Tuesday, September 10, 2024

Reviewing Radiative Forcing and Climate Sensitivity via CO2-equivalents: James E. Hansen on 4.2 Watts per meter squared

 https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relationship-between-watts-sq-meter-and-degrees-Celsius-If-radiative-forcing-increases-heat-of-earth-by-3-5-watts-sq-meter-how-does-this-become-1-5-C-increase-as-reported
The reported increase of 1.5 °C from a 3.5 W/m² increase in radiative forcing likely reflects a combination of the average climate sensitivity...

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter2-1.pdf 

 So we get an overview of watts per meter squared as per CO2 and Methane, etc.... but that is 2018 so not accurate anymore.

https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2023/Miracle.2023.12.07.pdf

 

 So that's a LOT of heat - must be offset by the Aerosol Masking Effect....

 So Hansen excludes the ESAS methane "bomb" even though it is an abrupt increase of methane - at least 5 gigatons as conservatively estimated by Andrew Glikson aka Sam Carana.

 

Ironically it is precisely the ocean heat that is accelerating the loss of ice.

 

 So that is the effect of just reducing the cargo ship sulfur emissions! It's the CO2-equivalent of 100 ppm.

So Jim Massa's big point is that the aerosol masking effect reduction is NOT going to change the thermal inertia of ocean temperature but James E. Hansen is emphasizing that reduction of aerosol masking in the North Atlantic and North Pacific will change the sea ice reflectivity, the water vapor and the clouds...and this is even more than the El Nino effect.

And thus the Aerosol Masking Effect was grossly underrated by the IPCC models - by a factor of four!!

It's a 2 watts per meter squared global average difference and not .5 watts per meter squared difference - overall contribution to global warming climate.

 So we have a current increase of .5 watts per meter squared from the doubling of atmospheric methane at 1800 ppb.

 https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/68557/1/grl_etminan.pdf

 

 So that puts us at 2.5 watts per meter squared currently for CO2 and methane.... plus 1 watt per meter squared from reduction of Aerosol Masking Effect as 3.5 watts per Meter squared for a 1.5 C. temperature increase global average! Thereby corroborating the claims of James E. Hansen et. al.

Now we need to consider if James E. Hansen is correct to assume that the ESAS arctic methane bomb is a "slow" forcing or not? I say he is not correct but rather Sam Carana or Andrew Glikson or Natalia Shakhova's research group is correct.

Several studies have highlighted the importance of CH4 emissions from the Arctic Ocean, particularly in shallow waters underlain by permafrost (Damm et al.2010; Kort et al.2012). Subsea permafrost thaw has been observed in the ESAS (East Siberian Arctic Shelf) and the importance of this region has been highlighted, for instance by Shakhova et al. (2015, 2019) and Wild et al. (2018). Future estimates suggest that around 50 Gt of methane could be released from gas hydrates in the ESAS alone over the next 50 years (Shakhova et al.2010), consistent with present annual estimates (e.g.  Berchet et al.2016).

 OK so that ignores the "slow" feedback of ESAS methane!! Wow. Now let's compare James E. Hansen to the infamous http://arctic-news.blogspot.com analysis.

So 2 watts per meter squared as total from preindustrial to today aerosol masking effect = only about 1 degree Celsius difference in warming from the Aerosol Masking Effect. But based on my analysis of Daniel Rosenfeld I concluded a 40% reduction of burning coal would also be a 1 degree Celsius difference in warming. So my analysis is more in line with arctic-news.

Also considering methane is officially already .5 watts as per of a 1.5 C increase the idea that a tripling of global methane from the arctic ESAS bomb and wetlands/permafrost could then add 1.5 watts more - making it a 5 watt scenario minimum - the Arctic-news graph projection does not seem that far-fetched at all.













 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No comments:

Post a Comment