Conservative Scientists & its Consequences

[sidd]

The IPCC reports are very large. The smallest part of it, the SPM (summary for policymakers) is the only bit that all country reps have to sign off on. You dont have to read that SPM if you don't trust it. Read working group 1 (WG1) for a good review on the science as of a year b4 the report, then read the papers the review refers to. After that your complaints might be better founded.

[AbruptSLR]

The IPCC reports are very large. The smallest part of it, the SPM (summary for policymakers) is the only bit that all country reps have to sign off on. You dont have to read that SPM if you don't trust it. Read working group 1 (WG1) for a good review on the science as of a year b4 the report, then read the papers the review refers to. After that your complaints might be better founded.

In addition to sidd's points, I provide the following:

First, the following National Geographic link discusses data deleted from the SPM in AR5:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140703-ipcc-climate-report-deleted-data-global-warming-science/

Second, the following links leads to a discussion by Richard Tol, one of the AR5 lead authors who stepped down as he was not willing to put his name on the final SPM (note that he also supports carbon pricing):

http://richardtol.blogspot.com/2014/04/ipcc-again.html

Lastly, IPCC is what it is, and will only change very slowly.  It's findings only represent a consensus position and thus presents a lower-bound view of our climate change situation; which has value in certain cases.  Furthermore, I cannot think of any governments who follow the IPCC findings slavishly, for example the NOAA SLR guidance has been considerably higher than the IPCC SLR guidance since December 2013.

[viddaloo]

The IPCC reports are very large. The smallest part of it, the SPM (summary for policymakers) is the only bit that all country reps have to sign off on. You dont have to read that SPM if you don't trust it. Read working group 1 (WG1) for a good review on the science as of a year b4 the report, then read the papers the review refers to. After that your complaints might be better founded.

I believe the problem we're looking at is that while Mr. LRC can read the WG1 report or whatever piece of text he prefers to read at any moment, the policy makers of this world are handed the SPM — Summary for Policy Makers — which as its name suggests is a summary for policy makers, ie for them. So other texts preferred by Mr. LRC may not influence the policies as much as the texts handed to the policy makers, if you catch my drift.

[AbruptSLR]

While it is easy to focus on the work of WGI (Science of Climate Change), that work covers only third of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's charge by the UN, and per Wikipedia:
Extract: "The IPCC produces reports that support the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is the main international treaty on climate change. The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [i.e., human-induced] interference with the climate system". IPCC reports cover "the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

Here it would like to focus on WGIII (Mitigation of Climate Change), and on the socio-economic information that policymakers need to know in order to "… prevent dangerous anthropogenic [i.e., human-induced] interference with the climate system".  In this regard WGI has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that climate change is due to anthropogenic radiative forcing, thus it is 100% logical that the WGIII's guidance on how to mitigate this anthropogenic problem must include "socio-economic" information on how the systemic societal structure needs to be changed in order to address this climate change challenge.  For those who do not know, both social scientists and economists are included in WGIII and their charge includes presenting policymakers with recommendations on how to prevent dangerous anthropogenic climate change, because "policymakers" almost never actually produce any policy themselves (it is commonly prepared by staffers or, for about 20% of the time in the USA, by industry lobbyists) they only make decisions as to whether to accept the policy recommendations made to them or not.
In this regard, anthropogenic radiative forcing is a disutility and all governments of the world (which is way it the IPCC is Intergovernmental) are required to control such disutility's when they are introduced into the economic marketplace.  Furthermore, the current international marketplace is based on "rigged capitalism" as this international marketplace accepts not only the introduction of the anthropogenic radiative forcing disutility, ARFD, without any pricing information on the climate damage done by this ARFD, but also accepts other market distorting systemic behavior associated with: (a) in-equable wealth distribution that is related to monopoly power rather than economic contributions; and (b) subsidized consumption.
I believe that WGIII is charged with making recommendations on how to correct such socio-economic systemic marketplace distortions contributing to ARFD.  Furthermore, it is simple logic that WGIII guidance should include recommendations on the use of:

(a) Progressively increasing carbon pricing applied to consumer goods; which would provide the consumers with the missing marketplace information required for them to make rational purchasing decisions;

(b) Adding "dividend-like" provisions as to what to do with the carbon fees/taxes collected by the carbon pricing.  This provisions allow for wealth redistributions (at least within a given country and preferably with an allowance to apply weighted redistributions to all citizens within the county where the consumption occurs and a partial redistribution to international citizens being affected by climate change); which would address some of the marketplace distortions associated with the monopoly power of the very rich.  Furthermore, adding tariffs on goods imported from non-participating countries would address the problem of the "Tyranny of the Commons"; and

(c) Applying the carbon fee on consumer goods would limit wasteful consumption, while distributing the associated dividend would provide the world's citizens with capital to invest (deferred consumption) in energy saving and other sustainable goods.

Lastly, I would like to emphasize that while most people focus on the carbon fee/tax in a "Tyranny of small decisions"-like manner; they should spend more time thinking about the dividend-like options for correcting the "rigged capitalist" problems of wealth in-equities and of wasteful consumption.

[AbruptSLR]

My last post (Reply #701) focused on WGIII and the need for more effective guidance on mitigating the systemic, non-sustainable, rigged marketplace issued causing excessive anthropogenic radiative forcing disutility, ARFD.  Furthermore, while I have also previously noted that in AR5 WGII also erred on the side of least drama (while exposing society to more risk) by discounting climate change impact associated with the fat-tail risk (probability time consequences) PDF of ARFD.  In this post I make the following additional observations about the short-comings of the WGII impact assessment:

First: The majority of the WGII assessment of ARFD (particularly including food production) focuses on the negative impacts of increasing temperatures; while due to meandering jet streams and the increased frequency of other extreme weather events, damage from temporary extreme cold (particularly on food) will be important and has not been fully accounted for in AR5 by WGII.  Similarly, I note that not only will increasing localized drought limit food production but so will increasingly frequent extreme rainfall (with associated flooding and water loss through run-off).  Also, WGI does not adequately assess the impact of increasing food demand (due to both increasingly large and wealthy population) on CO₂ absorption on deforestation.

