The Crisis Report - 56

Unclothing the Emperor : Understanding “What’s Wrong” with our “Climate Paradigm” - Part 4.

The PERMAFROST — is MELTING, “faster than expected”.

Batagaika Crater in Eastern Russia. Melting permafrost isn’t going to magically turn into “farmlands”.

SO.

I have come to realize that I am a “fringe” writer when it comes to Climate Change and the Climate Crisis. I am taking a “very big picture” look at the emerging science and then I am telling you how I “think” it all ties together.

That’s NOT science, it’s analysis. Or, as some would say, it’s my opinion.

I want to be REALLY clear about this, because I don’t want to be misleading. I am going to take the existing research on the permafrost and the Climate System, then present you with my ANALYSIS of what it means. Which is also going to be my interpretation of how the Climate System works.

For the most part, this new interpretation, or paradigm, isn’t NEW. I am not laying out anything radical or “off the wall”. Everything in my interpretation of the Climate System comes from the field of “Climate Science”. However, I am COMPLETELY rejecting the MODERATE Climate Paradigm that has dominated Climate Science for the last 40 years.

The Climate Paradigm of the Moderates.

Tracing its roots back to Callendar, who in 1938 calculated a +2°C temperature rise for a carbon dioxide doubling (2xCO2). The MODERATE position “coalesced” in 1979 at the five-day “ad hoc” study group on carbon dioxide and climate in Woods Hole, Massachusetts.

The Moderates saw the planetary climate system as being resistant to change, strongly self correcting, and reactive only on centennial or millennial timescales.

They THEORIZED that “Climate Sensitivity” to 2xCO2 (A doubling of CO2 levels) would be between +2C and +3C.

Hansen’s Climate Sensitivity estimate in Global warming in the pipeline = (4.8°C ± 1.2°C).

Later on in 1998, they THEORIZED that “Polar Amplification” or “Arctic Amplification” would be “less that twice” the amount of “overall warming”.

The Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the globe since 1979

Communications Earth & Environment volume 3, Article number: 168 (Aug 2022)

Lastly, they UNDERESTIMATED the amount of Carbon in the Permafrost by AT LEAST 100%.

In 2008, the first REAL study of Arctic permafrost and its potential to influence the Climate System, DOUBLED the estimate for the amount of organic carbon held in permafrost soils.

Vulnerability of Permafrost Carbon to Climate Change: Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle

Thawing permafrost and the resulting microbial decomposition of previously frozen organic carbon “C” is one of the most significant potential feedbacks from terrestrial ecosystems to the atmosphere in a changing climate.

In this article we present an overview of the global permafrost Carbon pool and of the processes that might transfer this Carbon into the atmosphere, as well as the associated ecosystem changes that occur with thawing.

We show that accounting for Carbon stored deep in the permafrost more than doubles previous high-latitude inventory estimates, with this new estimate equivalent to twice the atmospheric Carbon pool.

During the 80’s, Climate Science came to be dominated by these “Climate Moderates”.

Our Climate Models have incorporated the THEORIES of the Moderates for the last 40 years. The Climate Science paradigm during that period has been one of slow gradual warming over a long period of time.

Their Climate Models are filled with embedded assumptions about the nature of the Climate System that reflect their theories. Here’s an example, what do you think about clouds?

One of the most basic questions of Global Warming was what effect it would have on clouds. Would warming make the earth cloudier, or less cloudier?

It seems intuitive that warming the planet would increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and make the planet cloudier. This was seen as an example of the planet’s homeostatic bias.

The paradigm of the Climate Moderates was that warming the planet should increase the amount of clouds. Which would then cool the planet down.

The planet was assumed to have a tendency towards climate self correction or “homeostasis”.

Those who argued against this theory were viewed as “Alarmists”.

The Alarmist Climate Models tended to end up in a runaway “greenhouse effect” with catastrophic temperature increases. The Moderate paradigm was that the Alarmists could not be correct and so, the Alarmists were pushed to the fringes of the field and labeled derisively as “Doomers”.

