Thank you for your insightful, fact-based posts. It's essential to see where we are and where today's trends are heading.
Your readers may also appreciate knowing that it doesn't have to be that way! That people have researched how Nature managed CO2 (beyond the obvious and necessary tree-planting and regenerative ag). And there are a few processes we know how to emulate that have MASSIVE CDR potential--enough to restore near-pre-industrial CO2 levels by 2050. At a cost that's laughably trivial. (Thousands of times cheaper than much-touted CDR and other carbon tech.)
I invite you to check out ClimateRestoration.substack.com . And the foundational book: Climate Restoration—The Only Future That Will Sustain the Human Race.
Thank you for your great work. And I'd love to talk with you about adding climate restoration as an antidote to the climate despair that comes with all the bad news.
We're all entitled to our beliefs. There are many questions that scientists remain baffled about.
I'm just offering research 1st noticed by Hans Neu in the early 1960's. , Hans Neu, from senior research scientist and oceanographer with Canadian department of fisheries and Oceans at the Bedford Institute in Nova Scotia. He was most prolific for his data collecting and research regarding manmade impacts onto freshwater, freshwater estuaries, and Northern oceans in the upper latitudes.
Hans understood that the majority of fresh water on this planet is located in the subarctic regions and he was concerned about the construction of huge dams impounding sea-sized reservoirs covering thousands of square miles. He made some significant discoveries soon after he was contracted 1963 by Hydro Quebec to study the environmental impacts of building huge dams on some of the major rivers. He was thorough in collecting water temperatures along the Continental Shelf before and after dam operations began. His readings, taken at specific locations, over some years, were consistently troubling. He provided this information to HQ which found his work to be disturbing. Hans told them that these preliminary findings were showing very poor outcomes onto rivers, marine life, ocean currents, and climate, HQ stopped funding the research, ended his contract, and threatened his career if he published his work in any scientific journal.
You obviously heard about the lake effect snows around the Great Lakes. There are clearly localized conditions. Our theory has more to do with the sensitivity of the Arctic regions and what has happened to the largest rivers in the subarctic since the 1950s. If you're not able to understand the unnatural dynamics that humans have used to manipulate fresh water flows to only trickles, thereby turning moving rivers into stagnant sea-sized reservoirs hundreds and even thousands of square miles in size. I find this unimaginable that some in the scientific community discount this extreme to not have any significant impacts on the Arctic and subarctic
Thank you for this summary. Always thought provoking. If I recall, the CHIP models estimate the mean ambient anomalies in the Northern Hemisphere. Can you please point to published work that considers the variance among geographic regions? Food insecurity and human migrations are reacting to regional weather impacted by climate, i.e. attribution analyses and extreme events. Thanks.
When I look at the model predictions, I see what appears to be seasonal oscillations in the 95th percentile profile but not in the 5th percentile. Why is that?
A better question maybe is what causes the apparent seasonal oscillation in the first place, e.g., difference in ratios of ice mass, land mass and ocean between the northern and southern hemisphere?
Andrew thanks for putting this data together. I do believe that scientists and in particular the satellite and sensor work that NASA has been up to is shedding some important light on this subject of warming . Often overlooked is the relationship of fresh water, condensation, evaporation, and water vapor and the transitional processes in conversion from gas to liquid and solid to gas to liquid. This often requires energy and heat to accomplish
So historically GHG emissions have been followed, or measured based on methane and C02 emissions however according to current NASA research it is water vapor that causes 90% of the greenhouse effect on Earth; https://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/news/4/warming-at-the-top-of-the-planet/
"“Over an area the size of Oregon, 1 inch of rain is equivalent to nearly 8 billion tons of water. All of this water comes from condensation of vapor in the atmosphere. For each ton of water that condenses, almost 2 million B.T.U.’s of latent heat is released to the atmosphere. It becomes obvious that tremendous quantities of water and energy are involved in the formation of clouds and precipitation."
So when did the atmosphere on our planet begin to get saturated by water vapor? Were there human activities that may have gone unaccounted for that may have pushed water vapor levels?
Was there a proliferation of human activities in an extremely sensitive region on this planet that may have reversed the natural course of nature? We scientists do acknowledge that both polar regions and the Equatorial regions are extremely sensitive to human impacts. What could have happened in polar, subpolar reaches to cause a chain of events that would increase in intensity over decades and eventually culminate in Polar Amplification feedbacks. Below is not the whole story but a significant piece that has been over-looked
The largest amount of fresh water on planet Earth is in the subarctic in the Northern Hemisphere
The subarctic is Ground Zero for initial heat amplification caused by excesses of water vapor emissions. By the late 1960s, water vapor, became a major contributor to Arctic Amplification and a major force in producing climate feedbacks.
