Related links: No GOTION Act
via JunkScience.com
September 5, 2024 at 04:03AM
Month: September 2024
Earth’s eccentricity is known to vary over long period cycles (see figure 3.4.1. here), but is currently near the lower end of its scale. In a recent (July 2024) short opinion article, Chiang and Broccoli argue for ‘the important role that orbital eccentricity can play in seasonality’. They also highlight the concept of ‘eccentriseasons’, which Beaufort and Sarr define as “seasons occurring at low latitude in response to the cycles of the Earth-Sun distance”. Quoting from the opinion piece:
We argue that Earth’s orbital eccentricity should be given due consideration as an annual cycle forcing in its own right in studies of Earth’s seasonal cycle.
There are two sources of seasonality arising from Earth’s orbit around the Sun.
Earth’s axial tilt (hereafter the tilt effect) produces a seasonal cycle of insolation at a given latitude because of the angle that the surface makes to the sun’s incoming rays.
Earth’s orbital eccentricity (distance effect) provides an annual variation in the solar flux because of the varying distance between the Earth and Sun.
In practice, it is assumed that the tilt effect dominates the Earth’s seasons.
Earth Science textbooks note that the distance effect is negligible since Earth’s orbital eccentricity is relatively small (e ~ 0.0167, meaning that the Earth-Sun distance at aphelion is ~1.67% longer than the mean) and the solar flux changes only by ~7% between aphelion and perihelion.
This assumption extends to the research literature on the seasonal cycle, where the relative roles of tilt versus distance is rarely addressed except in a handful of studies [1–3].
As a result, there is a curious gap in our understanding of how Earth’s seasonal climate responds to orbital eccentricity.
However, orbital eccentricity produces seasonal radiative changes that are comparable in magnitude to transient climate forcings commonly considered in climate studies.
The decrease in insolation absorbed by the Earth at aphelion (relative to the annual mean) is ~8 W/m2. This can be compared to the peak radiative forcing resulting from shorter-lived volcanic eruptions like Pinatubo (-3.2W/m2) [4] resulting from increased reflection by aerosols.
Moreover, while the annual cycle of insolation is dominated by tilt at most latitudes (Fig 1A and 1B), near the equator the annual cycle of insolation is dominated by the distance effect (though the tilt effect does produce a large semiannual cycle) (Fig 1C).
For atmospheric circulation and related climate quantities, their seasonal cycle can depend on nonlocal insolation; if we were to use the globally-averaged insolation as a measure, its annual cycle comes entirely from the distance effect (Fig 1D).
. . .
Our argument has profound implications for the concept of seasonality. Seasonality refers to periodic and generally predictable behavior over the course of a calendar year.
However, the superposition of the tilt and distance effects (assuming the two amplitudes are comparable) can lead to a wholesale change in the seasonality of a region over precessional timescales, since the year defined by the distance effect (the Anomalistic year, from perihelion to perihelion) is slightly longer (by ~25 minutes currently) than the year defined by the tilt effect (the Tropical year, from solstice to solstice) [2].
Beaufort and Sarr [link below] found a gradual and consistent transition in the seasonality of tropical ocean surface temperature with the timing of perihelion in simulations with high orbital eccentricity (e~ 0.054), evidencing the important role that orbital eccentricity can play in seasonality (Beaufort and Sarr goes on to propose the concept of ‘eccentriseasons’ which they define as “seasons occurring at low latitude in response to the cycles of the Earth-Sun distance”).
These effects are not just limited to the deep tropics: Chiang and Broccoli [8] showed that the distance effect can account for an appreciable fraction of the annual cycle for features as poleward as the southern hemisphere westerlies.
Our hypothesis also has implications for paleoclimate.
Full article here.
– – –
Related – Eccentricity forcing on tropical ocean seasonality – Luc Beaufort and Anta-Clarisse Sarr (June 2024):
‘We introduce the concept of “eccentriseasons”, referring to distinct annual thermal differences observed in tropical oceans under high-eccentricity conditions, which shift gradually throughout the calendar year. These findings have implications for understanding low-latitude climate phenomena such as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and monsoons in the past.’
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
September 5, 2024 at 04:02AM
By Paul Homewood
The Met Office long ago ceased to be a serious scientific organisation. Here’s more evidence:
As part of our August climate theme of climate anxiety, Emma Lawrance, Neil Jennings and Jessica Newberry Le Vay from Imperial College London have written this guest post on concerns around the psychological impact of working in climate science fields and on others in society alarmed by climate change.
“Climate change can directly affect the emotional well-being of Earth [climate] scientists and professionals. Like the physical processes of climate change, the emotional effects are complex and multifaceted.”1
The unfolding climate crisis necessitates a rapid transformation of our societies. In practice, this means every career should be a ‘climate career,’ with calls in the UK for climate education to appropriately prepare children for a changing world2. It also means that the climate crisis should be the biggest on-going news story around.
Climate scientists have made it their life’s work to understand and predict what rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere mean for the climate, and what impact it will have on people and the natural world on which societies depend. They are increasingly sounding the alarm that action on climate change is not happening fast enough, while witnessing the spread of misinformation, which can sow doubt and delay meaningful action.
At the Climate Cares Centre at Imperial College London, we hear from climate experts on the psychological toll of this work and what it can mean for their mental health. What it takes to be faced with the facts of the crisis day after day. To see the gap between the need and pace of action. And to feel the backlash from talking about the result of carbon pollution publicly3 – from media commentators, social media trolls, and sometimes in their own personal relationships. Scientists speak of stress, anxiety, depression and burnout, all while facing a perceived need to separate their emotions from their work as a scientist.
