Energy graphs

September 21, 2018

BP_Primary_Energy

Fossil Fuel World

Primary Energy

Screenshot_20180919-210339

Screenshot_20180919-210330

Advertisements

CO2 Graphs

September 20, 2018

Cenozoic_CO2Cenozoic_CO2_legphan_co2geoco26

D’oh!

September 18, 2018

lawmob1

Figure 7. Temperature reconstruction (Moberg et al., 2005) and Law Dome CO2 (MacFarling Meure et al., 2006)

Neoglaciation

August 26, 2018

Most alpine and valley glaciers formed after the Holocene Climatic Optimum and generally advanced until the early to mid 1800’s. This period is known as Neoglaciation. Since the end of Neoglaciation most alpine and valley glaciers have been retreating. Neoglaciation ended long-before CO2 levels had risen much above 280 ppm.

 

2007_Ice-borne_prehistoric_finds_in_the

Around 1850, during the warm up from the Little Ice Age, temperatures had risen to the point that most alpine and valley glaciers began to retreat.

History of Glaciers in Glacier National Park

The history of glaciation within current Glacier National Park boundaries spans centuries of glacial growth and recession, carving the features we see today. Glaciers were present within current Glacier National Park boundaries as early as 7,000 years ago but may have survived an early Holocene warm period (Carrara, 1989), making them much older. These modest glaciers varied in size, tracking climatic changes, but did not grow to their Holocene maximum size until the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA) around A.D. 1850. While they may not have formed in their entirety during the LIA, their maximum perimeters can be documented through mapping of lateral and terminal moraines. (Key, 2002) The extent and mass of these glaciers, as well as glaciers around the globe, has clearly decreased during the 20th century in response to warmer temperatures.

Climate reconstructions representative of the Glacier National Park region extend back multiple centuries and show numerous long-duration drought and wet periods that influenced the mass balance of glaciers (Pederson et al. 2004). Of particular note was an 80-year period (~1770-1840) of cool, wet summers and above-average winter snowfall that led to a rapid growth of glaciers just prior to the end of the LIA. Thus, in the context of the entire Holocene, the size of glaciers at the end of the LIA was an anomaly of sorts. In fact, the large extent of ice coverage removed most of the evidence of earlier glacier positions by overriding terminal and lateral moraines.

[…]

https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/history-glaciers-glacier-national-park?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects

During relative periods of warming the retreat has accelerated, during relative periods of cooling the retreat has decelerated. There’s no special explanation required.

Glaciers were generally advancing from the end of the Holocene Climatic Optimum (5 kya) through the Little Ice Age, a period known as Neoglaciation.

Screenshot_20180826-120129

GEO518_Panel01_Oerlemans_2005
http://dusk2.geo.orst.edu/prosem/GEO518_Panel01_Oerlemans_2005.pdf
If glaciers hadn’t started to generally begin retreating in the 1700’s to 1800’s…

fig2_2016

https://wgms.ch/latest-glacier-mass-balance-data/

 

Oerlemans01

HadCRUT vs RCP4.5

August 24, 2018
Models and observations

HadCRUT4 shifted to 1970-2000 baseline.

Models-and-observations-annual-1970-2000-baseline-simple-1850-1024x939

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-climate-models-have-not-exaggerated-global-warming

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:12

Billy Madison

July 27, 2018

Helium

July 1, 2018

https://geology.com/articles/helium/

Where Does Helium Come From?

Very little helium is present in Earth’s atmosphere. It is such a light element that Earth’s gravity cannot hold it. When present at Earth’s surface, unconfined helium immediately begins rising until it escapes the planet. That’s why party balloons rise!

The helium that is produced commercially is obtained from the ground. Some natural gas fields have enough helium mingled with the gas that it can be extracted at an economical cost. A few fields in the United States contain over 7% helium by volume. Companies that drill for natural gas in these areas produce the natural gas, process it and remove the helium as a byproduct.

Why is Helium in Some Natural Gas?

