Dear Colleagues, Another reason to urgently move on "bottom up" direct climate cooling!
Thanks again for flagging Phil. Please find something hopeful 😊! Best, Ron ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Philip Bogdonoff <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:13 AM Subject: Re: Arctic climate modeling too conservative, says new research To: Michael MacCracken <[email protected]> Cc: Ron Baiman <[email protected]>, H simmens <[email protected]> Another not so good sign: Marine heatwaves are sweeping the seafloor around North America | Reuters https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/marine-heatwaves-are-sweeping-seafloor-around-north-america-2023-03-13/ -- Philip On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:51 AM Michael MacCracken <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ron--Everything is coupled together--and again, the models have > possibly been in a time lag due to the atmospheric effects. I understand > that these are the present differences, but what is their cause is the > question? > > Another quite possible underlying explanations is inadequate model > resolution, a problem forced by limitations in computer speed, etc. And > there may well be other causes. > > What I did not like about the article was the sort of implication that one > would tune the model to the results? Doing that gives no confidence that > any future result will be right or that changes will occur as would play > out. What one has to to do is figure out what aspect(s) of the physics > (chemistry, biology, etc.) is not being properly represented and get that > fixed if one is going to be able to justify having at least some confidence > in projections into the future. > > Best, Mike > On 3/13/23 10:00 PM, Ron Baiman wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > The lead of author of the paper seems to blame it on more voluminous > incoming warm ocean currents and uncertain levels of Arctic Ocean > stratification: > > "In reality, the relatively warm waters in the Arctic regions are even > warmer, and closer to the sea ice. Consequently, we believe that the Arctic > sea ice will melt away faster than projected," explains Céline Heuzé, > climatologist at the University of Gothenburg and lead author of one of the > studies. > > Warm water flows into the Arctic Ocean via Fram Strait between Greenland > and Svalbard. However, the volume of water in these ocean currents > <https://phys.org/tags/ocean+currents/> and its temperature in the > climate models are too low, which is one of the reasons why the climate > models' projections will not be accurate. Even the stratification of the > Arctic Ocean is incorrect. The researchers argue that since roughly half of > the models project an increase and the other half a decrease in > stratification, the consequences of global warming cannot be estimated > accurately" > > And applying a generic model to the Arctic rather than one specific > tailored to the unique conditions there: > > " We need a climate model that is tailored to the Arctic. In general, you > can't use the same model for the entire planet, as conditions vary > considerably. A better idea would be to create a specific model for the > Arctic that correctly factors in the processes occurring in the Arctic > Ocean and surrounding land areas <https://phys.org/tags/land+areas/>," > Céline Heuzé explains." > > So they seem to believe that the problem lies more with Ocean modeling > than with atmospheric effects, though of course these should be linked in > the models which it seems is what you're thinking? > Ron > > > > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 4:26 PM H simmens <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Mike, >> >> Thanks for the clarification. Leon Simons was on Andrew’s podcast last >> year if anyone is interested. >> >> [image: ab6765630000ba8a3812b18dd54f93439320af2d.jpeg] >> >> Ship tracks & termination shock - Simons >> <https://open.spotify.com/episode/3fIWIATW8uSMR6cYUXuoh4> >> open.spotify.com >> <https://open.spotify.com/episode/3fIWIATW8uSMR6cYUXuoh4> >> <https://open.spotify.com/episode/3fIWIATW8uSMR6cYUXuoh4> >> >> >> Herb Simmens >> Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future >> @herbsimmens >> >> On Mar 13, 2023, at 5:01 PM, Michael MacCracken <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>  >> >> Hi Herb--I'm not in touch with Leon. Actually, I was referring to >> powerplant SO2 emissions from the US and Europe that surely put sulfate >> into the Arctic into the 1980s, etc. Indeed, it would be interesting for >> someone to look at the time around the years when they opened and later >> closed the smelter in Canada that was putting out 5% or so of North >> American emissions as lofting emissions extended the S lifetime in the >> atmosphere from a day or to to a week or two (and thus reduced local >> ecological damage at the site of the plant). >> >> But now that you mention it there is also the issue of the emissions from >> shipping, another source term not likely considered in the global models >> but could have undue effects in the Arctic. So, it is true not good to use >> models for predictions as opposed to for projections. >> >> Best, Mike >> On 3/13/23 4:33 PM, H simmens wrote: >> >> That’s really interesting Mike. Are you in touch with Leon Simons who as >> I’m sure you know has done work to quantify the impact of the regulatory >> requirement that ships reduce their use of sulfur intensive fuel by I think >> 90% from 2020 on. >> >> He often discusses his work on Twitter. >> >> Herb >> >> Herb Simmens >> Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future >> @herbsimmens >> >> On Mar 13, 2023, at 4:23 PM, Michael MacCracken <[email protected]> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>  >> >> This was noted quite some time ago and the question is why. Perhaps a >> decade ago I tried to broker a peace between the two opposing sides, namely >> the observationalists who were insistent their data on the changing Arctic >> was correct and the modelers who insisted they had all the physics included >> and done properly. I pointed out that there was a third component to be >> considered, and on this other aspect, namely the forcing from aerosols was >> quite uncertain. So, for example, were the aerosols affecting cloud albedo >> and might the reductions in SO2 emissions in the North Atlantic Basin have >> led to less bright clouds due to a drop in the amount of sulfate >> loadings/cloud brightening? And what about soot lofting into the >> Arctic--might that have affected surface albedo, etc.? I did not get much >> traction from the two sides--unfortunate that this question has yet to be >> resolved and so there persists a lag in the models as compared to >> observations (i.e., one could characterize the problem either in terms of >> not enough change indicated for the early 2020s, or the model results are >> lagging the observations by of order a decade). Whether this subtlety >> really has affected the policies, who knows. >> >> Mike >> On 3/13/23 4:01 PM, Ron Baiman wrote: >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Ron Baiman <[email protected]> >> Date: Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 2:43 PM >> Subject: Fwd: Arctic climate modeling too conservative, says new research >> To: geoengineering <[email protected]>, Philip Bogdonoff < >> [email protected]> >> >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> The most recent confirmation of what many of us have been claiming for >> years. >> >> Thank you Phil for flagging this! >> >> Best, >> Ron >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Philip Bogdonoff <[email protected]> >> Date: Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 12:14 PM >> Subject: Arctic climate modeling too conservative, says new research >> To: Herb Simmens <[email protected]>, Ron Baiman <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> FYI >> >> Arctic climate modeling too conservative, says new research >> https://phys.org/news/2023-03-arctic-climate.html >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9BaPvyNcixcXxr9pcMWQ5rZ9F5DePHYbk%3DREHDYkkQ8Jw%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9BaPvyNcixcXxr9pcMWQ5rZ9F5DePHYbk%3DREHDYkkQ8Jw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9Agd2-dx_%3DH1dWhnrJ5M548RrhVtgVkkoO%3DpZWzu-%3D6Cg%40mail.gmail.com.
