Hi Gene,
I am a maverick when it comes to climate sensitivity. The jury is
still out on whether CO2 forces temperature or vice versa in
palaeoclimate. If you look at 3 glacial cycles between 400kya and
100kya carefully, you see that the CO2 peaks follow the temperature
peaks. These cycles are driven by Milankovitch orbital signals. When
oceans are warmed they tend to give off CO2 and when cooled they
absorb it as after Pinatubo, see Keeling curve kink.
Cheers John from mobile
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023, 16:42 Gene Fry, <[email protected]> wrote:
My analysis of ice age data used only 430K years of data, at 10K
year intervals.
For 13+°C climate sensitivity at Vostok.
Not quite 16°.
8.2° estimated globally over ice ages, using Snyder’s (2016) polar
to global ∆°C conversion.
The ice age climate sensitivity analysis can be partitioned
into CO2 and CH4, well correlated, for about 5° for CO2 alone.
This figure shows a basis for climate sensitivity over millions of
years, most of which I don’t know of data for CH4.
∆°C & CO2 ppm over 65 My.png
Gene
On Apr 10, 2023, at 9:02 PM, Gene Fry <[email protected]> wrote:
Albedo changes were the primary drivers of past temperature
changes, most notably during the ice ages.
When there is a lot of ice to melt, the Earth’s temperature is
more sensitive to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Lots of albedo
change to be had - like uncovering 60% of North America.
When there is not so much ice left to melt (now), Earth’s
temperature is much less sensitive to changes in greenhouse gas
levels. Because albedo changes are smaller.
Sensitivity was greater during the recent ice ages than it is
now. No longer 16° for doubled CO2.
More like 6° now, with only about 1/3 as much ice (deduced from
sea level changes) left as at the Last Glacial Maximum.
When all the ice is gone, Earth’s climate is not very sensitive to
changes in greenhouse gas levels. Maybe 2°C.
Still, sometimes there are huge changes in GHG levels (e.g. 55
Mya), so temperatures can still change quite a bit.
Gene Fry
On Apr 10, 2023, at 4:29 PM, Tom Goreau <[email protected]>
wrote:
It’s just the regression of Antarctic Ice temperature versus CO2
data. The sea level regression implies +23 meters.
When I did it in 1990 there was only one glacial cycle of data,
but Eelco Rohling independently did the same analysis when there
was 800,000 years of data, and got essentially identical values.
The models must be serious underestimates to fall so far off the
actual long term climate data.
*Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance*
*Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.*
*Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK*
*37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139*
*[email protected]
www.globalcoral.org <http://www.globalcoral.org/>
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)*
*Books:*
*Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration,
Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase*
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392
<http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392>
*Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration*
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734
<http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734>
*No one can change the past, everybody can change the future*
**
*It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think*
**
*Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global
warming and sea level rise wash the beach away*
**
*Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate
change*
*From:*Michael MacCracken <[email protected]>
*Date:*Monday, April 10, 2023 at 4:23 PM
*To:*Tom Goreau <[email protected]>, Robert Chris
<[email protected]>
*Cc:*"[email protected]"
<[email protected]>, Planetary
Restoration <[email protected]>, 'Eelco
Rohling' via NOAC Meetings <[email protected]>,
geoengineering <[email protected]>
*Subject:*Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds
economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?
Hi Tom--I'd be interested in seeing your 1990 paper because 16 C
would take temperatures to much higher than they have ever been,
and yet there have been periods when the CO2 concentration has
apparently been well above 1000 ppm, so the 16 C value seems
seriously inconsistent with what we know of Earth history.
Best, Mike
On 4/10/23 5:02 AM, Tom Goreau wrote:
BEFORE UNFCCC was signed, it was clear from paleoclimate data
that +16 degrees C or so is the equilibrium temperature for
400ppm CO2 (Goreau 1990), but all governments ignored the real
data because they preferred the fictitious claim from models that
warming would “only” be around 1-4 degrees C, and occur well
after a new leader emerges from the next election, selection, or
coup.
I briefed the Association of Small Island States just before they
signed on to a treaty that was an effective death sentence for
low coasts and a suicide pact for low lying island nations to
that effect, but their heads of states were told by the rich
countries to sign or they would lose their foreign aid, something
none could afford. They were effectively bought off to sacrifice
their own people’s futures for worthless promises of financial
support for adaptation that never came. No politician ever turns
down money, no matter how insufficient.
Instead what they got from the funding agencies was sea walls
made from concrete and rock imported half way across the world,
which have all fallen down due to erosion caused by wave
reflection scouring. Their consultants keep promising that the
next seawall, built to armor the ruins of previous seawalls, will
last forever, it’s another shell game with peoples futures.
*Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance*
*Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.*
*Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK*
*37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139*
*[email protected]
www.globalcoral.org <http://www.globalcoral.org/>
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)*
*Books:*
*Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration,
Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase*
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392
<http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392>
*Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration*
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734
<http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734>
*No one can change the past, everybody can change the future*
**
*It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think*
**
*Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when
global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away*
**
*Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate
change*
*From:*Michael MacCracken<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Date:*Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 9:37 PM
*To:*Tom Goreau<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>, Robert
Chris<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc:*"[email protected]"
<mailto:[email protected]><[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>,
Planetary Restoration<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>, 'Eelco Rohling'
via NOAC Meetings<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>,
geoengineering<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:*Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds
economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?
Hi Tom--Indeed, which is why I don't understand why the mainly
island nation accepted, even insisted upon 1.5 C, as an
aspirational goal. From paleoclimatic analysis, the equilibrium
sensitivity for sea level rise is of order 15-20 METERS per
degree C increase in the global average temperature. And how it
is somehow justified that the curve shape for the sensitivity is
a cubic and we are presently in the low sensitivity part of the
curve does not at all seem justified to me (though perhaps the
type of major ice sheet matters).
I once asked the chief US negotiator (Todd Stern) at the Paris
COP if they had viewed as a value that would be an upper limit
and the subsequent goal and actions would be aimed at forcing the
global average temperature back down, or if the vision was that
actions would be taken to keep the increase in global average
temperature to be 2 C and this would be an allowed long term
value for the Earth. He indicated, as I recall, that what would
happen after the value was reached was not discussed, they were
so happy to have a number to consider an upper value they just
never discussed the issue.
Best, Mike
On 4/9/23 7:40 AM, Tom Goreau wrote:
The 1.5 degree “goal” like the 2.0 goal, is beyond the capacity
of corals to adapt so it means the extinction of coral reef
ecosystems, which already reached their high temperature tipping
point in the mid 1980s.
Coral reefs, and the species and people who live from them, have
been consciously selected for sacrifice, rather than
interrupting profits from fossil fuels.
Coral reefs may be the first ecosystem to collapse, but they
certainly won’t be the last!
*Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance*
*Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.*
*Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK*
*37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139*
*[email protected]
www.globalcoral.org <http://www.globalcoral.org/>
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)*
*Books:*
*Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration,
Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase*
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392
<http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392>
*Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration*
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734
<http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734>
*No one can change the past, everybody can change the future*
**
*It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think*
**
*Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when
global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away*
**
*Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate
change*
*From:*<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>on
behalf of Robert Chris<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Date:*Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 10:35 AM
*To:*Michael MacCracken<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc:*"[email protected]"
<mailto:[email protected]><[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>,
Planetary Restoration<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>, 'Eelco Rohling'
via NOAC Meetings<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>,
geoengineering<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:*Re: Fwd: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c
thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?
Mike, you point to a key distinction that I had perhaps
ignored. The dynamics of setting goals are not the same as
those of realising them.
Economics may have been a major factor in setting the Paris
targets but they are not an enabler of their realisation. If
the political will was there among a sufficient number of
leading economies to deliver on the Paris targets, they would
find a way of doing that that would overcome any economic
constraints that might otherwise have been thought to be
impediments.
Regards
Robert
As I loosely recall, when the 2 C goal was approved in Paris,
the value
was chosen because it was thought that it would be
realistically/economically achievable. The goal could not be
higher due
to thoughts about tipping points or lower due to economic
realities--though they did set 1.5 C as an aspirational goal as the
developing nations felt the impacts of 2 C on them would be
unbearable.
So, I'd say economics played a goal there--indeed, even the primary
rationale for the choice.
Mike
On 4/8/23 9:54 AM, Robert Chris wrote:
> David, you've put your finger right on it. Being economically
> realistic is not a sufficient condition to enable the
realisation of
> any goal. For some goals, it isn't even a constraint because for
> them, what is economically realistic is made to fit the goal,
rather
> than the goal being tailored to fit what's economically
realistic.
> Money is not the only store of value.
>
> Regards
>
> Robert
>
>
> On 08/04/2023 18:26, David desJardins wrote:
>> If the goal is always economically realistic, then it
follows that
>> looking at the goal through an economic lens will always
enable it,
>> not prevent it.
>
--
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
[email protected].
To view this discussion on the web
visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/c1cc3b97-4f27-0715-7bc2-9e09145d5129%40gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/c1cc3b97-4f27-0715-7bc2-9e09145d5129%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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
[email protected].
To view this discussion on the web
visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/EB42CBFB-16D9-4188-A469-4C6668168C9B%40globalcoral.org
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/EB42CBFB-16D9-4188-A469-4C6668168C9B%40globalcoral.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/d/optout.
<Balancing Atmospheric CO2.pdf>
--
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/D843A0D2-F9E2-47FB-85FE-B3D218375BDD%40rcn.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/D843A0D2-F9E2-47FB-85FE-B3D218375BDD%40rcn.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