Most of the helium that is removed from natural gas is thought to form from radioactive decay of uranium and thorium in granitoid rocks of Earth’s continental crust. As a very light gas, it is buoyant and seeks to move upward as soon as it forms. The richest helium accumulations are found where three conditions exist: 1) granitoid basement rocks are rich in uranium and thorium; 2) the basement rocks are fractured and faulted to provide escape paths for the helium; and, 3) porous sedimentary rocks above the basement faults are capped by an impermeable seal of halite or anhydrite. [1] When all three of these conditions are met, helium might accumulate in the porous sedimentary rock layer.

Helium has the smallest atomic radius of any element, about 0.2 nanometers. So, when it forms and starts moving upward, it can fit through very small pore spaces within the rocks. Halite and anhydrite are the only sedimentary rocks that can block the upward migration of helium atoms. Shales that have their pore spaces plugged with abundant organic materials (kerogen) sometimes serve as a less effective barrier.

helium-deposit-model

Helium-bearing natural gas deposits: Deposit model for helium-bearing natural gas fields in the United States. Helium is produced by the decay of uranium and thorium in granitoid basement rocks. The liberated helium is buoyant and moves toward the surface in porosity associated with basement faults. The helium then moves upward through porous sedimentary cover until it is trapped with natural gas under beds of anhydrite or salt. These are the only laterally-persistent rock types that are able to trap and contain the tiny, buoyant helium atoms. This geological situation only occurs at a few locations in the world and is why rich helium accumulations are rare.

Where is Natural Gas Rich in Helium?

Most unprocessed natural gas contains at least trace amounts of helium. Very few natural gas fields contain enough to justify a helium recovery process. A natural gas source must contain at least 0.3% helium to be considered as a potential helium source.

World Helium Resources
Country Billion Cubic Meters
United States 20.6
Qatar 10.1
Algeria 8.2
Russia 6.8
Canada 2.0
China 1.1
The values above are estimated helium resources from USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries. [3]

In 2010, all of the natural gas processed for helium in the United States came from fields in Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming as shown on the accompanying map. The Hugoton Field in Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas; the Panoma Field in Kansas; the Keyes Field in Oklahoma; the Panhandle West and Cliffside Fields in Texas, and the Riley Ridge Field in Wyoming account for most of the helium production in the United States. [2]

During 2010, the United States produced 128 million cubic meters of helium. Of that amount, 53 million cubic meters of helium were extracted from natural gas, and 75 million cubic meters were withdrawn from the National Helium Reserve. Other countries with known production amounts were: Algeria (18 mcm), Qatar (13 mcm), Russia (6 mcm), and Poland (3 mcm). Canada and China produced small but unreported amounts of helium. [3]

helium-map

Helium-bearing natural gas deposits: Map showing the natural gas fields that serve as important sources of helium in the United States. The natural gas produced from these fields contains between 0.3% to over 7% helium. The helium is removed from the gas for commercial sale. Image by Geology.com using location data from the United States Geological Survey. [2]

Vox: “Electric vehicles are gaining momentum, despite Trump”… Because S-curve!

June 28, 2018

Guest post by David Middleton

From the never-ending font of infotainment, David Roberts of Vox…

Electric vehicles are gaining momentum, despite Trump

Policymakers and analysts are digging into the details of how to get more EVs on the road.

By David Roberts Jun 28, 2018

The transportation sector today emits more carbon than any other sector of the US economy. And it is shaping up to be the next big battle in the long fight to decarbonize.

On one side of that battle: the Trump administration, a few US automakers, and Koch Industries, who would like to stymie or at least delay the electrification of vehicles and continue the use of fossil fuels.

On the other side: California, a coalition of like-minded states, most automakers, a growing roster of utilities, and climate hawks. All of them are eager to accelerate the shift to electric vehicles (EVs), so that the sector can be run on increasingly clean grid power.

