Actually, we do have a really good idea about what will happen.
The only real question is whether the total heat input we have already made or committed is sufficient to completely melt Greenland, or to break the oceanic clathrates. We can already see the Tundra destabilizing. If we are unable to stop that, well - game over. That's 1,500 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere. And then there is no possibility that we keep Greenland from melting. The question then is HOW FAST. What appeared to be 300-500 years, now looks like 50-150.
So how do we know where we are?
Easy. Plot the CO2 equivalent over time. Hell, just take the current condition. Since the rest of the line is essentially a vertical line from the baseline.
Today we are about 550-560 ppm CO2(e). Methane is the major and dominant second source. Then add the rest of the warming gases.
Why? Because ALL of the warming gases count towards warming, not just CO2. CO2 vastly understates the hazard and lies about where we are - bad as it suggests.
At 550-560 ppm CO2(e) we are at twice baseline of 278 ppm CO2(e).
We debate about the "short" and "long" term climate sensitivity, And we continually underestimate those as Hanson and others have pointed out. And as the scientists at the COP are finally saying aloud - 30-40 years too late. That is 0.75 C per Watt/m^2.
But we never talk about the equilibrium climate sensitivity. And that is the most important. We know from the paleo climate record that the 105 k year ice age cycles take us from about 215 ppm CO2(e) at a low to about 280 ppm CO2(e) at the high. That then takes us from an arctic temperature of -8 C to + 6 C, so 14 C variation.
The implications are obvious.
But we can then also look back at the paleo climate to the last time we saw an atmospheric CO2(e) of 550-560. That takes us back to about 33 million years ago - long long long before man existed.
And that is about the time that antarctic glaciation was complete. By the time we reach 750 ppm CO2(e), we push that further back to 38 million years ago in the Eocene when the world had an "equable" climate.
No one understood how that could work. The ultra warm arctic breaks all of the models. Well - it does until you realize that it implies a different atmospheric structure that lacks Ferrell and Polar cells and has a single equator to pole Hadley cell, with giant cyclones running far north in a deeper atmosphere where Coriolis forces play a smaller role. I challenged the climate scientists about that in the 1990s, asking where we were thermodynamically. They went away and thought about it. They came back to say "we are close - very close".
Since then we have seen deepening of the Rossby waves and a slowing and destabilization of the polar jet. The huge heat intrusions to the north and cold to the south are artifacts of that destabilizing system and the breakdown of the main jet along with it.
Another climate scientist back in the 1950s modeled this. He and his grad students work stands alone. One of the things he predicted was third order effects causing what look like walls in the atmosphere. We saw the first of those with the Ridiculously Resilient Ridge. They are becoming common.
Where we are headed is to a rapid death of the oceans, and them going anoxic in large areas and vortexes - killing most life in the ocean, combined with the collapse of the tundra, and the breaking of the oceanic clathrates. Also the temporary shutdown of the AMOC and the Pacific circulation and with those the death temporarily of the great oceanic circulation.
In the immediate future, Europe north of Spain goes cold even as the Arctic heats. The oceans get unbelievably warm resulting in more massive storms. Cat 6 hurricanes become common with sustained winds of 185-218 (based on extension of the original scale).
The shift will be rapid, then sudden. And when it does we get perhaps a century to act as the Antarctic and Greenland provide a buffer. But most likely they are insufficient. We go to +11 C and an equable climate.
The transition happens so rapidly that 80+% of all species go extinct. Humans may be among those. Only some of our rare adaptations (like the high altitude genes) might spare a few.
If I am understanding the math here. We have gone from approximately 0.3 Watt/m^2 in the early 2000s, to approximately 1.85 (2023) to likely over 2.0 (my guess if the trend hasn't somehow just completely stopped or reversed in the first 3 months of this year) right now.
Let's just say 1.5 W/m^2 is the increase we are confident about mathematically. That equates to approximately 1.125C added to the system (0.75 + 0.375) since then. Just from a pure EEI perspective.
