Some Numbers
Greta
THIS POST IS HOME FOR VARIOUS "FACT-CHECKING" AND BACK OF THE ENVELOPE CALCULATIONS. IT IS BEING CONSTANTLY UPDATED.
My latest efforts are to make the familiar "heat" maps into actually measuring heat rather than temperature. This should ultimately be a simple matter of re-labeling the legend.
My references and calculations need to be triple checkedI am concerned about IPCC scenarios. They presume an average temperature increase and work backward. The scenarios are presented as "options," but all but the "worst" are impractical for economic, physical or political reasons.The idea is to track down the "extra heat" from C02 forcing (a reasonable hypothesis, but the magnitude deserves at least a laugh check). I use CHAT-GPT (Chatty) to track down sources for me. Chatty is not helping me reach any conclusions or "doing the math." I enlisted DALL-E to create a mascot for this discussion. I call her "Greta."
After gathering some basic information and links from Chatty, I obviously need to fire up the old spreadsheet and do the math carefully. To be continued ...
CHATTY: I couldn't find the average heat capacity of the world's oceans. However, I found that the heat capacity of ocean water is **3993 J/kg/K**².
[Call this WaterHeatCapacity=3993 J/kg/K]
Source: Conversation with Bing, 3/24/2023(1) Energy content, the heat is on atmosphere -vs- ocean. / Accessed 3/24/2023.
(2) Climate Change: Ocean Heat Content | NOAA Climate.gov. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content Accessed 3/24/2023.
(3) Why does land warm faster than oceans in climate change? | World .... https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/why-does-land-warm-faster-than-oceans/ Accessed 3/24/2023.
(4) Ocean heat content - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content Accessed 3/24/2023.
Carbon dioxide is causing **1130 TW** of extra heating, meaning the radiative forcing from carbon dioxide is **1130 TW**¹. (is this per year?)
[Call this C02Forcing=1130 TW]
WaterHeatCapacity=3993 J/kg/K
OceanVolume=1.2 B cubic km
Total ocean heat capacity = OceanVolume x WaterHeatCapacity = 3993x1.2 J/K / km/cubic km
= 0.000003993, the number of joules absorbed by the ocean by heading 1 degree C in a year (?)
1 watt = 1000 joules/second = 10000x365x24x60 joules per year =
20987.208 watts = 20987 / 10 to the 12th = 20 x 10 to the -15th terawatts absorbed in a year if we raised ocean temp 1 degree or vice versa, heat absorbed by the ocean if we raised ocean temp 1 degree. So 1130 tw (presumed ocean forcing) would raise the ocean temperature "on average" 1130x24x10 to - 15 degrees. That's 22 x 10 to the minus 12 degrees (trillionth) C. Of course, heating would not be even, but we have a hint that we should not expect to see the effect of "forcing" in ocean temperatures.
Source: Conversation with Bing, 3/24/2023(1) Trapping Heat – Climate, Justice and Energy Solutions. https://uw.pressbooks.pub/climatejusticeandenergysolutions/chapter/trapping-heat/ Accessed 3/24/2023.
(2) How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/ Accessed 3/24/2023.
(3) How to cut carbon from your heating - BBC Future. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201116-climate-change-how-to-cut-the-carbon-emissions-from-heating Accessed 3/24/2023.
(4) What is the greenhouse effect? - Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/19/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/ Accessed 3/24/2023.
The volume of water in the oceans of Earth is **1,338,000,000 km³**¹.
[Call this OceanVolume=1.2 B cubic km]
Source: Conversation with Bing, 3/24/2023(1) Water distribution on Earth - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_distribution_on_Earth Accessed 3/24/2023.
(2) How much water is in the ocean? - National Ocean Service. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/oceanwater.html Accessed 3/24/2023.
(3) How Much Water is There on Earth? | U.S. Geological Survey. https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/how-much-water-there-earth Accessed 3/24/2023.
(4) Ocean - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean Accessed 3/24/2023.
A typical year has **12 named storms**, **six hurricanes**, and **three major hurricanes**¹.
[Call this NHurricane = 12]
Source: Conversation with Bing, 3/24/2023(1) Facts + Statistics: Hurricanes | III. https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-hurricanes Accessed 3/24/2023.
(2) Record-breaking Atlantic hurricane season draws to an end. https://www.noaa.gov/media-release/record-breaking-atlantic-hurricane-season-draws-to-end Accessed 3/24/2023.
(3) Atlantic hurricane season 2022: Up to 10 hurricanes expected | World .... https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/06/number-of-major-hurricanes-over-atlantic-rises/ Accessed 3/24/2023.
(4) There have been so many hurricanes this year that we've ... - CTVNews. https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/there-have-been-so-many-hurricanes-this-year-that-we-ve-almost-run-out-of-names-1.5104686 Accessed 3/24/2023.
(5) Hurricanes are getting more dangerous, but may not be more frequent .... https://www.sciencenews.org/article/hurricanes-frequency-danger-climate-change-atlantic Accessed 3/24/2023.
