Let’s say the cryosphere comprises 40,000 Gt sea ice at any point in the year, roughly. So in the absence of any such change in the SLR of recent years, we can expect that any melting from that 8Zj/yr would be sea ice which doesn’t result in SLR.īut the volume of Arctic sea ice averages about 15,000 Gt and there would be very roughly a similar amount in Antarctica. The annual additional melt would amount to an extra 84mm of SLR. If this were land ice melting, we would see a significant increase in sea level rise. You insist it has hidden away by either melting ice into the oceans or by evaporating water into the atmosphere. (This assumes the measured reduction in albedo can be treated as a climate forcing, which, despite all your protestations, it cannot.) I will ignore all but your reply to my question as to the hiding=place of that 8Zj which would be the annual consequence of a climate forcing of +0.5Wm^-2 acting before it begins to reach any significant equilibrium. We should measure the aerosol climate forcing. That indicts aerosols, but it’s a screwy way to do science. Reemergence of CH4 growth contributes to growth of greenhouse climate forcing, but cannot cause the doubling of Earth’s energy imbalance. Global warming acceleration can be traced to decreased aerosols.
#Sharp cap vs eos backyard drivers#
Satellite observations (2001–2020) reveal a significant positive globally-averaged TEEI of 0.38 ± 0.24 Wm−2decade−1, but the contributing drivers have yet to be understood. ‘Less than 1% probability’ that Earth’s energy imbalance increase occurred naturallyĪnthropogenic forcing and response yield observed positive trend in Earth’s energy imbalance
I ask the RC scientists to please quickly do a post on this paper.Įarth’s Albedo 1998–2017 as Measured From Earthshine I don’t think you addressed my concerns effectively, so I’m still quite alarmed. and exhibited in the recent large increase in frequency and intensity of extreme weather. Yup: The acceleration of cryosphere melting of various types, the overall acceleration of global temps since 2016 and the H2O. Any thoughts where that somewhere else may be? Of course, if it were comparable to a forcing and responsible for an additional 8 Zj pa being accumulated in the planetary climate system, maybe it has managed to find somewhere else to hide all that extra energy. Given lags in the system, this fits rather perfectly with those observations. It is already established that global temperatures have, in fact, spiked since 2016. We would expect to see some significant of acceleration in ΔOHC through the period in question but the rate of ΔOHC shows no sign of any acceleration through the last dozen years or so.Īgain, they said there was a gradual increase from ’98 to ’14 or ’15 – however they are meaning “three years” – and a significant ramp-up in those last years. If that had just appeared as an additional forcing over the years 1998-2017 or 2014-17, we would expect to see some evidence of it in the Ocean Heat content. Precisely, and if it happened over a fairly recent period, apparently 2015~’17, would we have necessarily been able to fully measure it by this time, especially given 90% ends up in the oceans which tend to give up their secrets rather slowly? Such a forcing would result in an imbalance in the planetary energy balance.
Rather, that the majority of warming was in the final three years of the period which either indicates a short-term fluctuation or a very rapid increase. A climate forcing ultimately comes down to the amount of energy kept in the system over the point of balance in/out, no?Īnd to attribute it to a trend over 3 years is even more wrong.Īgain, that is what the paper says. To directly compare this +0.5Wm^-2 reduction in albedo with a similar-sized climate forcing is incorrect
0 kommentar(er)