It turns out that the “Alarmists” were right about “clouds” after all.

Using the CERES and Earthshine data, a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in July of 2021 found that it is 97.5 percent certain that changes in clouds brought about by climate change will amplify warming.

Observational evidence that cloud feedback amplifies global warming

Our Climate Models and views on “Global Warming” have been shaped by the THEORIES of the Climate Moderates for the last 40 years. During this time, they have aggressively preached that Global Warming could be constrained to “less than” +2C.

REALITY has CAUGHT UP with the Moderates.

The physical evidence that we have accumulated during that time strongly indicates they underestimated the warming power of CO2 on the Global Mean Temperature by about 40%. The paleoclimate data indicates they were wrong, the ocean heat measurements indicate they were wrong, the accelerating rate of warming indicates they were wrong.

All of the evidence indicates the Moderates are wrong, but they are still controlling the narrative about Climate Change. When you listen to someone talk about Climate Change on FOX, MSNBC, or CNN, odds are, it’s going to be a Climate Moderate.

The Moderates still DOMINATE the field of Climate Science and represent the “Scientific Consensus”. Even though ALL of the evidence indicates they were WRONG about EVERYTHING. This happens all the time in science.

SCIENCE is a social activity. And, our SOCIETY wanted the Moderates to be RIGHT.

In the 80’s, the Public didn’t want lectures on “sustainability”. They wanted CHEAP ENERGY. In 1980 they voted Republican to get it.

In the emerging field of Climate Science, this political climate favored the “Climate Moderates”.

The Scientists who felt that it was “safe” to keep burning fossil fuels while we developed alternatives like Fusion, Solar, and Bio-fuels. The Scientists who “believed” and had “faith” that Climate Sensitivity would be under +3C and that there probably wouldn’t be more than +1.5C of warming by 2100.

This “faction” in the field of “Climate Science” secured the support of the Political, Military, Economic, Industrial, and Public Elites. Together, they promulgated the Climate Science Paradigm that has ruled our lives since the 80’s declaring it to be “THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS”.

Here’s “What went WRONG” and “What they “glossed over’”.

In the 70’s and 80’s they didn’t know how HOT it really was.

They thought they were seeing ALL of the heat being caused by the increasing level of atmospheric CO2. They were off by about 40%.

Climate effects of aerosols reduce economic inequality.

Nature Climate Change, 2020

Estimates indicate that aerosol pollution emitted by humans is offsetting about 0.7 degrees Celsius, or about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit, of the warming due to greenhouse gas emissions,”

“This translates to a 40-year delay in the effects of climate change. Without cooling caused by aerosol emissions, we would have achieved 2010-level global mean temperatures in 1970.”

The importance of this cannot be overstated. It affected EVERYTHING about our understanding of the Climate System.

It made it seem safe to keep burning fossil fuels for decades. Perhaps as long as 2100.

This is how hot it really was in the 70’s. NO ONE knew this, including the Fossil Fuel Interests. Their models forecast future warming based on the warming they observed. They were underestimating the warming power of CO2 by about 40% because they didn’t “see” the cooling effect of the SOx particulates in the atmosphere.

What they could OBSERVE in 1990 was that CO2 levels had gone up by 70ppm from 280ppm in 1850 to 350ppm. Temperatures had ONLY gone up about +0.6C.

Which was MUCH less than the Alarmists had predicted.

So, how much warming would YOU predict from the next 70ppm increase of CO2, and the next 70ppm after that?

Everyone understands that Climate Sensitivity declines as CO2 levels increase.

If +70ppm caused +0.6C of warming by the late 80’s. The next +70ppm should cause a smaller immediate temperature response. At worst, warming should only be +1.2C at a CO2 level of 420ppm and +1.8C at 490ppm.

So, in 1990 with the entire economic system of the world being powered by burning fossil fuels.

Would you feel OK with the idea that you could put another +70ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere?

If you thought it was only going to warm the planet by another +0.6C.

