Header in today's Denver Post
Profile of the 'hockey stick'
The writing on the wall for Earth humans
On Thursday, world leaders and companies convened in Dubai at the COP28 climate summit. But one gob smacking fact largely unreported is that presiding over the conference is the director of Dubai's state-owned oil company. Which elicits the question: How objective can this conference be? In fact, we also now know (see link at very bottom) there will be over 700 fossil fuel lobbyists present to put endless pressure on any climate negotiators.
Those would be the guys supposedly pushing big nations to make good on promises to slash industrial emissions to keep the Earth from warming above 1.5 degrees Celsius—about 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit. Can we tell these folks that 'cow has already left the barn'? It now appears we will hit in excess of 4C by 2100 (2C by 2050) and perhaps more.
But this is old news, strangely kept off the talking tableaux at the Paris Climate Summit back in 2015. According to a Reuters report from 5 years earlier (July, 2010):
"the Met Office Hadley Centre and
other climate research centres imposed (a projection of
4C temperature increase) on to a Google Earth layer. It's a timely
arrival, with warnings this month that current international carbon
pledges will lead to a rise of nearly 4C and the Muir Russell report censuring some climate scientists for
not being more open with their data (but exonerating them of manipulating the scientific
evidence)."
The Google map with the 4C projection by 21oo is shown below:
Google maps projection of 4C (7.2F) greenhouse world
That heat distribution map above, by the way, comports with the trend for warming distributions (from 1900- 2023) at the very top of this post. And yet,
nearly 200 nations and business
leaders pledged eight years ago to keep Earth from warming above 1.5 degrees
Celsius. Let me also point out here that this 1.5 C threshold isn’t a random
number. Climate scientists—supported by research—chose the number more than a decade ago as a speed limit for rising global temperatures beyond which some effects of climate change start to become irreversible. The number refers to the difference in the average global surface temperature between today and the preindustrial climate of the late 1800s. Today, that difference is about 1.1 degrees C or 2 degrees Fahrenheit.
According to Anne Olhoff, co-editor of the United Nations Emissions Gap Report, released Nov. 19, the 1.5 C goal was initially set as a political target backed up by research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Scientific studies beginning in the 1970s predicted environmental consequences if the atmosphere warmed between 1 and 2 degrees Celsius. In the years since, scientists have used climate models to predict what would happen at various levels of warming. In 2010, the U.N. officially set 1.5 C as a long-term goal for all nations, and yet from the Reuters report above (and Google map projection) that was already passé.
The 1.5 C target was introduced formally at the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit when a group of small island nations demanded wealthier countries limit warming, fearing catastrophic sea-level rise that would devastate their low-lying countries. Hence, it was chosen as a baseline to try to placate the small island nations like Barbados - which is already seeing its shoreline erode year by year.
But the augmented trend was obvious from even two years ago. The June 2021 report on Earth's increasing energy imbalance ought to have shaken even the most jaded ‘meh’ climate skeptics to the core. We are talking here of the amount of heat Earth traps- which has roughly doubled since 2005, contributing to more rapidly warming oceans, air and land, according to then research from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The math is simple: Earth takes in about 240 watts per square meter of energy from the Sun. At the beginning of the study period, in 2005, it was radiating back approximately 239.5 of those watts, creating a positive imbalance:
(240 wm-2 - 239.5 wm-2 )
i.e. of about half a watt. By the end, in 2019, that gap had nearly doubled to about 1 full watt per square meter. That doesn't sound like much to fret over but the energy increase over Earth's surface area is equivalent to four detonations per second of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. This according to Gregory Johnson, an oceanographer for NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory and co-author of the study. For those who want a more prosaic comparison, it's like every person on Earth using 20 electric tea kettles at once.
Oceans absorb most of that heat, about 90 percent, but now even they are reaching a maximal absorption level. As the seas rise, they are also warming at a pace unanticipated as recently as ten years ago. A warmer ocean means more powerful storms, and die-offs of marine life, but it also suggests that the planet is more sensitive to increased carbon dioxide emissions than previously thought.