Second: In a market place economy "value" is determined relatively by consumer comparing what they want to what others are offering in the market (I note that this tends to drive-up needless consumption [and associated ARFD] by the endless need to "better" oneself relative to others).  Similarly, modern economists determine disutility in the same comparative/relativistic fashion (as most consumers base their decisions on what others around them are going); which allows the IPCC economists to heavily discount ARFD in the same way that a frog in a warming pot discounts the implications of the heat until he is cooked.  Thus it is imperative that IPCC WGII economists must learn to evaluate ARFD with regard to the sustainability of our worldwide socio-economic systems before we are hit by Black Swan or Dragon King consequences (which would include fragile & stressed socio-economic systems progressive inability to deal with increasingly frequent climate stressed issues like: pollution, militancy, disease, etc.). This point is emphasized by the following quote by Thomas Jefferson in the US Declaration of Independence:

" … all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Third, I have previously pointed-out that economists apply too large of a discount factor for societies tolerance for future ARFD; so here I would like to emphasize that in a sustainable socio-economic system economists must also consider inter-generational sustainability to so that each current generation passes the world to the next generation in as good (or better) condition than they received it; which would require IPCC WGII economists to use a relatively low discount rate as they always need to evaluate the case whether current world is kept in good shape.

Fourth, anthropogenic socio-economic systems under certain set of circumstances will emphasize empathy (associated with Natural Selection), while under another set of circumstances will emphasize aggression (associated with Survival of the Fittest).  Therefore, social scientists and economists in WGII should at least make two different assessments of ARFD, first considering world cooperative (or "Climate Dads" dominating) as assumed by COP21 in Paris; and second considering world aggression (or "Climate Cads" dominating), whether the assumptions of COP21 are not met.

[AbruptSLR]

Some individuals argue that it is too difficult to determine the correct amount of pricing to apply to carbon, and that consequently they advise against carbon pricing plans (including carbon fee & dividend w/ tariff, CF&DT, plans) in favor of other plans such as cap & trade, regulation, green-BAU or command/authoritarian plans.  I believe that such alternate plans can supplement carbon pricing, but cannot replace it, for reasons including:

(1) Cap & trade plans further empower financial institutions and monopolies/oligarchies, without encouraging a reduction in wasteful consumption.  Such plans further distort our already rigged-capitalistic system, and while possibly better than nothing, they are nevertheless inefficient.  I note that previously the EU's cap & trade plan collapsed due to unrealistic/ineffective implementation.

(2) Reasonable regulations (including those promoting family planning) can easily complement a CF&DT plan, but it is advisable that any such regulations should be regularly reviewed and adjusted/corrected in order to account for the constantly changing socio-economic and scientific landscape.

(3) Command economies and authoritarian rule can operate efficiently for short periods of time (such as times of crisis), but even communist China leavens its autocratic communist rule with a relatively capitalistic marketplace.  Furthermore, individuals who wish for an early collapse of our currently rigged-capitalistic marketplace without a thought processes leading to a more efficient/truer capitalistic socio-economic system are likely to repeat the lessons learned throughout history where removal of one biased ruling class only leads to another biased ruling class; and when combined with climate change stresses could lead to centuries of dictatorial rule, squashing human empathy and cooperation.

(4) Green-BAU plans without appropriate means to limit fossil fuel consumption from our currently rigged-capitalistic world marketplace, cannot respond fast enough to prevent many of the worst positive feedback mechanisms from being activated (quite probably even when the green-BAU plan is supplemented with both solar radiation management, SRM, and negative emissions technology, NET.  Such thinking is left-over from socio-economic systems with frontiers that people could move to after they over-taxed a given situation; however, as climate change challenges are surrounded by "Tyranny of the Commons" issued at every turn; such thinking needed to be restricted to partial solutions, or solutions where extensive future human suffering is accepted.

(5) While I believe that social scientists and economists have plenty of high-end computational methods (such as derivative algorithms) to determine proper estimates of anthropogenic radiative forcing disutilities (ARFDs) to correct carbon prices to reflect the damage that they are/will create; nevertheless, if policymakers (following potential IPCC  or United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC] guidance) cannot on agree on such ARFD corrections, they can always agree immediately to implement an incrementally increasing carbon pricing plan (or preferably a CR&DT plan) that can be adjusted as they monitor the effects of such a plan.

Finally, I note that our current rigged-capitalistic system is addicted to living on borrowed time by stimulating economic downturns either with governmental and private debt and/or quantitative easing (QE).  This creates systemic problems leading to severe wealth inequity and wasteful consumption.  Furthermore, policymakers have become so addicted to living on borrowed time/credit, that they cannot take seriously the carbon budget that the IPCC (erring on the side of least drama) developed; and they rush to ease their other problems (economic development, poverty, security, etc.) by constantly borrowing against an already risky (w.r.t. safety) carbon budget.  Proper implementation of a progressively increasing CR&D/T plan could help to correct such addictive behavior and to reduce the biases/excesses of our currently rigged-capitalist system. 

[AbruptSLR]

My last post in this series of Replies (#701 thru #703) encouraging the IPCC and/ or the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC] to provide more pro-active climate change guidance to help policymakers take appropriate action takes a theme from the following quote from the movie Cool Hand Luke: "What we have here is a failure to communicate".
I believe that both the anthropogenic nature of the problem and the need to correct our global socio-economic system is self-evident, as was pointed-out over 50-years ago.  Unfortunately, getting a critical mass of the world's population to change their pre-conceived mind-set has/is proven/proving to be nearly impossible (even when allowing that key decision makers have probably been expecting to use highly risky geoengineering technology in the not too distant future, thus diluting their own sense of urgency).  However, when the IPCC cannot even bring itself to publically recommend that policymakers evaluate at least an appropriate carbon fee & dividend with tariff, CF&DT, plan then it is understandable why the general public has not yet demanded stronger action from the policymakers.

Nevertheless, it is imperative that we change our current Orwellian group-thinking with regard to how to change our rigged-capitalistic international marketplace socio-economic system.  The human mind is a tricky thing and I hope that the IPCC hire some communication specialist to better advise them how to change the "hearts and minds" of the public and policymakers (which LBJ should have started 50-years ago).

Maybe the communication specialist would hire Inspector Harry Callahan to explain our climate risk by analogy to the policymakers saying:

"I know what you're thinking: "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"

[sidd]

"Cool Hand Luke: What we have here is a failure to communicate."

o dear. not a sunny reference. as i recall luke died.

[AbruptSLR]

"Cool Hand Luke: What we have here is a failure to communicate."

o dear. not a sunny reference. as i recall luke died.

You are right.  Per Wikipedia, after escaping one last time from prison: "Luke enters a church, where he talks to God and blames him for sabotaging him so he cannot win in life. Moments later, police cars arrive and Dragline walks in, telling Luke that the police have promised not to hurt him if he surrenders peacefully. Luke walks to a window facing the police and mocks the Captain's famous line, "What we've got here is a failure to communicate". He is immediately shot in the neck by Boss Godfrey."