Lately, the Trumpian side has had the upper hand. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has signaled that he wants to freeze fuel-economy standards at 2020 levels, while Koch-funded groups are fighting EV incentives and blocking public-transit projects around the country. And low oil prices have kept gas prices down, which means American consumers are once again opting for SUVs and trucks. Cars are practically disappearing from the market; Ford plans to stop selling almost all its cars by 2020.

bloomberg_suvs (1)

But underneath the surface, there is a frenzy of activity on the other side. It’s not just that states are pushing back and beginning to set their own stringent goals (like California’s, to put 5 million EVs on the street by 2030). It’s also that a broader coalition is taking on the real nuts and bolts of electrifying the US fleet, working out the details and best practices that will be necessary to put ambitious plans into motion.

[…]

Vox

Are EV’s gaining momentum?  Or does Mr. Roberts assume they are gaining momentum because the Peoples Republic of California is gaining momentum in setting goals?  Or, do futurists simply have difficulty conjugating verbs?

Mr. Roberts included a nice Bloomberg chart of SUV’s overtaking boring old cars in US sales.  If the article is about EV’s gaining momentum on the “front end of a steeply rising S-curve”… Why not plot a graph of EV’s gaining momentum relative to SUV’s… or at least gaining momentum relative to the cars that “are practically disappearing from the market”?  Well, the short answer is that EV’s fall about 190,000 monthly units below the bottom of the Bloomberg chart.

Mr. Roberts…

Mr. Data just can’t stop laughing at you.

However, Mr. Roberts does have a point: EV sales are what they are, despite Trump.

Regarding “gaining momentum”…

Definition of gather/gain momentum
: to move faster * The wagon gathered/gained momentum as it rolled down the hill.

Merriam-Webster

I don’t think so…

EVSales

Linear ≠ Gaining Momentum

Oh… Wait a second, Mr. Roberts also wrote this:

We are on the front end of a steeply rising S-curve, a rate of change not seen in the US transportation sector for decades. The temporary triumphs of the luddites in power should not obscure the fact that the work of making those forecasts real is beginning in earnest.

Are EV’s on the front end of an S-curve?  Or are they on the steeply rising bit of an S-curve?

An S-curve is a logistic function.  If EV sales are “gaining momentum,” they are somewhere between 10% and 50% of their ultimate market penetration.

Peak_EVs

An S-curve is a logistic function. The peak rate of growth occurs when half of the total is achieved. Peak Oil (AKA the Hubbert equation) is also a logistic function.

If EV sales are following an S-curve and are on the cusp of the “gaining momentum” bit, they have already achieved about 10% of their ultimate market penetration.  With a current market share of 1%, EV sales will max out at about 10% of US auto sales and peak EV sales growth will occur at about 5% market penetration.

Tony Stark Elon Musk and other futurists often claim that EV sales will follow an S-curve.  This leads to the question, “Do they know that an S-curve is a logistic function?”  I’m fairly certain that Tony Stark Elon Musk is aware of this… David Roberts of Vox, on the other hand…

 

 

So… Is the “S-curve” meme just a green propaganda tool to explain away the glacially slow pace of EV sales growth?   Or do the S-curve aficionados not understand what a logistic function is?

Here’s the really funny bit:  The longer EV sales plod along at a slow, linear rate of growth, the deeper the ultimate market share will be… if they are truly following an S-curve.

The Single Biggest Problem With the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis: Uniformitarian Impact Craters, Part Cinq

June 28, 2018

Guest commentary by David Middleton

  • YDIH = Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis
  • YDB = Younger Dryas Boundary

Last month I shot a big hole in the latest YDIH paper.  This Science News article shoots another big hole in it.  The irony is that both of these particular holes were preexisting conditions: The contradictory data were either unknown to or ignored by the YDIH proponents.

Why won’t this debate about an ancient cold snap die?

Despite mainstream opposition, a controversial comet impact hypothesis persists

BY CAROLYN GRAMLING 2:00PM, JUNE 26, 2018

[…]

Geologists call this blip of frigid conditions the Younger Dryas, and its cause is a mystery. Most researchers suspect that a large pulse of freshwater from a melting ice sheet and glacial lakes flooded into the ocean, briefly interfering with Earth’s heat-transporting ocean currents. However, geologists have not yet found firm evidence of how and where this happened, such as traces of the path that this ancient flood traveled to reach the sea (SN: 12/29/12, p. 11).