From Siberia and throughout the Canadian subarctic, “Strict Flow Regulated”mega hydroelectric generation pIants constructed from the 1950s to the 1980’s impounded many of the major rivers. The Subarctic is home to the largest amount of freshwater on the planet. Waters from many rivers once flowing 24 -7 are now impounded ,creating sea-sized basins, reducing water flow in summer to a fraction. Historically this region has been cold and dry, but rivers, now reservoir-like, are stagnant all summer, irradiated, and causing high levels
of evaporation and humidity . They are also inundating and melting permafrost.
Hypoliminal Dam Releases All Winter Guarantee Huge Unlimited Water Vapor Emissions
Water stored all summer is discharged throughout winter from well below the top of dams where water temperature is around 40 F. It flows down the penstock thru the turbines and exits downstream into severe cold conditions. This very cold air and warmed water creates limitless quantities of water vapor 24-7 during the coldest months. For the past 70 years the downstream waters no longer freeze during winter and make their way to the bays and seas into the Arctic Ocean. Insuring less ice, more water vapor, and a warmer regional climate.
What effects did this have on the sensitive conditions in this region? I'd like to see a scientist step up here and tell me that there were no effects on the localized climates, And to this day it is still happening. Another point that is often not considered. Many of these former rivers now sea-size basins took 5 to 12 years to fill. When hydro is generated in winter months the waters released thru turbines and downstream heading into the Arctic bays and seas like the kara and Labrador Sea are at volumes 5 to 15 X greater than the rivers natural flow for an entire year. This high volume of fresh water is released into the ocean estuaries only in 5 to 6 months. What effects does this impact Arctic ocean salinity and ocean currents?
Ultimately, the issue is, how much (if any) does the new data change the estimate of the optimum tax on net CO2 emissions. I internet Andrew to be saying not much if at all. I assume that it does make zero a less likely estimate than it was even before.
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for your insightful, fact-based posts. It's essential to see where we are and where today's trends are heading.
Your readers may also appreciate knowing that it doesn't have to be that way! That people have researched how Nature managed CO2 (beyond the obvious and necessary tree-planting and regenerative ag). And there are a few processes we know how to emulate that have MASSIVE CDR potential--enough to restore near-pre-industrial CO2 levels by 2050. At a cost that's laughably trivial. (Thousands of times cheaper than much-touted CDR and other carbon tech.)
I invite you to check out ClimateRestoration.substack.com . And the foundational book: Climate Restoration—The Only Future That Will Sustain the Human Race.
Thank you for your great work. And I'd love to talk with you about adding climate restoration as an antidote to the climate despair that comes with all the bad news.
We're all entitled to our beliefs. There are many questions that scientists remain baffled about.
I'm just offering research 1st noticed by Hans Neu in the early 1960's. , Hans Neu, from senior research scientist and oceanographer with Canadian department of fisheries and Oceans at the Bedford Institute in Nova Scotia. He was most prolific for his data collecting and research regarding manmade impacts onto freshwater, freshwater estuaries, and Northern oceans in the upper latitudes.
Hans understood that the majority of fresh water on this planet is located in the subarctic regions and he was concerned about the construction of huge dams impounding sea-sized reservoirs covering thousands of square miles. He made some significant discoveries soon after he was contracted 1963 by Hydro Quebec to study the environmental impacts of building huge dams on some of the major rivers. He was thorough in collecting water temperatures along the Continental Shelf before and after dam operations began. His readings, taken at specific locations, over some years, were consistently troubling. He provided this information to HQ which found his work to be disturbing. Hans told them that these preliminary findings were showing very poor outcomes onto rivers, marine life, ocean currents, and climate, HQ stopped funding the research, ended his contract, and threatened his career if he published his work in any scientific journal.
You obviously heard about the lake effect snows around the Great Lakes. There are clearly localized conditions. Our theory has more to do with the sensitivity of the Arctic regions and what has happened to the largest rivers in the subarctic since the 1950s. If you're not able to understand the unnatural dynamics that humans have used to manipulate fresh water flows to only trickles, thereby turning moving rivers into stagnant sea-sized reservoirs hundreds and even thousands of square miles in size. I find this unimaginable that some in the scientific community discount this extreme to not have any significant impacts on the Arctic and subarctic
Thank you for this summary. Always thought provoking. If I recall, the CHIP models estimate the mean ambient anomalies in the Northern Hemisphere. Can you please point to published work that considers the variance among geographic regions? Food insecurity and human migrations are reacting to regional weather impacted by climate, i.e. attribution analyses and extreme events. Thanks.