Maybe we shouldn't expect the IPCC to be too pro-active about recommending actions to policymakers (the Boss) about systemically restructure our socio-economic system in order to seriously mitigate climate change, anytime soon.

[Neven]

Comments from new commenter bryman were on hold (as all first 3 comments are from new commenters to prevent spam from reaching your innocent eyes), but I failed to notice them and release them. Because they are now on the previous page, I copy and paste them here:

-----

Further to Bruce's post, I would like to add that while many SRM approaches do not increase ocean acidification, OA, sulfate aerosols do (to some extent see the links below), and as sulfate SRM plans are relatively inexpensive, they may well be implemented by desperate governments in the future.

Furthermore, as industrial sulfate emissions are projected to drop sharply in coming decades as Asia and Africa implement tighter air pollution regulations; thus any sulfate SRM plan will need to be sufficiently aggressive to make-up for this projected reduction in negative forcing (due to reduced industrial emissions).  Also, as we do not know whether ECS is closer to 4.5C than to 3C and whether third world development will push the world on a BAU GHG emissions pathway; we do not know how aggressive any final sulfate SRM plan may have to be.  Thus as Bruce points out that significant amounts of plankton are sensitive to OA, it is possible that a sulfate SRM plan (which would be implemented to allow high CO2 levels to remain in the atmosphere for at least decades) could be the straw that broke the camel's (plankton's) back.

For geoengineering see also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management

The study I refer to says there could be significant secondary effects from sulfates. Is that what you're referring to?

-----

And his second comment that was withheld:

-----

Bryman, Welcome aboard.  SRM will cause more diffuse light but to what degree that modifies increased light intensity under acidified conditions I don't know. The other complication is what effect OA has on other plankton communities like coccoliths and how SRM may effect them. The study is important however because it shows diatoms responding differently than other studies have indicated them reacting.
"“Diatoms fulfil an important role in the Earth’s climate system. They can absorb large quantities of carbon dioxide, which they bind before ultimately transporting part of it to the depths of the ocean. Once there, the greenhouse gas remains naturally sequestered for centuries,” explains Dr Clara Hoppe, a biologist at the AWI and first author of the present study (learn more about the role of diatoms in this interview with Dr Clara Hoppe).

Thanks, Bruce.  I guess, what I'm asking is, is deploying sulfates feasible? I believe so, since they have secondary effects on ocean acidification and SRM could potentially regulate the amount of light hitting the ocean.

[Bruce Steele]

Bryman, Secondary effects might be changes in weather patterns and precipitation potentially
benefiting some areas and causing harm to other areas. I am fairly weak on meteorology so others here might better explain the potential effects of changing incoming light intensity via high altitude
SRM.
 As to feasibility ... Again feasibility of injecting sulfate aerosols is a better question for an engineer but I think it is physically and technologically possible.  It might even benefit some lifeforms in some places ( potentially southern ocean diatoms in acidified conditions ) but it will also most likely cause damage somewhere else. The whole reason the diatoms are in trouble in the first place is because we are dumping ~ 10 Giga Tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere annually. Trying to figure out how to mitigate the damage done before we begin to decrease our ff emissions is surely insane. I should probably stick to talking about diatoms however. I have large reservations about our understanding of all the potential ramifications of geo-engineering our atmosphere. We really don't know crap .
Cherrypicking potential benefits while ignoring the risks of SRM will be game I suppose for the same group that currently deny the existence of global warming.   
   

[bryman]

Bryman, Secondary effects might be changes in weather patterns and precipitation potentially
benefiting some areas and causing harm to other areas. I am fairly weak on meteorology so others here might better explain the potential effects of changing incoming light intensity via high altitude
SRM.
 As to feasibility ... Again feasibility of injecting sulfate aerosols is a better question for an engineer but I think it is physically and technologically possible.  It might even benefit some lifeforms in some places ( potentially southern ocean diatoms in acidified conditions ) but it will also most likely cause damage somewhere else. The whole reason the diatoms are in trouble in the first place is because we are dumping ~ 10 Giga Tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere annually. Trying to figure out how to mitigate the damage done before we begin to decrease our ff emissions is surely insane. I should probably stick to talking about diatoms however. I have large reservations about our understanding of all the potential ramifications of geo-engineering our atmosphere. We really don't know crap .
Cherrypicking potential benefits while ignoring the risks of SRM will be game I suppose for the same group that currently deny the existence of global warming.   
Of course we need to reduce emissions. Thankfully, it looks like that is finally starting to happen, albeit at a slower pace than we'd like. So what do you think would be the effects on diatoms if SRM were to be used? Would it affect sequestration in a primary or secondary way?
 

[AbruptSLR]

Comments from new commenter bryman were on hold (as all first 3 comments are from new commenters to prevent spam from reaching your innocent eyes), but I failed to notice them and release them. Because they are now on the previous page, I copy and paste them here:


The study I refer to says there could be significant secondary effects from sulfates. Is that what you're referring to?

I provide the linked reference; which shows that anthropogenic aerosols have been masking/damping Arctic Amplification even more than it has been masking/damping the increase in mean global surface temperature.  Thus as aerosols are cleaned-up (particularly in China) the Arctic will warm faster than previously estimated, unless the SRM counter-balances:

Najafi, M.R., et al. (2015) Attribution of Arctic temperature change to greenhouse-gas and aerosol influences, Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate2524

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2524.html

Abstract: "The Arctic has warmed significantly more than global mean surface air temperature over recent decades, as expected from amplification mechanisms. Previous studies have attributed the observed Arctic warming to the combined effect of greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic influences. However, given the sensitivity of the Arctic to external forcing and the intense interest in the effects of aerosols on its climate, it is important to examine and quantify the effects of individual groups of anthropogenic forcing agents. Here we quantify the separate contributions to observed Arctic land temperature change from greenhouse gases, other anthropogenic forcing agents (which are dominated by aerosols) and natural forcing agents. We show that although increases in greenhouse-gas concentrations have driven the observed warming over the past century, approximately 60% of the greenhouse-gas-induced warming has been offset by the combined response to other anthropogenic forcings, which is substantially greater than the fraction of global greenhouse-gas-induced warming that has been offset by these forcings. The climate models considered on average simulate the amplitude of response to anthropogenic forcings well, increasing confidence in their projections of profound future Arctic climate change."

See also:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/02/aerosols-dampen-pace-of-arctic-warming-for-now-say-scientists/

[Bruce Steele]

Bryman, If you go back to ASLR's comment #685 feb.25 you can get a download of the whole paper...in PDF. In the paper they compare current pH conditions to future acidified conditions. Acidifications effects on a broad range of species relates to how species react to an additional energy demand with limited energy to utilize ,in various life processes. The energy expended to compensate for the extra energy demands caused by acidification come at a cost. Under current conditions diatoms can weather high intensity light near the surface and still continue to repair+grow in the darker depths as it cycles up and down in it's daily routine. Under future acidification the energy demands of what amounts to a "sunburn" constrains it's ability to grow/repair at depth.