Would that seem like a reasonable trade-off to you?

Or would you try and make a “hard crash” transition to nuclear, hydro-power, geothermal, wind, and solar? Because fusion still wasn’t ready.

That’s the underpinning of our current Climate Models. That’s how they generated a +1.2C warming level for CO2 levels of 420ppm and a +1.8C warming for CO2 levels of 490ppm.

By looking at ‘Immediate Warming’ and ASSUMING that the Thermal Equilibrium will happen VERY SLOWLY over hundreds or thousands of years.

What would you have done?

That’s “the scam” at the heart of the current Climate Paradigm.

The way we could “have our cake and eat it too”.

By ASSUMING that Immediate Warming would be around +0.6C per every 70ppm increase in the atmospheric CO2 level and that the “followup warming” would take centuries/millennia to happen.

It’s basically a “buy now” and “pay later” understanding of the Climate System. One where we can safely pollute as much as we want, and have centuries to clean up the mess.

Let the FUTURE take care of the FUTURE. In 100 years they will have better science and be richer than we are. The Economists all say that “future costs” for today’s choices should be HEAVILY discounted. CHEAP ENERGY today will ensure a “prosperous” tomorrow.

Norwegians use HUGE amounts of ENERGY living their “low impact” lifestyles. It’s “ecofriendly” we are told, because all of this ENERGY comes from “renewable” sources. They are the poster-child for the “High Energy — Climate Friendly” Future that the Techno-Optimists are selling.

WE wanted CHEAP ENERGY. So, we BELIEVED the people who told us it was possible and IGNORED the ones who told us that you cannot get “something for nothing”.

We CONVINCED ourselves “so well” that this THEORY about how the Climate System worked was TRUE. That we almost forgot, that there were EVER any other theories at all.

Now, we are suddenly “waking up” in shock, as we discover that the “scientific consensus” on Global Warming was WRONG. It was SO BADLY WRONG that we are starring down the barrel of general civilizational collapse and a new “Dark Age”.

What’s happened isn’t quite “obvious to everyone” yet. But, it will be soon. Because, a NEW Climate Paradigm is becoming CLEAR. It’s NOT GOOD for us.

The New Climate Paradigm. What REALITY is telling us about how the Climate System actually works.

In a nutshell : We REALLY fucked up.

The Rate of Warming (RoW) from 1850 to 1975 was about +0.08C/Decade. The RoW from 1975 to 2000 was about +0.18C/Decade. The RoW from 2000 to 2015 was about +0.24C/Decade. In 2015 the amount of solar ENERGY flowing into the Climate System INCREASED dramatically. WE DON’T KNOW the current RoW.

IT’S GETTING HOTTER, FASTER NOW, AND WE DON’T KNOW HOW HOT IT’S GOING TO GET.

From James Hansen’s How We Know that Global Warming is Accelerating and that the Goal of the Paris Agreement is Dead. He is forecasting that we will reach +2C around 2040.

But, it’s pretty clear. It’s going to be a LOT HOTTER than the Moderates thought. They were WRONG about EVERYTHING.

Including how BAD melting the Permafrost is going to be.

Permafrost isn’t a feature, it’s a CARBON BOMB. And we just set it off.

Distribution of permafrost zones that together represent the permafrost region. It’s about 22% of the exposed land area in the Northern Hemisphere.

Global carbon storage in soils and atmospheric carbon (2017).

Consider this.

There is NO Permafrost older than 700,000 years. What does that tell us?

1. That before 700,000ya, Greenland and the High Arctic used to regularly get HOT enough that there was NO PERMANENT permafrost area in the High Arctic. If one formed during a cold period, it melted again during the next HOT period.

The Modern High Arctic and the High Arctic of 53 million years ago. They are basically the same configuration of land masses.

It wasn’t until just 800,000ya that the Earth cooled down enough for a PERMANENT Permafrost Zone to form.