(6) Tropical Cyclone Climatology - National Hurricane Center. https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/ Accessed 3/24/2023.
An average hurricane might release the equivalent of **600 terawatts** of energy, with a quarter of a percent of that as wind; the vast majority of the energy in a hurricane is in the form of heat stored and released as water vapor condenses into rain¹.
[Call this HHurricane=600 TW]
C02Forcing=1130 TW
Compare one hurricane to forcing: HHuricane/C02Forcing = 600/1130 = 53%
NHurricane = 12, so the total energy released by all hurricanes is above x 12 = 637%, or hurricanes release 600x as much heat (energy) as C02 forcing. Or, if all C02 forcing went into hurricanes, it would contribute at most 16% of observed hurricane energy.
Source: Conversation with Bing, 3/24/2023(1) Can We Capture Energy From a Hurricane? - Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/can-we-capture-energy-hurricane-180960750/ Accessed 3/24/2023.
(2) How much energy in a hurricane, a volcano, and an earthquake?. https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/energy-hurricane-volcano-earthquake1.htm Accessed 3/24/2023.
(3) NOAA: How much energy does a hurricane release?. https://energi.media/news/noaa-how-much-energy-does-a-hurricane-release/ Accessed 3/24/2023.
The IPCC has not provided a specific number for extra heating in the atmosphere due to CO2 forcing. However, it has been reported that carbon dioxide is responsible for more than 25% of the warming we are experiencing today¹.
It should be easy to do the math here. How much heat would be required for 25% of the warming we see? The number appears to be false on its face, since C02 is responsible for at most 10% or so of CHG influence.
Source: Conversation with Bing, 3/24/2023(1) Facts about the climate emergency | UNEP - UN Environment Programme. https://www.unep.org/facts-about-climate-emergency Accessed 3/24/2023.
(2) The IPCC Climate Change 2022 Impacts Report: Why it matters. https://www.noaa.gov/stories/ipcc-climate-change-2022-impacts-report-why-it-matters Accessed 3/24/2023.
(3) Explainer: Will global warming ‘stop’ as soon as net ... - Carbon Brief. https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached/ Accessed 3/24/2023.
(4) Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing — IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/changes-in-atmospheric-constituents-and-radiative-forcing/ Accessed 3/24/2023.
(5) IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-06.pdf Accessed 3/24/2023.
(6) NOAA index tracks how greenhouse gas pollution amplified global warming .... https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2759/NOAA-index-tracks-how-greenhouse-gas-pollution-amplified-global-warming-in-2020 Accessed 3/24/2023.
The U.N. climate panel report released on August 9th, 2021, about the physical science of climate change uses five possible scenarios for the future. The scenarios are the result of complex calculations that depend on how quickly humans curb greenhouse gas emissions. But the calculations are also meant to capture socioeconomic changes in areas such as population, urban density, education, land use and wealth. For example, a rise in population is assumed to lead to higher demand for fossil fuels and water. Education can affect the rate of technology developments. Emissions increase when land is converted from forest to agricultural land. Each scenario is labelled to identify both the emissions level and the so-called Shared Socioeconomic Pathway, or SSP, used in those calculations.
Scenario 1 – Most optimistic: 1.5C by 2050
SSP1-1.9: [DEFINITELY IMPOSSIBLE-See Gates]
The IPCC’s most optimistic scenario, this describes a world where global CO2 emissions are cut to net zero around 2050. Societies switch to more sustainable practices, with focus shifting from economic growth to overall well-being. Investments in education and health go up. Inequality falls. Extreme weather is more common, but the world has dodged the worst impacts of climate change.
This first scenario is the only one that meets the Paris Agreement’s goal of keeping global warming to around 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial temperatures, with warming hitting 1.5C but then dipping back down and stabilizing around 1.4C by the end of the century.
[Note that the Paris Agreement was not widely ratified and, even if it were, it would not meet the 1.9 Scenario. Why is it still mentioned]?
Scenario 2 – Next Best: 1.8C by 2100
SSP1-2.6:
In the next-best scenario, global CO2 emissions are cut severely, but not as fast, reaching net-zero after 2050. It imagines the same socioeconomic shifts towards sustainability as SSP1-1.9. But temperatures stabilize around 1.8C higher by the end of the century.
Scenario 3 – Middle of the road: 2.7C by 2100
SSP2-4.5:
This is a “middle of the road” scenario. CO2 emissions hover around current levels before starting to fall mid-century, but do not reach net-zero by 2100. Socioeconomic factors follow their historic trends, with no notable shifts. Progress toward sustainability is slow, with development and income growing unevenly. In this scenario, temperatures rise 2.7C by the end of the century.
Scenario 4 – Dangerous: 3.6C by 2100
[To be clear, emissions must not increase under this scenario]
SSP3-7.0:On this path, emissions and temperatures rise steadily and CO2 emissions roughly double from current levels by 2100. Countries become more competitive with one another, shifting toward national security and ensuring their own food supplies. By the end of the century, average temperatures have risen by 3.6C.