But for more than a decade, one group of researchers has stirred up controversy by suggesting a cosmic cause for the sudden deep freeze. About 12,800 years ago, these researchers say, a comet — or perhaps its remnants — hit or exploded over the Laurentide Ice Sheet that once covered much of North America (SN: 6/2/07, p. 339).

[…]

The latest salvo came in March, when West and more than two dozen researchers published a pair of papers in the Journal of Geology. The papers include data from ice cores as well as sediment cores from land and sea. The cores contain signatures of giant wildfires that support the idea of a widespread burning event about 12,800 years ago, West says.

[…]

The March papers focus mainly on the wildfires, a long-standing aspect of the original hypothesis. Greenland ice cores show peaks in ammonium dating to the onset of the Younger Dryas, which the researchers say, suggests large-scale biomass burning. These data were previously presented in 2010 by astrophysicist Adrian Melott of the University of Kansas in Lawrence and colleagues. They suggested that the ammonium ions in those ice cores could be best explained by an extraterrestrial impact. A similar spike dating to 1908 — the year of the airburst over Siberia — had also been found in those same cores. The papers also describe finding peaks in charcoal that date to the start of the cold snap.

“The big thing here is a careful comparison of [many possible impact markers], normalized to the same dating method,” says Melott, one of the authors on the new impact papers. Those markers, including previously described evidence of microspherules, iridium and platinum dust, are consistent with having been caused by the same event, he says.

However, Jennifer Marlon, a paleoecologist and paleoclimatologist at Yale University and an expert on biomass burning, has taken her own look at sediments in North America dated to between 15,000 and 10,000 years ago. She sees no evidence for continent-wide fires dating specifically to the onset of the Younger Dryas.

“I’ve studied charcoal records for many years now,” Marlon says. In 2009, she and colleagues reported data on charcoal and pollen in lake sediments across North America. Importantly, the sediment records in her study encompassed not only the years of the Younger Dryas cold episode, but also a few thousand years before and after.

Her team found multiple small peaks of wildfires, but none of them were near the beginning of the Younger Dryas. “Forests burn in North America all the time,” she says. “You can’t find a cubic centimeter of sediment in any lake on this continent that doesn’t have charcoal in it.”

070718_cg_dryas_inline_6_graph_730

Missing peak: Charcoal records from 15 lake sediment cores from across North America show how often fires occurred at each site over 5,000 years. The records show no peak in burning about 12,800 years ago, as would be expected if there were continent-scale fires.

Such fires could be triggered by rapid climate change, when ecosystems are quickly reorganizing and more dead fuel might be available. “That can cause major vegetation changes and fires,” Marlon says. “We don’t need to invoke a comet.”

The problem with the data in the recent papers, Marlon says, is that the researchers look only at a narrow time period, making it difficult to evaluate how large or unusual the signals really were. From her data, there appeared to have been more burning toward the end of the Younger Dryas, when the planet began to warm abruptly again.

“That speaks to my fundamental problem with the biomass burning part of the papers,” Marlon says. “I don’t understand why they’re zooming in. It’s what makes me skeptical.”

Holliday echoes that criticism. “Most of the time they sample only around this time interval,” he says. What would be more convincing, he says, are data from cores that span 15,000 to 20,000 years, sampled every five centimeters or so. “If this is a unique event, then we shouldn’t see anything like it in the last 15,000 years.”

West says that other peaks are irrelevant, because the impact hypothesis doesn’t imply that there was only one wildfire, just that one occurred around 12,800 years ago. He adds that the new papers suggest that Marlon and her colleagues didn’t correctly calibrate the radiocarbon dates for their samples. When done correctly, he says, one spike in fires that Marlon estimated at around 13,200 years ago actually occurred several hundred years later — right around 12,800 years ago.

[…]

Science News

Why won’t the YDIH debate die?  Mostly because its fun and also because its proponents tunnel-vision on the YDB and ignore any observations that are inconsistent with the YDIH.