The closest geological epoch to what we're seeing today is the Pliocene era, 4.1 million to 4.5 million years ago. By analyzing ice cores and ocean sediments, researchers have determined that temperatures during that time were nearly 4 degrees Celsius (7 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than in the modern preindustrial era and that sea levels were about 78 feet higher than today.
Even though the Earth’s surface is 70% ocean, land areas have warmed faster, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The ocean helps regulate Earth’s climate and has absorbed more than 90% of the excess heat and almost 30% of the excess carbon dioxide caused by human activity, keeping the Earth’s surface cooler than it would have been otherwise. What it all means is that we're hitting irreversible tipping points which means there will likely be a long-term permanent shift in global temperatures, projected to occur in the early 2030s.
Hyperbolic? Not at all. During the first nine months of 2023,
the daily global average temperature exceeded 1.5 C on 86 days, according to
the U.N. emissions report. By adding October and the first two weeks of
November, that figure reaches 127 days, according to the European
climate service.
This extra heat is responsible for record temperatures and flooding
across parts of the U.S., Europe and Asia this past summer. It has also
contributed to marine heat waves.
The rise in atmospheric greenhouse
gases that contribute to climate change is faster than at any time now than in
the past several million years, according to Peter Jacobs, a climate scientist
at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. At the same time,
Jacobs said it isn’t too late for society to reverse course by cutting
emissions. How can that be? As I've shown before in previous posts this registers the fact that the average CO2
molecule can reside in our atmosphere - with its heat-retention properties -
for at least 100 years.
There is no on-off switch for climate
change. Thus the CO2 emission effects for a given year (e.g. 2023)
are not just for that year but inclusive of the cumulative emissions for all
the years preceding. One can think of it like a series with 100 terms, i.e.
CO2( 2023) = x 1 + x 2 + x 3 + x 4 +.............+ x 1 00
Thus, even if the CO2 emissions globally were to cease, the climate effects would continue in a pattern of
degradation (e.g. sea level rise, ice sheet collapse, glacier melting, spread
of tropical diseases etc.), due to the already accumulated heat.In other words we will still be stuck in a new greenhouse world,
more radically different than the one we are in now. 
Still,
some scientists aren't yet convinced the trend for serious increase in energy
imbalance is established. Maybe they aren't paying enough attention. Especially to Michael Mann's 'Hockey Stick' graph (see top graphic) which is the embodiment of the accelerated signature of human fossil fuel activity. Some have critiqued it and even claimed it has been "debunked" which is nonsense. As Skeptical Science points out:
"The Hockey Stick is a historic graph dating back to a paper published in 1999. It showed Northern Hemisphere temperature variations over the near-thousand year period from 1000-1998. The 'blade' of the stick represented the rapid warming of the late 20th Century. It has an iconic status, both in climate science and in the murky world of science-misinformation, where, naturally, it is despised by all and sundry.
Objections to the Hockey Stick are varied but mostly focused on the stick's long handle and the data that represents. "
Then also these naysayers are not aware of the work published in solar physicist John Eddy's book ('The New Solar Physics', p. 17):
“The gradual fall from left to right (increasing C14/C12 ratio) is…probably not a solar effect but the result of the known, slow decrease in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic moment.[1] exposing the Earth to ever-increased cosmic ray fluxes and increased radiocarbon production":
Graph of radiocarbon (C14) excess over C12 over ~ 2,000 yr. period.
I.e. linked directly to anthropogenic global warming from the onset of the Industrial Revolution. Showing an excellent parallel to Mann's hockey stick graphic. But in this case in terms of the relative C12: C14 isotope ratios over a 2,000 year period - and yes, many of the data points based on "proxy" measures - like tree rings - but no solar physicist in his right mind dismisses these proxies as unworthy. Neither should hare-brained skeptics. Michael Mann himself, in a TIME article (Nov. 20, p. 26) notes:
"The hockey stick represents the relative stability of the global climate over the common era CE). We now find ourselves in a fragile moment. There is still time to preserve the moment but only if we act with the urgency the climate crisis demands."