Here is a quote from the paper
"Therefore we postulate that a large fraction of the decline in growth and energy transfer efficiency from photochemistry to biomass production under dynamic light results from increased metabolic costs
Of photo-protection and elevated D1 turnover at high light in combination with the consequences of light limitation in the low-light phase."

So in the future... Under acidified conditions the slowdown in growth in southern ocean diatoms and the slowdown in photosynthesis will result in less organic matter  being transported ,via ballasting , to
depth. This would cause a primary and IMO large decrease in the carbon pump.
 There is a page here on the forum called ( Geo-Engineering, another rush for the money ) over in the policy section. ASLR posted something today that better address water vapor/ weather issues of SRM and taking the geo-engineering over there is a good idea. 
 To sum , geo-engineering might benefit those diatoms after we already dumped a pile more Co2 into the atmosphere. If we do that ,trying to backtrack with SRM may be attempted. At that point it might benefit the carbon sink but it will be very late in the game and we may be looking for miracles. BAU
 
     

[AbruptSLR]

In my last post in this thread (Reply #712), I pointed out how aerosol (air pollution) primarily from Asia has cut Arctic Amplification effectively in half for the past few decades.  Indeed, with regard to climate change, most people (policymakers, scientists, myself, bloggers, the general-public) focus their attention on the impacts air pollution aerosols have on global mean surface temperature rise.  Unfortunately, most people do not realize that air pollution aerosols can stimulate can stimulate portions of the water cycle, increasing cloud formation and affecting precipitation patterns and rates.  Thus, most people feel reassured when they learn that aerosols reduce the current radiative forcing CO₂ equivalent of about 480ppm down to about 420ppm. 

However, as far as key regions of the atmosphere most affected by air pollution aerosols (primarily from East Asia and Central Africa) are concerned, the equivalent water-cycle forcing is well over 500ppm CO₂ (as far as interpreting CMIP5 or AR5 climate change model projections go).  Therefore, in the rest of this post I focus on the impacts of air pollution (anthropogenic) aerosols on the water-cycle in the Tropical Pacific and the associated impacts on such phenomena as: the ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation), the SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone), the West Pacific monsoon, the MJO and tropical storms. 

Wang et al (2014) points out "… that the magnitude of cloud adjustment by aerosols remains poorly quantified and represents the largest uncertainty in estimating forcing of climate change and in particular on the recent intensification of the Pacific storm tracks (which teleconnect tropical energy poleward) and also on the critical Tropical Pacific deep convective clouds (which could be driving ECS upwards to between 4 & 4.5 C).  Furthermore, Grose et al (2014) notes that CMIP5 global climate model simulations have largely underestimated the impacts of anthropogenic forcing on the western Tropical Pacific climate system including: the SPCZ and the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone, as well as in the spatial pattern, variability and teleconnections of the West Pacific monsoon, and the ENSO.  Furthermore, while denialist will state that such climate model uncertainties in the behavior of the critical Tropical Pacific, means that society should relax about climate change risk; the following facts should indicate to the discerning observer that these uncertainties in the climate change models actually indicates a fat-right-tail for the climate change risk PDF.

First, the following link (hat-tip to BornFromTheVoid) leads to a NOAA projection of a -6 to -7 sigma negative Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) event between March 19 and 20; which is related to a projected strong SPCZ; which is related to a strong water-cycle; which is related to strong water-cycle aerosol forcing largely from Asian air pollution.

http://www.wsi.com/blog/energy/the-southern-oscillation-index-could-drop-into-the-3-to-4-sigma-territory-during-the-11-15-day-period/

Second, the first attached figure shows that the current NOAA GFS ensemble MJO forecast through March 20 is literally "off-chart" (indicating that with continued anthropogenic forcing NOAA should re-scale their MJO plot); which (among other things) is related to the strength of the water-cycle and the high anthropogenic aerosols.

Third, the second attached figure shows that the West Pacific monsoon is stimulating equatorial tropical cyclonic activity in the March 20 timeframe; which, is related to the strength of the water-cycle and thus to Asian air pollution.

Fourth, the following link leads to a recent NOAA announcement that the ENSO and Walker Cell patterns are likely to flip into El Nino patterns by the end of March 2015 with a good chance of a strong classical El Nino by the end of the boreal summer of 2015.

http://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/march-2015-enso-discussion-el-ni%C3%B1o-here

Lastly, I would like to state that strong El Nino events typically lead to drought conditions in tropical rainforests such as in Indonesia and Brazil; which are already stressed from recent deforestation and extreme water-cycle events; and that the linked article indicates that the "biotic pump" theory indicates that the Amazon basin could be transformed into a desert (within a few decades given that the current positive PDO phase could increase the frequency and strength of drought creating El Nino events for 20 to 25 years, with flooding from strong La Nina events can also stress the rainforest and accelerate methane emissions) with continued anthropogenic radiative and water-cycle forcing [which would be a climate change disaster that could be accelerated by recent high Asian and African air pollution aerosols, and presents the Dragon-King risk that recent Asia aerosols could tip at least the Amazon rainforest into collapse, followed by China rapidly reducing its aerosol emissions in the next decade leading to a doubling of Artic Amplification; followed by desperate governments using sulfate aerosol SRM which might further drive extreme water-cycle events (droughts, floods, storms, ENSO etc. see the last link in this post for the SRM connection to extreme water-cycle events)]:

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2776099/without_its_rainforest_the_amazon_will_turn_to_desert.html

References:
Yuan Wang, etc., (2014), "Assessing the effects of anthropogenic aerosols on Pacific storm track using a multiscale global climate model", vol. 111 no. 19, 6894–6899, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1403364111


http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/231/PNAS-2014-Wang-1403364111.pdf


Abstract: "Atmospheric aerosols affect weather and global general circulation by modifying cloud and precipitation processes, but the magnitude of cloud adjustment by aerosols remains poorly quantified and represents the largest uncertainty in estimated forcing of climate change. Here we assess the effects of anthropogenic aerosols on the Pacific storm track, using a multiscale global aerosol–climate model (GCM). Simulations of two aerosol scenarios corresponding to the present day and preindustrial conditions reveal long-range transport of anthropogenic aerosols across the north Pacific and large resulting changes in the aerosol optical depth, cloud droplet number concentration, and cloud and ice water paths. Shortwave and longwave cloud radiative forcing at the top of atmosphere are changed by −2.5 and +1.3 W m−2, respectively, by emission changes from preindustrial to present day, and an increased cloud top height indicates invigorated midlatitude cyclones. The overall increased precipitation and poleward heat transport reflect intensification of the Pacific storm track by anthropogenic aerosols. Hence, this work provides, for the first time to the authors’ knowledge, a global perspective of the effects of Asian pollution outflows from GCMs. Furthermore, our results suggest that the multiscale modeling framework is essential in producing the aerosol invigoration effect of deep convective clouds on a global scale."