While the YDIH has a lot of problems, this is the biggest…

West says that other peaks are irrelevant, because the impact hypothesis doesn’t imply that there was only one wildfire, just that one occurred around 12,800 years ago. He adds that the new papers suggest that Marlon and her colleagues didn’t correctly calibrate the radiocarbon dates for their samples. When done correctly, he says, one spike in fires that Marlon estimated at around 13,200 years ago actually occurred several hundred years later — right around 12,800 years ago.

This is analogous to the biggest problem with AGW: There is no genuine anomaly to explain.

The Medieval Warm Period, Holocene Climatic Optimum and Eemian are said to be irrelevant because past warming not driven by CO2 has no relevance to recent warming which surely must be driven by CO2.  Recent warming is simply not anomalous.

 Temperature reconstruction (Ljungqvist, 2010), northern hemisphere instrumental temperature (HadCRUT4) and Law Dome CO2 (MacFarling Meure et al., 2006). Temperatures are 30-yr averages to reflect changing climatology.  The Good, the Bad and the Null Hypothesis.

Over the past 2,000 years, the average temperature of the Northern Hemisphere has exceeded natural variability (defined as two standard deviations (2σ) from the pre-1865 mean) three times: 1) the peak of the Medieval Warm Period 2) the nadir of the Little Ice Age and 3) since 1998.  Human activities clearly were not the cause of the first two deviations.  70% of the warming since the early 1600’s clearly falls within the range of natural variability.

While it is possible that the current warm period is about 0.2 °C warmer than the peak of the Medieval Warm Period, this could be due to the differing resolutions of the proxy reconstruction and instrumental data.

There is no wildfire anomaly associated with the YDB.  Even if you shift the dates, there’s no anomaly.  Because none of the peaks are anomalous.  An anomaly is a deviation from the norm.  If the norm is a fluctuation between wildfire frequencies of  0.0002 and 0.0003 peaks/site/year, a peak of 0.0003 peaks/site/year is not an anomaly, even it it was exactly at the YDB.  A YDB wildfire anomaly would significantly exceed (>2σ) the normal peak amplitude.

Note: The does not mean that it is incorrect to refer to HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH or RSS as temperature anomalies.  The “norm” in these time series is an average temperature over a reference period.

A lot of the evidence for the YDIH has been very interesting.  Some of it has even been compelling.  However a lot of it has been poorly documented, unrepeatable, found to lack uniqueness and seriously unscientific (Carolina Bays… Argh).

 

No. The Miocene is not an example of the “last time it was as warm as it’s going to get later this century”… Argh!

June 19, 2018

Guest ridicule by David Middleton

From ARS Technica, one of the most incoherent things I’ve ever read…

WAIT, THERE IS HOPE! —

What happened last time it was as warm as it’s going to get later this century?

Kids today will be grandparents when most climate projections end—does the past have more hints?

HOWARD LEE – 6/18/2018

The year 2100 stands like a line of checkered flags at the climate change finish line, as if all our goals expire then. But like the warning etched on a car mirror: it’s closer than it appears. Kids born today will be grandparents when most climate projections end.

And yet, the climate won’t stop changing in 2100. Even if we succeed in limiting warming this century to 2ºC, we’ll have CO2 at around 500 parts per million. That’s a level not seen on this planet since the Middle Miocene, 16 million years ago, when our ancestors were apes. Temperatures then were about 5 to 8ºC warmer not 2º, and sea levels were some 40 meters (130 feet) or more higher, not the 1.5 feet (half a meter) anticipated at the end of this century by the 2013 IPCC report.

Why is there a yawning gap between end-century projections and what happened in Earth’s past? Are past climates telling us we’re missing something?

[…]

Can the Miocene tell our future?

The Mid-Miocene Climate Optimum (MMCO) was an ancient global warming episode when CO2 levels surged from less than 400ppm to around 500ppm.

[…]

ARS Technica

The shocking thing is that Howard Lee has a degree in geology.  The fact that he makes his living as an “Earth Science writer” and not as a geologist might just be relevant.