Widespread impacts on mental health
While climate scientists may be particularly vulnerable to the psychological toll of climate awareness, the mental health consequences of the climate crisis are widespread. As well as the range of emotions and distress that climate awareness can understandably engender, the escalating consequences of a warming world – such as extreme weather, food and water insecurity, violence, forced migration – are leading to new cases of mental health challenges and worsening existing ones (such as post-traumatic stress, depression and suicide risk). Conversely, but vitally, climate actions can have win-wins for mental health, such as from cleaner air, greener cities, better housing, more equal societies, heathier ways to eat and move around, and stronger social bonds and communities.
However, the negative consequences of climate change on mental health and wellbeing can reduce the capacity of individuals, communities and systems to be able to take climate action and achieve the necessary transformation of societies. We hear of students turning away from studying climate- and environment-related subjects or leaving climate-related careers because of a lack of support to manage the emotional and mental health impact. While there is a relative paucity of research on the topic, burnout and overwhelm among climate researchers and policymakers may hold back action and put the necessary goal of every career being a climate career at risk.
Most people around the world care about climate change, more than they think others do, and want appropriate climate action from their leaders6 7. It is vital for those with the knowledge – in science, media and policy – to raise the alarm and highlight the urgent need for action. But different narratives can lead to different responses. At opposite ends of the scale, techno-optimism and fatalism/doomerism8 are narratives that lead to present-day inaction. Both fail to acknowledge the uncertainties, nuances and complexities of the present and future, and how these make it both essential and valuable for us to act faster now. Scientists must walk a tightrope of sounding the alarm, communicating the paths to different possible futures, and helping people hold the uncertainties in ways that still catalyse action. There is much to grieve and be angry about, and much to protect and work towards – a future where the climate crisis creates a reckoning of what we really value, fight for and want to have in abundance9.
https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2024/08/27/when-sounding-the-alarm-feels-too-alarming/
The article continues with a load more self-indulged waffle, which will probably send you to sleep if you bother to read it.
But why is the Met Office giving airtime to such transparently politically biased nonsense?
Maybe they should invite someone else to write an article offering a rather saner view.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
September 5, 2024 at 03:46AM
Germany’s fixation on subsidised wind and solar gave rise to the destruction of its once enviable nuclear power generation capacity.
The so-called wind and solar transition aka the ‘Energiewende’ has been an unmitigated disaster, with perfectly avoidable and perfectly predictable power rationing and crushing power prices driving German manufacturing industries and businesses to the wall.
Having killed off reliable nuclear power, Germans are literally scrambling for electricity; drawing coal-fired power from Poland and nuclear power from France every time they suffer a burst of calm, cloudy weather – or ‘dunkelflaute’.
Those fretting about where their power might come from and carbon dioxide gas have coalesced around the concept of restoring Germany’s nuclear power generation capacity.
STT support nuclear power simply because it works. That it wedges climate zealots in the bargain, is simply an added feature.
Ross Poimeroy makes the point below that if Germany wants Co2 emissions free power, around-the-clock, whatever the weather there really is only one solution: nuclear power.
Now many of our followers will take issue with Ross – who claims that carbon dioxide gas is “pollution”. Evidently Ross must have skipped his high school science lesson on photosynthesis and how essential CO2 is to every living thing on this planet.
But, that aside, his criticism of the destruction of Germany’s nuclear power generation fleet is entirely justified.
Germany’s Disastrous Switch Away From Nuclear Power
Real Clear Science
Ross Poimeroy
27 August 2024
At the dawn of the millennium, Germany launched an ambitious plan to transition to renewable energy. “Die Energiewende” initiated a massive expansion of solar and wind power, resulting in a commendable 25 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2022 compared to 2002.
But while Energiewende slashed pollution through building out renewable energy sources, it also phased out Germany’s fleet of safe, carbon-free nuclear power plants, a longtime goal of environmental activists afraid of nuclear’s salient – but in actuality small – dangers. The result, according to a new analysis recently published to the International Journal of Sustainable Energy, has been a boondoggle for consumers and for the environment.
In 2002, nuclear power supplied about a fifth of Germany’s electricity. Twenty-one years later, it supplied none. A layperson might think that cheap wind and solar could simply fill the gap, but it isn’t so simple. Once up and running, nuclear reactors provide reliable, affordable “baseload” power – electricity that’s available all the time. Ephemeral renewables simply can’t match nuclear’s consistency. And since an advanced economy like Germany’s requires a 100 percent reliable power grid, fossil fuel power plants burning coal and natural gas were brought online to pick up wind and solar’s slack.
The net result of German politicians’ shortsightedness in phasing out nuclear power is a vastly pricier grid. The new analysis shows that if Germans simply maintained their 2002 fleet of reactors through 2022, they could have saved themselves roughly $600 billion Euros. Why so much? Well, in addition to their construction costs, renewables required expensive grid upgrades and subsidies. Moreover, in this hypothetical scenario where nuclear remained, Germany enjoyed nearly identical reductions in carbon emissions.
Jan Emblemsvåg, a Professor of Civil Engineering at Norway’s NTNU and the architect of the analysis, imagined another scenario out of curiosity. What if the Germans had taken the money spent on expanding renewables and instead used it to construct new nuclear capacity? According to his calculations, they could have slashed carbon emissions a further 73% on top of their cuts in 2022, while simultaneously enjoying a savings of 330 billion Euros compared to the massive costs of Energiewende.
Policymakers in other countries looking to decarbonize their grids should take note.
Real Clear Science
via STOP THESE THINGS
September 5, 2024 at 02:30AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 