Factor in Aerosol masking being severely flipped and it makes sense. If it was hiding 0.8 to 1.2C then we are now quickly equalizing for that.
I guess my question is, are they the same overall representation? The EEI adjustment, and the Aerosol masking adjustment? Or are they additive? So approximately 1.9 to 2.1C added total, already IN the system right NOW? And we are only now going to see that show up as an equalizing move?
Be careful of which data belongs with which other data. In general I think you are correct, without verifying your calculation.
It can be incredibly difficult to keep all the pieces together in relation to one another. Even for folks who really know what they are doing. So double checking is vital.
Beyond that though, the general whoop and sweep of the problem is obvious.
At a first level, the arguments of the about the "hickey stick" graph now look ludicrous. With added data since that all flamed up, the graph now looks like a straight line running into a vertical wall. The excess CO2 and CO2(e) both are rising at completely unprecedented rates. The rate of change is far far far beyond any historic oscillation or variation. The rise is also orders of magnitude faster than the shock rise of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM).
And that should give us both great pause and alarm bells should be ringing off the hook, falling on the floor and shattering. It also gives us the PETM as an exemplar of what happens with such tremendous rates of change.
What I am suggesting is that we need to not be focused on the minutiae and instead focus on the huge picture.
Yes, we need to focus on the loss of the arctic ice, the destabilization of the Thwaite's glacier, the rapid melt of Greenland and other indicators. We also need to focus on the destabilization of the polar jet, the slowing of the Rossby waves and the main jet stream, on the imminent collapse of the AMOC and other currents, the extreme heating of the ocean, acidification of the ocean, mass bleaching of coral globally, the movement of marine species like salmon that are indicators, and and and and...
We need to see the Pingo's in the Yamal, the massive tundra and forest fires, and the boiling of methane from the sea floor in the arctic as the indicators of how close to catastrophe we are.
And then we need to let go of the gradualist idea that our models can provide any realistic projections for anything other than the near term. Instead, we need to recognize that we are on the cusp of major state changes in the global climate, ocean and other systems. We need to see that the models are on the edge of non-applicability, and needing revision to new states, for which we have little or no data upon which to understand how to build those models.
The work on modeling has been spectacular. However, we must be humble and recognize that the models have limits to their applicability, and that we do not know precisely where those boundaries are.
It is a stretch, but we might be able to gain some insight into those transitional changes by using Buckingham Pi methods and looking to other systems based on those same dimensionless parameters for where breakpoints in behavior occur and how those then change.
Buckingham Pi is an engineering approach to problem solving. It is not something that most scientists are even aware of, let alone expert at using. It is a powerful engineering tool. It's equations look superficially like other equations in science. But they are fundamentally different. And usually scientists get lost quickly in what the equations are doing.
These are typically not derived from first principles. Instead, they are derived from empirically observed data. We are very limited in the data we have to feed such an analysis and mostly trapped in a narrow band of the curves. As a result, it might not be helpful. However, engineering analyses routinely do handle state and condition changes, sot here is a chance at least of it being a useful approach.
Twenty years worth in one year. But they told me not to worry cause it's an El Nino year. And 1.5 degrees may only be 1.4 depending on who's numbers you look at. We need at least 10 more years to be sure its not just some "one-off" thing. I feel so much better. Did you hear about the guy with Bird Flu in Texas? Nothing to worry about, just one guy.
Thank you for going to such lenghts, great writeup
Can you explain why EEI will gradually fall as you explained here?
"If they are correct, as the oceans warm and global temperatures climb, the EEI will gradually fall. It will keep falling until the Climate System is roughly “in balance” again.
This will result in 2-4 years of HEATWAVES across the planet as the world adjusts to this MASSIVE surge of HEAT"
Actually, we do have a really good idea about what will happen.
The only real question is whether the total heat input we have already made or committed is sufficient to completely melt Greenland, or to break the oceanic clathrates. We can already see the Tundra destabilizing. If we are unable to stop that, well - game over. That's 1,500 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere. And then there is no possibility that we keep Greenland from melting. The question then is HOW FAST. What appeared to be 300-500 years, now looks like 50-150.