Scenario 5 – Avoid at all costs: 4.4C by 2100
SSP5-8.5:
This is a future to avoid at all costs. Current CO2 emissions levels roughly double by 2050. The global economy grows quickly, but this growth is fuelled by exploiting fossil fuels and energy-intensive lifestyles. By 2100, the average global temperature is a scorching 4.4C higher.
According to The World Counts, the annual global energy consumption is estimated to **580 million terajoules** which is equivalent to about **13865 million tons of oil equivalents**². Since 2000, global energy consumption has increased by about a third and is projected to continue to grow in the foreseeable future².
The International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that world total final energy consumption was **194 EJ** in 2019⁴. The consumption consists of coal (13.6%), oil (48.5%), natural gas (14.1%), biofuels and waste (12.6%), electricity (9.5%) and other (1.7%)⁴.
I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any other questions.
Source: Conversation with Bing, 3/26/2023(1) Global Energy Consumption - The World Counts. https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/energy/global-energy-consumption Accessed 3/26/2023.
(2) Final consumption – Key World Energy Statistics 2021 - IEA. https://www.iea.org/reports/key-world-energy-statistics-2021/final-consumption Accessed 3/26/2023.
(3) World energy supply and consumption - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_supply_and_consumption Accessed 3/26/2023.
(4) Energy Production and Consumption - Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption Accessed 3/26/2023.
(5) World Energy Outlook 2022 – Analysis - IEA. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2022 Accessed 3/26/2023.
(6) World Energy Consumption Statistics | Enerdata. https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-consumption-statistics.html Accessed 3/26/2023.
------------------
The amount of heat added to the system, 1,130 TW, does not seem to explain the ocean's added temperature or thermal expansion. Something else is increasing temperature with all the knock-on effects, perhaps a positive feedback with water vapor.
POCC claims the surface temperature rise is exactly as predicted by the math. It's more likely his math is right and mine wrong. These graphs always show very small departures from the mean - negligible if the temp is Kelvin, but the difference shows the "small" effect of adding heat to the system.
Similar considerations apply to ocean volume. A "small" increase in volume can lead to a significant rise in the surface.
Overall, the key to reconciling the numbers may be understanding the scale.
Also, marching bars show cumulative effects, where the "math" usually gives back-of-the-envelope estimates of annual effects.
Long-term history shows a correlation between c02 and temperature. Math / Physics indicates c02->temp. Additional C02 would accelerate this, even if we don't know what happened in the past. '
Seeing all this as coming out of an ice age may be instructive, whatever you think of the "natural" timetable. We may be coming out faster, but prevention of the next ice age is certainly good news if true. SADLY, it is not likely that our influence or capability will last long enough to influence long-term trends.
NORTHERN ICE
This video makes a case for the loss of ice around the North Pole. There is a claim that the loss of ice in Greenland is responsible for the observed (?) increase in sea level. Loss of ice over the ocean would not increase sea levels.
The above is from this excellent general source - EPA.
"After a period of approximately 2,000 years of little change (not shown here), global average sea level rose throughout the 20th century, and the rate of change has accelerated in recent years.2 When averaged over all of the world’s oceans, absolute sea level has risen at an average rate of 0.06 inches per year from 1880 to 2013 (see Figure 1). Since 1993, however, average sea level has risen at a rate of 0.12 to 0.14 inches per year—roughly twice as fast as the long-term trend."
I think the "little change" claim is either cherry-picking or wrong. Long-term data here. The data indicate that big changes were in the long past, with the rate of change leveling off (relatively). So the claim is that this rate has resumed and accelerated.
Over a shorter timescale, the low level reached during the LGM rebounded in the early Holocene, between about 14,000 and 6,500 years ago, leading to a 110 m sea level rise. Sea levels have been comparatively stable over the past 6,500 years, ending with a 0.50 m sea level rise over the past 1,500 years.
.5 m/1500 = .0003 m = .3 mm per year. Since 1993, we have been seeing 3 mm per year. 10x, not 2x long-term trend.
One issue is that there is not enough heat energy in GHG, forcing it to show up directly, so the link between Greenland ice and sea level rise is a (possible) example of a "tipping point." Or, you might say, an interruption in the major trend gave us 100m between 14,000 and 6,500 years ago.
Long-term trend = 100 m / (14000-6500) = 13 mm/year. That phenomenal rate is probably due to ice melting over great swaths of land in the Northern hemisphere.
Side note: what about the very name of "Greenland"? Didn't it get colder since the Vikings gave up on it? Was that the "little ice age?" If so, shouldn't we be looking at trends for the last 2,000 years, not 6,500 as above?
Rise over last 1,500 years = .5/1500 = .3 mm, but GEO guys like to look at 10,000 years of temperature trends.
Remember that physics demands high average global temperatures will show up at the poles.
Comments
Post a Comment