During the last million years CO2 levels NEVER went above the Green line. Above that line, there probably was NO PERMAFROST. The Orange line was where we were in 1990. We are NOW at the Red line and CLIMBING fast.

2. Which means, that 700,000 years of Organic Carbon have ACCUMULATED in the Permafrost Zone. In fact, the “Boreal Zone” has functioned as a carbon sink for so long that if you burned all of the oil available in all the reserves around the world, you would still release less carbon than the boreal forest and permafrost is currently holding.

The organic matter once trapped on ice suppresses an estimated amount of organic carbon around 1,672 gigatonnes. Which is equivalent to all of the organic carbon contained in ALL of the land plants on the WHOLE planet PLUS what’s in the atmosphere at this moment.

A SINGLE gigatonne is roughly the mass of all the land mammals in the world other than humans. It’s also roughly 2x the mass of all of the humans in the world

A gigatonne is 1,000,000,000 tonnes, and is often used when discussing human carbon dioxide emissions. This is roughly the mass of all land mammals (other than humans) in the world. It’s also roughly twice the mass of all of the people in the world.

THERE IS ENOUGH ORGANIC CARBON IN THE PERMAFROST TO INCREASE THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 LEVEL TO ABOUT 1300PPM.

Half of this frozen organic matter is found in the first 3 meters of the permafrost and the remaining is in deposits that extend up to 30 meters deep.

Yedoma permafrost in North East Siberia is rich in organic carbon, being responsible for one-third of the total organic carbon on Earth (Altshuler, Goordial, & Whyte, 2017).

Look at where the Yedoma permafrost deposits are located.

Now, look at where the Earth is warming the FASTEST.

The Yedoma permafrost deposits ALONE could raise atmospheric CO2 levels by around +400ppm.

That’s ON TOP OF the CO2 that the BURNING of the Northern Boreal Forests is going to add to the atmosphere.

We worry about the Amazon and forests in Indonesia, but the Boreal Forests hold more Carbon than all the other forests in the world combined.

As the Earth’s largest above-ground “pool” of carbon, forests play a critical role in regulating greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Spanning 1.3 billion acres, the Boreal Forest is the Earth’s largest terrestrial carbon storehouse, storing around 700–800 billion tons of carbon.

Every year, forests take in billions of tons of human-released greenhouse gases. “Eating” roughly 1/3 of CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and the loss of forests around the world. Then “sequestering” this carbon in the form of bio-mass.

The main tree species, depending on the length of the growing season and summer temperatures, varies across the world. The taiga of North America is mostly spruce, Scandinavian and Finnish taiga consists of a mix of spruce, pines and birch, Russian taiga has spruces, pines and larches depending on the region, while the Eastern Siberian taiga is a vast larch forest.

The tree species that dominate Canada’s vast boreal forest, are black spruce and poplar. While the Canadian boreal forest is VAST (2.7 million sq km) unfortunately it is not a “diverse” forest.

“There are only a few tree species there, but they dominate our landmass.”

While the trees are well equipped to withstand the harsh northern winters. The same traits that give them an advantage in the cold make them poor candidates to survive in a warming world.

“What we’re finding is that climate change effects are causing high mortality in many boreal tree species, and those that survive actually consume less CO2.”

These findings are painting a picture quite different than the long-held assumption that climate change would benefit the northern forests. They suggest a “double whammy” effect in which the burning forests ADD CO2 to the atmosphere and then REMOVE less CO2 from the atmosphere because they are dying.

In fact, if Canada’s largest forest removes progressively less CO2 from the atmosphere, global greenhouse gas accumulation WILL occur MUCH faster than currently predicted.

“Without a doubt, the conifers of the boreal forest are more vulnerable to massive die-offs from climate change than broad-leaved species like poplar and birch.”

As more southern tree species, like maple, are predicted to migrate northwards, they will find the harsh environment, low light conditions, and thin soils of the boreal forest hostile to their presence. This means that the void left behind by retreating boreal species will not be easily replaced in a warmer world.

It’s going to be a MUCH WARMER WORLD.