Grose, M. R., Brown, J. N., Narsey, S., Brown, J. R., Murphy, B. F., Langlais, C., Gupta, A. S., Moise, A. F. and Irving, D. B. (2014), Assessment of the CMIP5 global climate model simulations of the western tropical Pacific climate system and comparison to CMIP3. Int. J. Climatol., 34: 3382–3399. doi: 10.1002/joc.3916


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.3916/abstract


ABSTRACT: "A set of 27 global climate models from the Coupled Model Inter-comparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) ensemble are assessed for their performance for the purpose of making future climate projection studies in the western tropical Pacific and differences to Coupled Model Inter-comparison Project Phase 3 (CMIP3) are assessed. The CMIP5 models show some improvements upon CMIP3 in the simulation of the climate in the western tropical Pacific in the late 20th century. There are fewer CMIP5 models with very poor skill scores than in CMIP3 for some measures and a small group of the well-performing models in CMIP5 have lower biases than in an equivalent group from CMIP3. These best-performing models could be particularly informative for studying certain climate sensitivities and feedbacks in the region. There is evidence to reject one model as unsuitable for making regional climate projections in the region, and another two models unsuitable for analysis of the South Pacific Convergence Zone (SPCZ). However, while there have been improvements, many of the systematic model biases in the mean climate in CMIP3 are also present in the CMIP5 models. They are primarily related to the shape of the transition between the Indo-Pacific warm pool and equatorial cold tongue, and the associated biases in the position and orientation of the SPCZ and Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone, as well as in the spatial pattern, variability and teleconnections of the West Pacific monsoon, and the simulation of El Niño Southern Oscillation. Overall, the results show that careful interpretation and consideration of biases is required when using CMIP5 outputs for generating regional climate projections for the western tropical Pacific, particularly at the country scale, just as there was with CMIP3."


The linked article indicates that the mainstream GCM forecasts only project a 15% reduction in rainfall over the Amazon, but the "biotic pump" theory indicates that the Amazon basin could be transformed into a desert with continued anthropogenic radiative forcing:

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2776099/without_its_rainforest_the_amazon_will_turn_to_desert.html

Also see the linked article for a discussion of how aerosols (including SRM) can provide negative radiative forcing while stimulating the water cycle.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/reducing-sunlight-by-geoengineering-will-not-cool-earth-16861

[AbruptSLR]

As a follow-up to my last post, the linked reference (with an open access pdf) indicates that the Amazon rainforest is not the only tropical rainforest threatened by changes in the water-cycle patterns.  The attached image (see also the caption and abstract below) shows significant areas of African rainforest where the rainfall has dropped dramatically in the past 10 years (during a period when the global mean surface temperature was not increasing rapidly):

Hoscilo, A., Balzter, H., Bartholomé, E., Boschetti, M., Brivio, P. A., Brink, A., Clerici, M. and Pekel, J. F. (2014), A conceptual model for assessing rainfall and vegetation trends in sub-Saharan Africa from satellite data. Int. J. Climatol.. doi: 10.1002/joc.4231

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.4231/abstract;jsessionid=95DB49802C6068947E8C023EE4A93337.f01t03

Caption: "Trend in rainfall over ten years. Blue = wetter conditions, red = drier conditions."

Abstract: "Policymakers, governments and aid agencies require operational environmental monitoring in support of evidence-based policy-making and resource deployment in crisis situations. For Africa, this is only feasible at sub-continental scale with a large network of automated meteorological stations, a large number of highly coordinated field observers or with satellite remote sensing. The challenge with satellite data lies in the derivation of meaningful environmental indicators. This article describes a conceptual framework for understanding satellite-derived indicators of rainfall and vegetation greenness trends over Africa. It attributes observed vegetation changes to climatic (i.e. rainfall linked) and non-climatic drivers. A decade of annual rainfall and vegetation data over sub-Saharan Africa was analysed using satellite-based rainfall estimates [Famine Early Warning System Rainfall Estimation 2.0 (FEWSNET RFE 2.0)] from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) Climate Prediction Centre and the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) obtained from the Satellite Pour l'Observation de la Terre Vegetation (SPOT-VGT) sensor. Rainfall and vegetation greenness trends were analysed for 759 administrative regions of sub-Saharan Africa to identify those regions that have experienced a negative, positive or stable rainfall/vegetation trend over the period 2001–2010. The character of the relationship between the annual rainfall and max NDVI trends were examined to identify areas where the changes in greenness could be attributed to climatic (rainfall) and non-climatic (human land use or ecological disturbance) changes. Regions where increasing rainfall was associated with vegetation greening were found in West Africa, Central African Republic, West Cameroon and northeastern part of South Africa, whereas areas with evidence of ‘climatic vegetation degradation’ were located in Southern Madagascar, Nigeria, Kenya and the Garden Route region of South Africa."

[AbruptSLR]

As a follow-up to my Reply #714, I note that in the "Global Forest Watch" thread, sidd has pointed out that at best the "biotic pump" theory is controversial.  As do not know much about atmospheric dynamics, I cannot say whether the biotic pump theory has even partial merit, or not.  Therefore, I will only provide this following link to a peer reviewed paper on this topic, and individual readers can decide for themselves:

Makarieva, A. M., Gorshkov, V. G., Sheil, D., Nobre, A. D., and Li, B.-L.: Where do winds come from? A new theory on how water vapor condensation influences atmospheric pressure and dynamics, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 1039-1056, doi:10.5194/acp-13-1039-2013, 2013.


http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/1039/2013/acp-13-1039-2013.html
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/1039/2013/acp-13-1039-2013.pdf


Abstract. "Phase transitions of atmospheric water play a ubiquitous role in the Earth's climate system, but their direct impact on atmospheric dynamics has escaped wide attention. Here we examine and advance a theory as to how condensation influences atmospheric pressure through the mass removal of water from the gas phase with a simultaneous account of the latent heat release. Building from fundamental physical principles we show that condensation is associated with a decline in air pressure in the lower atmosphere. This decline occurs up to a certain height, which ranges from 3 to 4 km for surface temperatures from 10 to 30 °C. We then estimate the horizontal pressure differences associated with water vapor condensation and find that these are comparable in magnitude with the pressure differences driving observed circulation patterns. The water vapor delivered to the atmosphere via evaporation represents a store of potential energy available to accelerate air and thus drive winds. Our estimates suggest that the global mean power at which this potential energy is released by condensation is around one per cent of the global solar power – this is similar to the known stationary dissipative power of general atmospheric circulation. We conclude that condensation and evaporation merit attention as major, if previously overlooked, factors in driving atmospheric dynamics."