Most alarming, in the same piece: "The proxy data estimates from the CE era may be missing a few tenths of a degree worth of human-caused warming from the 19th century. If so we might have as much as 40% less carbon to burn than current models suggest."
Meaning we need to cut back even further than the pundits and bulk of climate scientists recommend. Again, the dollar a gallon gas tax comes into play. People may hate the very thought, but they will hate living in a hothouse world with no a/c or relief even less. Oh, and not enough water for food, or drinking - far less sanitation. Pick your poison!
According to the IPCC, the world need to decrease carbon emissions by 45% compared to 2010) by the end of this decade to have any hope of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
But as I've noted that already passed, likely this year. And if Mann's assessment of the new hockey stick is correct, that decrease in emissions may need to be as much as 60%.
Even as the U.S. and many other nations ramp up to
cleaner renewable solar and wind power, overall emissions of carbon dioxide
keep going up. No surprise given U.S. citizens as well as others refuse to give
up their addiction to fossil fuels. Indeed, they bellyache every time the price
of gas at the pump goes up. Tack on a carbon tax of $1 per gallon? It
would be the end of any politico's career who suggests it. Then, to reinforce that we have the renowned climate clown Bjorn Lomborg,
Almost on cue (WSJ, yesterday, p. A17) bloviating about "total, undiscounted loss over the century is beyond $1,800 trillion" in case serious climate -CO2 emissions policies are implemented.
To be taken seriously then the negotiators at COP28 ought to suggest serious gas-carbon taxes, but my bet is the fossil fuel lobbyists will have the last word, and the status quo toward climate oblivion will continue.
See Also:
And:
'Hockey Stick' graph of rising global temperatures is accurate depiction of climate change | Reuters
And:
time.com/6328017/climate-change-hockey-stick/
And:
by Patty Fong | December 3, 2023 - 6:22am | permalink
Excerpt:
As delegates gather in Dubai for the United Nations Climate Conference, COP28, the mood is not upbeat. Hopes, already muted, that this would be a transformational gathering have been further dampened by revelations that the hosts, the UAE, have been planning to use their position to strike new oil and gas deals; a clear breach of U.N. protocol. So far, so demoralizing.
Indeed, the fact that the world’s seventh largest oil producer put the head of their national oil company in charge of negotiations, and no one was able to stop them, raises understandable questions about the credibility of these multilateral negotiations and their fitness to respond to the oh-so-real dangers of climate change.
And yet, there are reasons to be hopeful about this conference. In fact, it is incumbent upon us to keep the faith, and keep raising our voices, on behalf of our colleagues, our friends and families, the planet, and future generations.
And:
by Stan Cox | December 2, 2023 - 7:12am | permalink
Excerpt:
I’ve been arguing now for a year and a half that the enactment of bold new climate policies—bold enough to quickly drive U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions down to zero—can succeed only if we defeat the looming threat of far-right authoritarianism. And today, the nation’s anti-democracy, fossil-fuel-loving political minority appears more determined than ever to gain enough power to turn us into a sweltering autocracy. We have just 11 months left to stop them.
And:
40_1_pt.3.5309.pdf (silverchair.com)
And:
Five Major Climate Tipping Point Manifestations & What They Mean
And:
The Ocean Absorbed 20 Sextillion Joules of Heat in 2020 | Earth.Org - Past | Present | Future
And:
by Thom Hartmann | November 30, 2023 - 7:07am | permalink
— from The Hartmann Report
More than 70,000 people from nearly 200 countries — including an estimated 700+ fossil fuel industry lobbyists (there were 636 at the last conference) — are arriving this week in Dubai for the opening of the 28th “Conference Of Parties” (COP28) that are signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). COP is the main decision-making body of the UNFCCC.
And already the Republican Party is doing what it can to sabotage any efforts by the Biden administration to help the world adapt to climate change while reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.
The Council on Foreign Relations notes that for most of the poor nations of the world, “women, girls, and historically marginalized people, are bearing the brunt of the impacts of climate change…”
