Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Casey Cameron's avatar

Thank god for truth-tellers like you, Bill. The news is awful but your grasp and the heart you put into it are keeping us going - thank you so much.

Expand full comment
Doug Grandt's avatar

As you probably know, Michael Mann posted the same "NOAA SST World (60S-60N)" chart recently. That chart does not reveal the truly frightening trend of ocean heat over the past 6 decades. Dr. Mann and two groups of scientists co-authored a paper with a "Global ocean heat content in the upper 2000 m" chart that clearly shows the 60-year ocean temperature trend in *2020* [1920 typo corrected] (https://bit.ly/Springer27Jan20) and again this year (https://bit.ly/Springer11Jan23). The charts shows ocean heat increasing at a rate four times greater since the 1990s as compared to the previous 30 years.

Another paper published last August (https://bit.ly/AGU29Aug21) concluded that "Earthshine" as measured on the dark side of the moon has decreased about 25% from 1998 to 2017. It is a complicated calculation, and I was initially told by one of my mentors that 25% is incorrect, but later he took that back and confirmed it is. indeed, a 25% reduction. The point is, as you allude over and over, things are disintegrating abruptly right under our noses.

Who would have thought Jim Hansens "Faustian Bargain" would become kitchen table conversation?

What we are observing is evidence that—to use a currently poignantly sad analogy—Mother Earth is lying on the ground in a puddle of blood—having been shot in the thigh—and her femoral artery is bleeding out. We should, metaphorically, be applying a tourniquet, but we are debating, metaphorically, whether guns or troubled teenage boys are the problem. In climate jargon, we need to apply immediate short term measures to strategically cool specific "hot spots" that will do the most good in the near term while we ramp up the long term remedies.

James Hansen et al. also published a pre-print (for peer review) "Global warming in the pipeline" as you most likely know. The ABSTRACT begins with the astonishing findings:

"Improved knowledge of glacial-to-interglacial global temperature change implies that fast-feedback equilibrium climate sensitivity is at least ~4°C for doubled CO2 (2×CO2).... Global warming in the pipeline is greater than prior estimates. Eventual global warming due to today’s GHG forcing alone – after slow feedbacks operate – is about 10°C."

In simples terms (for readers), even if we were to cease carbon emissions immediately (2022 in the Hansen's analysis) the global temperature trajectory would continue upward and level off at around 10°C in a few centuries—passing through 6.7°C in one hundred years (~2125) unless we employ some sort of albedo enhancement and carbon removal.

Whether or not peer review gives a nod or refutes Hansen's paper, I believe it is time to seriously look at all options (ordinary and extraordinary) adhering to scientific method rather than speculation and gut feelings. That includes all forms of cooling the ocean, atmosphere, particular regions, seasons, natural, bio-mimicry and technological, benign and potentially dangerous and search for yet unknown means of cooling. We will soon have to decide what to deploy and at what scale. We need research to know the acceptable limits.

Expand full comment
35 more comments...

No posts