[AbruptSLR]

The linked reference indicates that our prior interpretation of marine paleoclimate needs to be re-interpreted in order to consider the appreciate impact of ocean currents on marine microorganism transport prior to deposition.  Certainly such re-interpretation of marine paleo-data may indicate either lower or higher climate sensitivity; however, higher climate sensitivities can have a much greater impact on modern society and should be considered with the "Precautionary Principle" in mind.  Furthermore, I note that this research was funded by the ACME program (see link at bottom of the post) in order to get a better handle on the real (rather than the previously conceived) risks of climate change:

van Sebille E, Scussolini P, Durgadoo JV, et al. (2015), "Ocean Currents Generate Large Footprints in Marine Palaeoclimate Proxies." Nature Communications; Vol: 6, Article number: 6521; DOI: 10.1038/ncomms7521

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150304/ncomms7521/full/ncomms7521.html


Abstract: "Fossils of marine microorganisms such as planktic foraminifera are among the cornerstones of palaeoclimatological studies. It is often assumed that the proxies derived from their shells represent ocean conditions above the location where they were deposited. Planktic foraminifera, however, are carried by ocean currents and, depending on the life traits of the species, potentially incorporate distant ocean conditions. Here we use high-resolution ocean models to assess the footprint of planktic foraminifera and validate our method with proxy analyses from two locations. Results show that foraminifera, and thus recorded palaeoclimatic conditions, may originate from areas up to several thousands of kilometres away, reflecting an ocean state significantly different from the core site. In the eastern equatorial regions and the western boundary current extensions, the offset may reach 1.5C for species living for a month and 3.0C for longer-living species. Oceanic transport hence appears to be a crucial aspect in the interpretation of proxy signals."

See also:
http://climatemodeling.science.energy.gov/publications/ocean-currents-generate-large-footprints-marine-palaeoclimate-proxies

[AbruptSLR]

For those who want to stay current on the cutting/bleeding edge of the science that will be used to create and update the ACME program, you can periodically check the three following links to publications on climate modeling funded by the US DOE (there are several new/edgy technical references there for the technically minded):

http://climatemodeling.science.energy.gov/publications?f[0]=field_funding_program:1
http://climatemodeling.science.energy.gov/publications?f[0]=field_funding_program:2
http://climatemodeling.science.energy.gov/publications?f[0]=field_funding_program:3

[AbruptSLR]

The linked web article by Kitware, elaborates on the three key goals [focused on water cycle, biochemistry, and cryosphere systems, see extract below, with bold text added by me for emphasis] for the first three years of the ACME program.  This discussion supports the position that I have taken in many of my posts, that our current generation of climate model projections (using in AR5) are inadequate to characterize the actual risk that climate change poses to modern society & the environment:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2015/02/prweb12539509.htm

Extract: "For each science driver, a question was selected to be answered in a three-year time range. Further questions will be answered over the course of the 10-year project. Questions to be answered in the next three years include: How will more realistic portrayals of features important to the water cycle (resolution, clouds, aerosols, snowpack, river routing, and land use) affect river flow and associated freshwater supplies at the watershed scale? How do carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus cycles regulate climate system feedback, and how sensitive are these feedback to model structural uncertainty? Could a dynamical instability in the Antarctic Ice Sheet be triggered within the next 40 years?
In regards to the water cycle, ACME’s Project Strategy and Initial Implementation Plan states that changes in river flow over the last 40 years have been dominated primarily by land management, water management, and climate change associated with aerosol forcing. During the next 40 years, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in a business-as-usual scenario will produce changes to river flow.
As the plan states, a goal of ACME is to simulate the changes in the hydrological cycle, with a specific focus on precipitation and surface water in orographically complex regions such as the western United States and the headwaters of the Amazon.

To address biogeochemistry, ACME researchers will examine how more complete treatments of nutrient cycles affect carbon-climate system feedback, with a focus on tropical systems, and investigate the influence of alternative model structures for below-ground reaction networks on global-scale biogeochemistry-climate feedback.

For cyrosphere, the team will examine the near-term risks of initiating the dynamic instability and onset of the collapse of the Antarctic Ice Sheet due to rapid melting by warming waters adjacent to the ice sheet grounding lines.

The experiment would be the first fully-coupled global simulation to include dynamic ice shelf-ocean interactions for addressing the potential instability associated with grounding line dynamics in marine ice sheets around Antarctica."

I note that its first three years the ACME project may not adequately addresses the risks of cliff-failures and hydrofracturing in marine glaciers as identified by Pollard et al 2015; which, highlights the challenges of understanding the true risks that climate change poses to society even using state-of-the-art high performance computing.

[AbruptSLR]

The linked research provides a scientific basis for inferring that greenhouse warming is likely to contribute to the observed prolonged worldwide droughts in recent decades (which should result in a increase in the rate of SLR and should result in a positive feedback from the associated deforestation):

William K. M. Lau and Kyu-Myong Kim, (2015), "Robust Hadley Circulation changes and increasing global dryness due to CO2 warming from CMIP5 model projections", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1418682112

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/02/17/1418682112.abstract


Abstract: "In this paper, we investigate changes in the Hadley Circulation (HC) and their connections to increased global dryness (suppressed rainfall and reduced tropospheric relative humidity) under CO2 warming from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) model projections. We find a strengthening of the HC manifested in a “deep-tropics squeeze” (DTS), i.e., a deepening and narrowing of the convective zone, enhanced ascent, increased high clouds, suppressed low clouds, and a rise of the level of maximum meridional mass outflow in the upper troposphere (200−100 hPa) of the deep tropics. The DTS induces atmospheric moisture divergence and reduces tropospheric relative humidity in the tropics and subtropics, in conjunction with a widening of the subsiding branches of the HC, resulting in increased frequency of dry events in preferred geographic locations worldwide. Among various water-cycle parameters examined, global dryness is found to have the highest signal-to-noise ratio. Our results provide a physical basis for inferring that greenhouse warming is likely to contribute to the observed prolonged droughts worldwide in recent decades."