So how do we know where we are?
Easy. Plot the CO2 equivalent over time. Hell, just take the current condition. Since the rest of the line is essentially a vertical line from the baseline.
Today we are about 550-560 ppm CO2(e). Methane is the major and dominant second source. Then add the rest of the warming gases.
Why? Because ALL of the warming gases count towards warming, not just CO2. CO2 vastly understates the hazard and lies about where we are - bad as it suggests.
At 550-560 ppm CO2(e) we are at twice baseline of 278 ppm CO2(e).
We debate about the "short" and "long" term climate sensitivity, And we continually underestimate those as Hanson and others have pointed out. And as the scientists at the COP are finally saying aloud - 30-40 years too late. That is 0.75 C per Watt/m^2.
But we never talk about the equilibrium climate sensitivity. And that is the most important. We know from the paleo climate record that the 105 k year ice age cycles take us from about 215 ppm CO2(e) at a low to about 280 ppm CO2(e) at the high. That then takes us from an arctic temperature of -8 C to + 6 C, so 14 C variation.
The implications are obvious.
But we can then also look back at the paleo climate to the last time we saw an atmospheric CO2(e) of 550-560. That takes us back to about 33 million years ago - long long long before man existed.
And that is about the time that antarctic glaciation was complete. By the time we reach 750 ppm CO2(e), we push that further back to 38 million years ago in the Eocene when the world had an "equable" climate.
No one understood how that could work. The ultra warm arctic breaks all of the models. Well - it does until you realize that it implies a different atmospheric structure that lacks Ferrell and Polar cells and has a single equator to pole Hadley cell, with giant cyclones running far north in a deeper atmosphere where Coriolis forces play a smaller role. I challenged the climate scientists about that in the 1990s, asking where we were thermodynamically. They went away and thought about it. They came back to say "we are close - very close".
Since then we have seen deepening of the Rossby waves and a slowing and destabilization of the polar jet. The huge heat intrusions to the north and cold to the south are artifacts of that destabilizing system and the breakdown of the main jet along with it.
Another climate scientist back in the 1950s modeled this. He and his grad students work stands alone. One of the things he predicted was third order effects causing what look like walls in the atmosphere. We saw the first of those with the Ridiculously Resilient Ridge. They are becoming common.
Where we are headed is to a rapid death of the oceans, and them going anoxic in large areas and vortexes - killing most life in the ocean, combined with the collapse of the tundra, and the breaking of the oceanic clathrates. Also the temporary shutdown of the AMOC and the Pacific circulation and with those the death temporarily of the great oceanic circulation.
In the immediate future, Europe north of Spain goes cold even as the Arctic heats. The oceans get unbelievably warm resulting in more massive storms. Cat 6 hurricanes become common with sustained winds of 185-218 (based on extension of the original scale).
The shift will be rapid, then sudden. And when it does we get perhaps a century to act as the Antarctic and Greenland provide a buffer. But most likely they are insufficient. We go to +11 C and an equable climate.
The transition happens so rapidly that 80+% of all species go extinct. Humans may be among those. Only some of our rare adaptations (like the high altitude genes) might spare a few.
That is where we are headed.
If I am understanding the math here. We have gone from approximately 0.3 Watt/m^2 in the early 2000s, to approximately 1.85 (2023) to likely over 2.0 (my guess if the trend hasn't somehow just completely stopped or reversed in the first 3 months of this year) right now.
Let's just say 1.5 W/m^2 is the increase we are confident about mathematically. That equates to approximately 1.125C added to the system (0.75 + 0.375) since then. Just from a pure EEI perspective.
Factor in Aerosol masking being severely flipped and it makes sense. If it was hiding 0.8 to 1.2C then we are now quickly equalizing for that.
I guess my question is, are they the same overall representation? The EEI adjustment, and the Aerosol masking adjustment? Or are they additive? So approximately 1.9 to 2.1C added total, already IN the system right NOW? And we are only now going to see that show up as an equalizing move?