Can the Miocene tell our future?  I’ll let Bubba’s mom answer that question:

The fact that atmospheric CO2 levels may have surged from 400 to 500 ppm during the Middle Miocene Climatic Optimum is completely and totally fracking irrelevant in the Quaternary Period.

While the configuration of the continents was superficially similar to the modern world, there were substantial differences.

Middle Miocene paleogeography (Scotese, Paelomap)

Estimates of MMCO atmospheric CO2 levels range from less than 200 to about 500 ppm…

Neogene CO2

Neogene-Quaternary atmospheric CO2 levels.

Modern atmospheric CO2 levels are already within the MMCO range, but temperatures are MUCH, MUCH cooler than they were during the Miocene.

Neogene T

High Latitude SST (°C) From Benthic Foram δ18O (Zachos, et al., 2001) and HadSST3 ( Hadley Centre / UEA CRU via http://www.woodfortrees.org) plotted at same scale, tied at 1950 AD.

Oceanic and atmospheric circulation patterns were totally different in the Miocene.  Atmospheric CO2 levels are not the reason the Miocene was warmer than the Pliocene and Quaternary.

Tectonics and paleoclimate

The Miocene saw a change in global circulation patterns due to slight position changes of the continents and globally warmer climates. Conditions on each continent changed somewhat because of these positional changes, however it was an overall increase in aridity through mountain-building that favored the expansion of grasslands. Because the positions of continents in the Miocene world were similar to where they lie today, it is easiest to describe the plate movements and resulting changes in the paleoclimate by discussing individual continents.

In North America, the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Mountain ranges formed, causing a non-seasonal and drier mid-continent climate. The increasing occurrences of drought and an overall decrease in absolute rainfall promoted drier climates. Additionally, grasslands began to spread, and this led to an evolutionary radiation of open-habitat herbivores and carnivores. The first of the major periods of immigration via the Bering land connection between Siberia and Alaska occurred in the middle of the Miocene, and by the end of the Miocene the Panama isthmus had begun to form between Central and South America.

Plate tectonics also contributed to the rise of the Andes Mountains in South America, which led to the formation of a rain shadow effect in the southeastern part of the continent. The movement of the plates also facilitated trends favoring non-desert and highland environments.

In Australia, the climate saw an overall increase in aridity as the continent continued to drift northwards, though it went through many wet and dry periods. The number of rainforests began to decrease and were replaced by dry forests and woodlands. The vegetation began to shift from closed broad-leaved forests to more open, drier forests as well as grasslands and deserts.

Eurasia also experienced increasing aridification during the Miocene. Extensive steppe vegetation began to appear, and the grasses became abundant. In southern Asia, grasslands expanded, generating a greater diversity of habitats. However, southern Asia was not the only area to experience an increase in habitat variability. Southern Europe also saw an increase in grasslands, but maintained its moist forests. Although most of Eurasia experienced increasing aridity, some places did not. The climate in some Eurasian regions, such as Syria and Iran, remained wet and cool.

During the Miocene, Eurasia underwent some significant tectonic rearrangements. The Tethys Sea connection between the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean was severed in the mid-Miocene causing an increase in aridity in southern Europe (see next paragraph for more on this). The Paratethys barrier, which isolated western Europe from the exchange of flora and fauna, was periodically disrupted, allowing for the migration of animals. Additionally, faunal routes with Africa were well established and occasional land bridges were created.

Africa also encountered some tectonic movement, including rifting in East Africa and the union of the African-Arabian plate with Eurasia. Associated with this rifting, a major uplift in East Africa created a rain shadow effect between the wet Central-West Africa and dry East Africa. The union of the continents of Africa and Eurasia caused interruption and contraction of the Tethys Sea, thereby depleting the primary source of atmospheric moisture in that area. Thus rainfall was significantly reduced, as were the moderating effects of sea temperature on the neighboring land climates. However, this union enabled more vigorous exchanges of flora and fauna between Africa and Eurasia.