[AbruptSLR]

The following links lead to two papers in the journal Earth's Future that indicate that current AR5 estimates on Global Population and Global Terrestrial Evapotranspiration cycles have erred on the side of least drama:

(1) "Can human populations be stabilized?" by S. Warren, 2015

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/2014EF000275/

(2) "Responses of global terrestrial evapotranspiration to climate change and increasing atmospheric CO2 in the 21st century", by S. Pan et al 2015

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/2014EF000263/

[AbruptSLR]

The linked reference provides experimental evidence that transitions occur sharply in rotating turbulent convective system, such as the atmospheric deep convective mixing over the Equatorial oceans.  This raises the likelihood that current climate change models may not be capturing the correct influence of climate change on this critical aspect of the atmosphere; which raises the question of whether ECS may be higher than expected when considering the influence of these sharp transitions.

Ping Wei, Stephan Weiss, and Guenter Ahlers (2015), "Multiple transitions in rotating turbulent Rayleigh-Benard convection", Physical Review Letters

https://journals.aps.org/prl/accepted/ed077YfdK2a1b94746ab31029d289a5b57d5e24f3


Abstract: "Sometimes it is thought that sharp transitions between potentially different turbulent states should be washed out by the prevailing intense fluctuations and short coherence lengths and times. Contrary to this expectation, we found a sequence of such transitions in turbulent rotating Rayleigh-Benard convection as the rotation rate was increased. This phenomenon was observed in cylindrical samples with aspect ratios (diameter/height) Gamma = 1.00 and 0.50. It became most prominent at very large Rayleigh numbers up to 2 x 1012 where the fluctuations are extremely vigorous, and was manifested most clearly for Gamma = 1.00. It was found in the heat transport as well as in the temperature gradient near the sample center. We conjecture that the transitions are between different large-scale structures which involve changes of symmetry and thus cannot be gradual."

See also:
http://www.news.ucsb.edu/2015/015076/physics-clouds

[JimD]

This kind of thing might have some effect also - in a bad way.

https://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2015/03/12/the-effect-of-gop-malice-and-mba-stupidity-on-research-shows-no-sign-of-slowing-down/

[AbruptSLR]

The linked Joe Romm article provides more support for the concept that climate sensitivity will increase rapidly (within decades, and much faster than assumed by AR5), with our continued high rates of anthropogenic radiative forcing:


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/12/3632373/carbon-sinks-climate-action/


Extract: :The ocean and the land (including vegetation and soils) are carbon “sinks” that currently absorb more than half of all human-caused carbon dioxide emissions. Scientists have long been concerned that these sinks will become increasingly ineffective at absorbing CO2 — because of global warming itself. That would mean a greater and greater fraction of human-caused carbon pollution would stay in the air, which would speed up climate change, causing even more CO2 to stay in the air — an amplifying feedback. And that in turn means humanity will have to work harder and harder in the future to keep CO2 and methane from accumulating in the air.

…

The study notes that “Many (though not all) of these [feedbacks] are fundamentally nonlinear.” It concludes that “Using a carbon–climate model, continuing future decreases in kS will occur under all plausible CO2 emission scenarios.” So the land and ocean sinks are projected to become increasingly less efficient. There’s uncertainty about exactly how fast that will happen, but there’s a very high probability it will happen faster than it has.

As noted above, some feedbacks — such as the permafrost melt and wildfires — are already well known to reduce the net uptake of carbon dioxide from the land sink. NOAA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center have estimated that the permafrost will turn from a carbon sink to a source by the 2020s. The permafrost feedback by itself has been projected to add up to 1.5°F to total global warming by 2100. Remember, no climate model used by the IPCC factors in the permafrost feedback!

A 2012 study led by the U.K. Met Office‘s Hadley Centre, “High sensitivity of future global warming to land carbon cycle processes,” used a major global climate model to systematically study potential land carbon-cycle feedbacks. The researchers found that those feedbacks were “significantly larger than previously estimated.” Those feedbacks are so large that they could add as much as a few hundred parts per million to carbon dioxide levels in 2100 compared to the no-land-feedback case — even in a scenario of moderate carbon dioxide emissions. That in turn could add 1°C or more to total warming in that case. And that is just for this century."

[AbruptSLR]

While according to the extract below, the linked (open access) referenced work can only be viewed as a lower-bound of forecast observations; nevertheless, I am disturbed that as a lower bound under RCP 8.5 the AMOC will shut-down before 2500.

L. Nazarenko, et. al. (2015), "Future climate change under RCP emission scenarios with GISS ModelE2", JAMES, DOI: 10.1002/2014MS000403


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/2014MS000403/


Abstract: "We examine the anthropogenically forced climate response for the 21st century representative concentration pathway (RCP) emission scenarios and their extensions for the period 2101–2500. The experiments were performed with ModelE2, a new version of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS) coupled general circulation model that includes three different versions for the atmospheric composition components: a noninteractive version (NINT) with prescribed composition and a tuned aerosol indirect effect (AIE), the TCAD version with fully interactive aerosols, whole-atmosphere chemistry, and the tuned AIE, and the TCADI version which further includes a parameterized first indirect aerosol effect on clouds. Each atmospheric version is coupled to two different ocean general circulation models: the Russell ocean model (GISS-E2-R) and HYCOM (GISS-E2-H). By 2100, global mean warming in the RCP scenarios ranges from 1.0 to 4.5°C relative to 1850–1860 mean temperature in the historical simulations. In the RCP2.6 scenario, the surface warming in all simulations stays below a 2°C threshold at the end of the 21st century. For RCP8.5, the range is 3.5–4.5°C at 2100. Decadally averaged sea ice area changes are highly correlated to global mean surface air temperature anomalies and show steep declines in both hemispheres, with a larger sensitivity during winter months. By the year 2500, there are complete recoveries of the globally averaged surface air temperature for all versions of the GISS climate model in the low-forcing scenario RCP2.6. TCADI simulations show enhanced warming due to greater sensitivity to CO2, aerosol effects, and greater methane feedbacks, and recovery is much slower in RCP2.6 than with the NINT and TCAD versions. All coupled models have decreases in the Atlantic overturning stream function by 2100. In RCP2.6, there is a complete recovery of the Atlantic overturning stream function by the year 2500 while with scenario RCP8.5, the E2-R climate model produces a complete shutdown of deep water formation in the North Atlantic."

Extract: "… given the positive sign and significant magnitude of slow Earth system-feedbacks inferred from Cenozoic climate change [Hansen et al., 2008] or the Pliocene [Lunt et al., 2010], the long-term results in these simulations should be seen as lower bounds for the multicentury and longer time scales."