The “Old” models are the green dotted line. They forecast +2C between 2080 and 2100. The Rate of Warming has accelerated since 2010 and our trajectory has become the yellow cone. Hansen is projecting +2C (year round) will be reached by 2040 and +4C between 2080 and 2100.

The Permafrost is going to MELT, really FAST.

The High Arctic has warmed +4C on average since 1979. Parts of Siberia have warmed +7C.

The Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the globe since 1979

Communications Earth & Environment volume 3, Article number: 168 (Aug 2022)

We didn’t PLAN for that, because the THEORIES and MODELS of the Moderates ASSUMED that it wouldn’t happen this way.

Latitudinal temperature gradients and climate change

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 103, NO. D6, PAGES 5943–5971, MARCH 27, 1998

Doubled CO2 equilibrium simulations from different atmosphere-mixed layer ocean models show different degrees of high-latitude climate warming amplification; in the GFDL model, the temperature response at high latitudes is 3–4 times that at the equator, while in the GISS model, it is only close to a factor of 2 [Rind, 1987a].

Now we know, the GISS model was WRONG.

Instead of Arctic Amplification looking like this.

The Moderate Climate Model indicated that adding +2C of HEAT at the Equator SHOULD only warm the North Pole and High Arctic by about +4C.

In which the High Arctic ONLY warms about +4C in response to overall Global Warming of around +2C.

We are getting THIS instead.

This is what the paleoclimate data indicates happens at +4C of warming. Which is how much warming the paleoclimate data indicates we can expect at CO2 levels of 420ppm. The “green” line is the current Equator to Pole differential of about -45C. The “red” line is where it will shift to in a +4C world. The highlighted area represents the extra HEAT ENERGY added to the Climate System at each latitude.

Cities like Vancouver, Montreal, London, Paris, and Kiev can all expect to be about +8C warmer by 2100. The farther NORTH you go, the more it will WARM UP.

Let’s be REALLY CLEAR about this. It’s TOO LATE to do anything about this without attempting GEOENGINEERING the Climate System. Probably using SOx aerosols to increase the planetary ALBEDO to reflect more sunlight away from the planet.

James Hansen, and the team of climate scientists who work with him, are calling for a HUGE build out of nuclear power plants AND a global program to “turn the sky WHITE” with sulfate particulates. In conjunction with a CRASH effort to slash Global CO2 emissions as quickly as possible.

By their reckoning, “It’s the ONLY plan that has a chance of working and preserving our civilization.”

Anything short of that, “is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic while we wait for the ship to go down”.

However, we don’t have much TIME.

The Boreal Forests are already BURNING. If we don’t stop it, they will add about +150ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere. AS EARLY AS 2050.

At which point it will truly be “Game Over”.

This is my analysis.

This is what I see.

This is my “Crisis Report”.

• rc 11282023

This concludes the “Unclothing the Emperor” series of articles. I hope it has made clear just how “flimsy” the current Climate Paradigm and the “Scientific Consensus” around the Climate System really is. A NEW Climate Paradigm is emerging now, and it’s MUCH less “friendly” to our civilization.

If you want to look at the research I did before writing this piece, I wrote it up on Medium here: Personal Thoughts — 12 : Researching my next piece.

Previous Parts:

The Crisis Report - 51

Unclothing the Emperor : Understanding “What’s Wrong” with our Climate Paradigm. In order to understand “Why” things are happening “FASTER than Expected”.

The Crisis Report - 52

Unclothing the Emperor : Understanding “What’s Wrong” with our “Climate Paradigm”. Part 2

The Crisis Report - 53

Hansen dropped a new paper on Friday morning (11/10/23). Let’s UNPACK what it MEANS.

The Crisis Report - 54

Unclothing the Emperor : Understanding “What’s Wrong” with our “Climate Paradigm”. Part 3 - Latitudinal Gradient Response and Polar Amplification.

Index to my Articles on SubStack

SubStack Index — A Guide to my Stack.