the financial crisis. Today I'm arguing for a 3 way mitigation strategy. Reduce CO2, Sequestrate CO2, Reduce energy input from the Sun. I'll still be here, making my case, 20 years from now. Here's my prediction. CO2 ppm increase will still be over 1.5 every year. We will have a baseline heat of 1.5C over preindustrial. El Nino years will be flirting with 2C over preindustrial levels People who fight for core climate changes will start to talk about a multi pronged attack on warming. What am I going to do now? I'm going to go and revisit my personal ideas on multi stage high pressure compression of air, by a method which blends the power of the piston compressor and the inline through flow of the multi stage turbine. Plus my ideas on orbital mechanics to take that high pressure air and use it later. I'm going to step out and forget what I'm saying for a few years or so. I throw these ideas out for consideration. I get the response I expect. What I do is called "blue sky thinking" in the business world. I have been met with an accountancy response. Accountants never create anything, although they do often make the critical funding for creations.
Lodger, I guess you’ll also need to put me on “ignore” now then too? Am I trolling? I don’t believe I have “ever” trolled on climate change and I’ve been in the viewing and understanding mode a hell of a lot longer than many of the people I argue with. The “other D” is arguing the same argument I am. You didn’t listen when I pointed out the Hansen calculations; just, basically assumed I was wrong. Let’s put it this way. If a simple reduction in solar output to the levels of a Maunder Minimum, can delay the rise in temperature at current emission levels, by 25 years, then the reduction by global dimming might give us a century because it reduces a hell of a lot more w/sqm than a Maunder Minimum because the fluctuation of the solar output is very small compared to direct reflection of solar energy. This is one of the reasons I get really frustrated with the Climate Lobby. Total fixation on a single thing. Followed by “holy shit” when the environment changes and step changes force a different focus. I was not joking when I said Greenpeace would have the cleanest planet 2 Billion people had ever seen. A pity for the other, estimated, 7 Billion who “didn’t make it”. Personally I was just throwing out ideas and following them up, because it’s 100% crystal clear that simple CO2 emission reduction is not going to cut it. Even if we get down to 0% which is a total fantasy land fairy story, given the current political commitment and the state of our technology. We have absolutely NO technology, at this time, to replace truck CO2 emissions, Bus CO2 emissions or, even worse, shipping CO2 emissions. Unless there is a 130,000bhp solar powered shipping solution out there I’ve never heard of. I don’t count Hydrogen at this time; it takes more energy to create than we gain in CO2 emissions from using it. A clear case of not doing either the simplest or even most effective thing to solve the problem. Whilst I laud the dedication to reduction in CO2 emissions as an ongoing goal; I respectfully submit that this was a goal to be achieved in the 20th century. For the 21st century, given that failure, we need to be thinking laterally. We can no longer believe that “only” reducing CO2 emissions to 0% is a viable course to a human viable biosphere. Remember when I said “how do you get it over to people that when they are impacted the time for action was 100 years ago”? My next challenge, following that one, is “how do you get it over to the climate lobby that we no longer have the luxury of doing one thing at a time”?? Because we simply don’t! If that message is trolling and it puts me on the “ignore” list. Then I have one more sad event in my climate watching life to add to add to all the others.