Antarctica became isolated from the other continents in the Miocene, leading to the formation of a circumpolar ocean circulation. Global ocean and atmospheric circulation were also affected by the formation of this circumpolar circulation pattern, as it restricted north-south circulation flows. This reduced the mixing of warm, tropical ocean water and cold, polar water causing the buildup of the Antarctic polar ice cap. This enhanced global cooling and accelerated the development of global seasonality and aridity.

UCMP Berkeley

Notice anything missing from the UCMP Berkeley discussion of the Miocene paleoclimate?

We’ve already experienced nearly 1 ºC of warming since pre-industrial time.  Another 0.5 to 1.0 ºC between now and the end of the century doesn’t even put us into Eemian climate territory, much less the Miocene.

Back to the ARS Technica nonsense…

130 feet of sea level rise

Between a third and three-quarters of Antarctic ice melted. Land liberated by retreating ice sprouted tundra and forests of beech and conifers, which can’t have happened unless Antarctic summers were warmer than 10ºC (50ºF—much warmer than the -5ºC/23ºF it is today). It’s not clear what Greenland was up to, but there may have been a small ice sheet in Northern Greenland that melted substantially.

Consequently, sea levels rose by a whopping 40 meters or so (~130 feet). To put that in perspective, Mid-Miocene-like sea levels today would draw a new US Atlantic coast roughly along Interstate 95 through Philadelphia, Baltimore, Richmond and Fayetteville, North Carolina, inundating the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut metro area, Boston, most of Florida, and the coastal Gulf of Mexico. Similar things would happen across densely populated lowland areas around the globe, home to a quarter of the world’s people.

Forty meters is just a bit more than the latest projections for modern sea level rise of 1-3 feet by 2100, and 4.5 to 5.25 feet (1.4-1.6 meters—home to about 5 percent of the world’s population) by 2300, assuming we stabilize warming to around 2ºC. The difference is, once again, partly explained by time. According to the 2017 US National Climate Assessment, 2ºC of warming would commit us to a loss of three-fifths of Greenland’s ice and one third of Antarctic ice, resulting in 25m (80ft) of sea level rise—but occurring over 10,000 years.

Even so, the Miocene hints that modern sea level rise could be larger and more rapid.

[…]

ARS Technica

2 ºC of warming would commit us to a loss of three-fifths of Greenland’s ice and one third of Antarctic ice, resulting in 25m (80ft) of sea level rise—but occurring over 10,000 years.

The East Antarctic ice sheet, 86% of Antarctica’s ice, hasn’t substantially melted in 8 million years.

Pages from pp1386a-2-web-23

Table 3 from USGS Professional Paper 1386-A-2.. 65 out of 80 potential meters of ice-related potential sea-level rise resides in the East Antarctic Ice Sheet. The Statue of Liberty has been saved!

You can’t get there from here!

Zachosetal2001_Cenozoic d18O_4

The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is stable below and probably a little above the dashed red line. Zachos temperature calculation on the right vertical axis is only for an ice-free ocean. The left vertical axis uses a conversion suitable for the Quaternary; however, the baseline is probably wrong.  SST’s shouldn’t be negative.  However, the relative change should be reasonably accurate.

The Greenland Ice Sheet didn’t even shrink by 3/5’s during the Eemian, when the Arctic was more than 5 ºC warmer than it is today.

The Greenland Ice Sheet only shrank by 1/3 relative to today during the much warmer Eemian interglacial.  X-axis is in calendar years AD(BC). A Geological Perspective of the Greenland Ice Sheet.

“Even so, the Miocene hints that modern sea level rise could be larger and more rapid.”

To paraphrase the judge in the Donny Berger case in That’s My Boy… “That  is just fracking mental.”  But she didn’t say “fracking.”

SL4_zps22bee1aa

Projected sea level rise through 2100 AD.

It really takes a special kind of stupid to base a wacked out climate catastrophe fantasy on the 400-500 ppm rise in atmospheric CO2 during of the Middle Miocene Climatic Optimum.

References

There’s a bunch of them.  I’ll get…

RoundTuit

Detailed references will be added when I get “a round tuit”… Get it? A round tuit!