Whew.
Be careful of which data belongs with which other data. In general I think you are correct, without verifying your calculation.
It can be incredibly difficult to keep all the pieces together in relation to one another. Even for folks who really know what they are doing. So double checking is vital.
Beyond that though, the general whoop and sweep of the problem is obvious.
At a first level, the arguments of the about the "hickey stick" graph now look ludicrous. With added data since that all flamed up, the graph now looks like a straight line running into a vertical wall. The excess CO2 and CO2(e) both are rising at completely unprecedented rates. The rate of change is far far far beyond any historic oscillation or variation. The rise is also orders of magnitude faster than the shock rise of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM).
And that should give us both great pause and alarm bells should be ringing off the hook, falling on the floor and shattering. It also gives us the PETM as an exemplar of what happens with such tremendous rates of change.
What I am suggesting is that we need to not be focused on the minutiae and instead focus on the huge picture.
Yes, we need to focus on the loss of the arctic ice, the destabilization of the Thwaite's glacier, the rapid melt of Greenland and other indicators. We also need to focus on the destabilization of the polar jet, the slowing of the Rossby waves and the main jet stream, on the imminent collapse of the AMOC and other currents, the extreme heating of the ocean, acidification of the ocean, mass bleaching of coral globally, the movement of marine species like salmon that are indicators, and and and and...
We need to see the Pingo's in the Yamal, the massive tundra and forest fires, and the boiling of methane from the sea floor in the arctic as the indicators of how close to catastrophe we are.
And then we need to let go of the gradualist idea that our models can provide any realistic projections for anything other than the near term. Instead, we need to recognize that we are on the cusp of major state changes in the global climate, ocean and other systems. We need to see that the models are on the edge of non-applicability, and needing revision to new states, for which we have little or no data upon which to understand how to build those models.
The work on modeling has been spectacular. However, we must be humble and recognize that the models have limits to their applicability, and that we do not know precisely where those boundaries are.
It is a stretch, but we might be able to gain some insight into those transitional changes by using Buckingham Pi methods and looking to other systems based on those same dimensionless parameters for where breakpoints in behavior occur and how those then change.
Buckingham Pi is an engineering approach to problem solving. It is not something that most scientists are even aware of, let alone expert at using. It is a powerful engineering tool. It's equations look superficially like other equations in science. But they are fundamentally different. And usually scientists get lost quickly in what the equations are doing.
These are typically not derived from first principles. Instead, they are derived from empirically observed data. We are very limited in the data we have to feed such an analysis and mostly trapped in a narrow band of the curves. As a result, it might not be helpful. However, engineering analyses routinely do handle state and condition changes, sot here is a chance at least of it being a useful approach.
Thank you for this essay. I always appreciate you when you write.
And as one person to another who struggles with the same monster-I understand completely.
Twenty years worth in one year. But they told me not to worry cause it's an El Nino year. And 1.5 degrees may only be 1.4 depending on who's numbers you look at. We need at least 10 more years to be sure its not just some "one-off" thing. I feel so much better. Did you hear about the guy with Bird Flu in Texas? Nothing to worry about, just one guy.
Nobody thought it would be front end loaded like this. Everyone expected a linier graph.
The early stages of the PETM saw an expansion of dinoflagellates in the ocean. An unsual expansion of a dinoflagellate is being considered as a cause of unprecedented die-off and strange behavior of marine life in the Flordia Keys: https://keysweekly.com/42/researchers-close-in-on-most-promising-leads-behind-spinning-fish-sawfish-deaths/.
I'm not sure if you've previously shared this part of the story of how "Moderates" got control.
https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/01/ipcc_beginnings/
Thank you for going to such lenghts, great writeup
Can you explain why EEI will gradually fall as you explained here?
"If they are correct, as the oceans warm and global temperatures climb, the EEI will gradually fall. It will keep falling until the Climate System is roughly “in balance” again.
This will result in 2-4 years of HEATWAVES across the planet as the world adjusts to this MASSIVE surge of HEAT"