This post sounds comforting. But the CMIP6 models show a deviation from the long term trend, resulting in it being half a degree hotter by 2050.
Is it getting hot in here or is it just me?
When I look at the model predictions, I see what appears to be seasonal oscillations in the 95th percentile profile but not in the 5th percentile. Why is that?
A better question maybe is what causes the apparent seasonal oscillation in the first place, e.g., difference in ratios of ice mass, land mass and ocean between the northern and southern hemisphere?
Andrew thanks for putting this data together. I do believe that scientists and in particular the satellite and sensor work that NASA has been up to is shedding some important light on this subject of warming . Often overlooked is the relationship of fresh water, condensation, evaporation, and water vapor and the transitional processes in conversion from gas to liquid and solid to gas to liquid. This often requires energy and heat to accomplish
So historically GHG emissions have been followed, or measured based on methane and C02 emissions however according to current NASA research it is water vapor that causes 90% of the greenhouse effect on Earth; https://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/news/4/warming-at-the-top-of-the-planet/
According to the National Wildfire Coordinating Group/Fire Weather Publication, “Clouds and Precipitation" https://www.nwcg.gov/publications/pms425-1/clouds-and-precipitation
"“Over an area the size of Oregon, 1 inch of rain is equivalent to nearly 8 billion tons of water. All of this water comes from condensation of vapor in the atmosphere. For each ton of water that condenses, almost 2 million B.T.U.’s of latent heat is released to the atmosphere. It becomes obvious that tremendous quantities of water and energy are involved in the formation of clouds and precipitation."
So when did the atmosphere on our planet begin to get saturated by water vapor? Were there human activities that may have gone unaccounted for that may have pushed water vapor levels?
Was there a proliferation of human activities in an extremely sensitive region on this planet that may have reversed the natural course of nature? We scientists do acknowledge that both polar regions and the Equatorial regions are extremely sensitive to human impacts. What could have happened in polar, subpolar reaches to cause a chain of events that would increase in intensity over decades and eventually culminate in Polar Amplification feedbacks. Below is not the whole story but a significant piece that has been over-looked
The largest amount of fresh water on planet Earth is in the subarctic in the Northern Hemisphere
The subarctic is Ground Zero for initial heat amplification caused by excesses of water vapor emissions. By the late 1960s, water vapor, became a major contributor to Arctic Amplification and a major force in producing climate feedbacks.
From Siberia and throughout the Canadian subarctic, “Strict Flow Regulated”mega hydroelectric generation pIants constructed from the 1950s to the 1980’s impounded many of the major rivers. The Subarctic is home to the largest amount of freshwater on the planet. Waters from many rivers once flowing 24 -7 are now impounded ,creating sea-sized basins, reducing water flow in summer to a fraction. Historically this region has been cold and dry, but rivers, now reservoir-like, are stagnant all summer, irradiated, and causing high levels
of evaporation and humidity . They are also inundating and melting permafrost.
Hypoliminal Dam Releases All Winter Guarantee Huge Unlimited Water Vapor Emissions
Water stored all summer is discharged throughout winter from well below the top of dams where water temperature is around 40 F. It flows down the penstock thru the turbines and exits downstream into severe cold conditions. This very cold air and warmed water creates limitless quantities of water vapor 24-7 during the coldest months. For the past 70 years the downstream waters no longer freeze during winter and make their way to the bays and seas into the Arctic Ocean. Insuring less ice, more water vapor, and a warmer regional climate.
What effects did this have on the sensitive conditions in this region? I'd like to see a scientist step up here and tell me that there were no effects on the localized climates, And to this day it is still happening. Another point that is often not considered. Many of these former rivers now sea-size basins took 5 to 12 years to fill. When hydro is generated in winter months the waters released thru turbines and downstream heading into the Arctic bays and seas like the kara and Labrador Sea are at volumes 5 to 15 X greater than the rivers natural flow for an entire year. This high volume of fresh water is released into the ocean estuaries only in 5 to 6 months. What effects does this impact Arctic ocean salinity and ocean currents?
Is there any relation to the ocean energy absorption rate...
Ultimately, the issue is, how much (if any) does the new data change the estimate of the optimum tax on net CO2 emissions. I internet Andrew to be saying not much if at all. I assume that it does make zero a less likely estimate than it was even before.
Not an April Fool's joke I hope?