The 1.5 degrees Climate Benchmark Explained
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 มิ.ย. 2024
- For the past decade, 1.5 has become an important number when talking about the climate crisis. As in, one-point-five degrees Celsius. It’s the number we’ve been told is the maximum increase in temperature the earth can really handle, before all sorts of terrible things happen. On the surface though, 1.5 degrees doesn’t sound like a huge number. In this episode, “How We Survive” host Amy Scott chats with several climate experts to dive deeper into what this number actually means, and if it’s even the right benchmark.
OK here's the big thing that Tom of NOAA at 1:40 to 2:10 isn't telling you (I use NOAA, have a full spread sheet since 2013). He didn't tell you that NOAA greatly disagree with BerkeleyEarth (BEST) and UK Hadley Centre (HadCRUT5) about how much warming there was from the 1850-1900 baseline to the 20th century average, like this:
A 20th century average baseline is 0.174 degrees above the 1850-1900 baseline according to NOAA (I assume NASA will be similar)
A 20th century averagebaseline is 0.32 degrees above the 1850-1900 baseline according to BerkeleyEarth (BEST)
A 20th century averagebaseline is 0.36 degrees above the 1850-1900 baseline according to Hadley Centre (HadCRUT5)
That huge disagreement about the warming from 1850 to about 1920 is the main reason why you keep seeing such huge disagreements all over the place about how close is the long-term warming trend to the 1.5 degrees, the disagreements and variety you see all over the place has nothing to do with measurement of warming the last 60 years or some such, and that warming the last 60 years or some such is very accurate and very much agreed upon by scientist groups who do the work. So where you see on screen the +1.18 past a 20th century average baseline for 2023 at 6:50 then:
NOAA claims that +1.18 past a 20th century means +1.35 above the 1850-1900 "pre-industrial" baseline, but
BerkeleyEarth (BEST) claims that +1.18 past a 20th century means +1.50 above the 1850-1900 "pre-industrial" baseline, but
Hadley Centre (HadCRUT5) claims that +1.18 past a 20th century means +1.54 above the 1850-1900 "pre-industrial" baseline.
Already there!
The bloke at 4:22 is already wearing a Personal Floatation Device. See, preparation & adaptation like that is the key.
May has been announced as another record month, so now we have had 12 months in a row of record temperatures. The IPCC reported that the average worldwide temperature for these 12 months was 1.63C above the pre-industrial period!!! So we have SAILED past 1.5C, and are well on the way to 2C by 2030! By 2040 humanity will be barely surviving!
"The IPCC reported that the average worldwide temperature for these 12 months was 1.63C above the pre-industrial period!!!" == Outright lying. You get your stupid "info" from the TwitFace & Day Time Soaps
Did Amy not listen to what David said, or just not believe him ?
Methane levels hit a record year every year for the past 5 years.
Knowing that methane release is the driver behind short term temperature increases we can extrapolate how feedback loops will boost temperatures over 4 degrees by 2050...😱☠️.
"will boost temperatures over 4 degrees by 2050" == Just silly ignorant babbling rubbish. I mean, really, if you understand nothing at all about the thermodynamics, like you, then why feel the need to thrill everybody with your inane Junk?
So-called "greenhouse effect" physics: It happens in Earth's troposphere. The H2O gas & CO2 in Earth's atmosphere manufacture ~1,500 times as much radiation as the Sun's radiation that Earth absorbs (or something of that scale, hundreds of times as much). Taking 1 Unit as the Sun's radiation that Earth absorbs (which is 99.93% of all energy going into the ecosphere, geothermal and all the human nuclear fission and fossil carbon burning are 0.035% each) and the 1,500 times as a workable example (not accurate) to describe the physics concept:
Units
1 Solar SWR that Earth absorbs (1/3rd in the air, 2/3rds in the surface)
1,500 LWR manufactured by H2O gas & CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere
1,497.64 LWR absorbed by H2O gas & CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere
0.92 Leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere and goes to space
1.44 Leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere and goes into the surface
(Note: There's 0.08 LWR straight from the surface to space because H2O gas, CO2, CH4, O3, NOx, CFCs don't absorb those wavelengths)
So there's the balance with 1 Solar SWR Unit being absorbed and 0.92+0.08=1 LWR Unit being sent to space. The "greenhouse effect" is the fact that only 0.92 leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere but a larger 1.44 leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere into the surface, because only the leakage to space gets rid of the constant stream of solar SWR energy, not the leakage into the surface. If they were both the same, both 1.18, then there'd still be 2.36 leaking out of Earth's atmosphere but there'd be no "greenhouse effect" (as you see, out of the top of Earth's atmosphere to space has gone up from 0.92 to 1.18 so there's obviously much more cooling). The reason why they are unbalanced with more leaking out the bottom than out the top is simply because Earth's troposphere is usually by far (much) colder at the top than at the bottom and colder gases make less radiation than warmer gases because they collide less frequently and with less force (that's what "colder" means, it's just molecules bashing other molecules less frequently and with less force).
------
If more H2O gas & CO2 molecules are added into Earth's troposphere then the 0.92 that leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere is reduced and the 1.44 that leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere is correspondingly increased. For example, add some ghg molecules for a 0.01 Unit effect and the 0.92:1.44 leakage changes to 0.91:1.45 leakage, so there's more "greenhouse effect". That 0.01 Unit example is a "forcing" of 2.4 w/m**2 which is 60 years of the current ghgs increase and is expected would warm by ~2.4 degrees with the feedbacks.
Seventh generation Texas farmer we are moving up north because it is no longer sustainable to farm down here
You're coming to live with us damn Yankees?
Why don't you focus on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? It's 50% higher than pre-industrial times! CO2 emissions are accelerating we simply are not going to survive. It's just a matter of when.
"How We Survive' is irresponsible and highly misleading in the global warming context. Do better.
It's not irresponsible thousands of people have died from heat and flooding this year. Those are direct effects of climate change. And it will get much worse