[AbruptSLR]

The linked research indicates that prior scientific assumptions about the advisability of converting Africa's wet savannahs to cropland were overly optimistic with regard to net carbon emissions and biodiversity (see extract):

Searchinger, T.D. et al. (2015), "High carbon and biodiversity costs from converting Africa's wet savannahs to cropland", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate2584

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2584.html

Abstract: "Do the wet savannahs and shrublands of Africa provide a large reserve of potential croplands to produce food staples or bioenergy with low carbon and biodiversity costs? We find that only small percentages of these lands have meaningful potential to be low-carbon sources of maize (~2%) or soybeans (9.5–11.5%), meaning that their conversion would release at least one-third less carbon per ton of crop than released on average for the production of those crops on existing croplands. Factoring in land-use change, less than 1% is likely to produce cellulosic ethanol that would meet European standards for greenhouse gas reductions. Biodiversity effects of converting these lands are also likely to be significant as bird and mammal richness is comparable to that of the world’s tropical forest regions. Our findings contrast with influential studies that assume these lands provide a large, low-environmental-cost cropland reserve."

See also:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/03/farming-africas-wet-savannahs-would-have-high-environmental-costs-study-warns/


Extract: "As the global population rises, some scientists have suggested that Africa's wet savannahs could be ideal for growing the extra crops needed to meet the growing demand for food and bioenergy.
But it isn't quite the solution it seems, according to new research. The idea that Africa can provide food and biofuels while keeping emissions low "does not add up", the researchers say."

[AbruptSLR]

The linked reference (with an open access pdf) concludes that because the is considerable differences between different methodologies for quantifying CO₂ emissions associated with anthropogenic land use and land change, that we should "err on the side of least drama" rather than to take a "Precautionary Principle" approach to ensure public safety.  Hopefully, the ACME model with eventually resolve these differences so that we can have projections that we can rely upon.

Stocker, B. D. and Joos, F.  (2015) "Large differences in land use emission quantifications implied by definition discrepancies", Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., 6, 547-577, doi:10.5194/esdd-6-547-2015.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/6/547/2015/esdd-6-547-2015.html

Abstract: "The quantification of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic land use and land use change (eLUC) is essential to understand the drivers of the atmospheric CO2 increase and to inform climate change mitigation policy. Reported values in synthesis reports are commonly derived from different approaches (observation-driven bookkeeping and process-modelling) but recent work has emphasized that inconsistencies between methods may imply substantial differences in eLUC estimates. However, a consistent quantification is lacking and no concise modelling protocol for the separation of primary and secondary components of eLUC has been established. Here, we review the conceptual differences of eLUC quantification methods and apply an Earth System Model to demonstrate that what is claimed to represent total eLUC differs by up to ~20% when quantified from ESM vs. offline vegetation models. Under a future business-as-usual scenario, differences tend to increase further due to slowing land conversion rates and an increasing impact of altered environmental conditions on land–atmosphere fluxes. We establish how coupled Earth System Models may be applied to separate component fluxes of eLUC arising from the replacement of potential C sinks/sources and the land use feedback and show that secondary fluxes derived from offline vegetation models are conceptually and quantitatively not identical to either, nor their sum. Therefore, we argue that synthesis studies and global carbon budget accountings should resort to the "least common denominator" of different methods, following the bookkeeping approach where only primary land use emissions are quantified under the assumption of constant environmental boundary conditions."

[JimD]

ASLR  here is another version of the precautionary principal at work.  snark alert.

An employee of Florida’s environmental protection department was forced to take a leave of absence and seek a mental health evaluation for violating governor Rick Scott’s unwritten ban on using the phrases “climate change” or “global warming” under any circumstance, according to a complaint filed against the state.

Longtime employee Barton Bibler reportedly included an explicit mention of climate change in his official notes from a Florida Coastal Managers Forum meeting in late February, during which climate change, rising sea levels and the possible environmental impact of the Keystone XL Pipeline were discussed.

On 9 March, Bibler received a formal reprimand for “misrepresenting that ‘the official meeting agenda included climate change’”,....

Bibler was instructed to stay away from the office for two days and told he could return to work only after a mental health evaluation from his doctor verified his “fitness for duty”, the complaint said...

So if you are a government employee who mentions climate change you are considered crazy.  I sort of remember a guy named Orwell who had something to say about this type of thing.

I will make anyone an internet bet that we are going to see more not less of this kind of stuff for the  next few years.  Or more.

[Sigmetnow]

Some not-so-conservative scientists are making short videos, to explain climate change to the public.

Watch climate scientists give global warming elevator pitches.
http://mashable.com/2015/03/20/climate-scientists-global-warming/

[AbruptSLR]

With a hat-tip to wili, Jason Box created the attached plot showing the recent history of how quickly in the past 14 years, the intensity of wildfires north of 50N has increased in intensity.  Jason notes that the influence of all of the black, and brown, carbon from all of these northern wildfires on the reduction of Arctic Albedo (and consequently on increasing Arctic Amplification) has been omitted from all AR5 climate models.  Demonstrating once again that AR5 errs on the side of least drama, and that policymakers would be well advised when crafting the CoP21 Protocol to adopt the "Precautionary Principle" when setting policy to fight climate change.

[viddaloo]

Brilliant, ASLR! Watching the vid now, and was thinking of confusifying those fire stats.

[viddaloo]

Here's a clearer version from the web, still very confusing, but it seems the data are provided by NASA, plot made by Box.

[viddaloo]

You had a very sharp increase in the annual average volume for Arctic sea ice starting almost exactly when the most dramatic of all fire intensity increases started in 2014 in Box's chart, ie at least some of the volume increase compared to the year before may be attributed to this most powerful of all wildfire and tundra fire seasons.

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article indicates that the IPCC scientists erred on the side of least drama when they cited the 2C temp rise goal, and that a 1.5C temp rise goal is much more scientific; which the IPCC may, or may not, admit in June 2015.

http://www.rtcc.org/2015/03/27/2c-climate-change-target-utterly-inadequate/

[AbruptSLR]

The linked referred indicates that when correcting for the influence of the recent hiatus period (dominated by La Nina events that sequestered heat in the depths of the ocean) and the influence of primarily aerosols (causing negative radiative forcing); that the value of ECS determined by the observed instrument record cannot be less than 2C (while AR5 assumed that this lower bound was 1.5C).  Thus indicating that AR5 is not just erring on the side of least drama, it is erring in a way the exposes the public to greater risks from climate change as policy makers have been led to believe that the challenge is not as great as it actually is.

Daniel J. A. Johansson, Brian C. O’Neill, Claudia Tebaldi & Olle Häggström (2015), "Equilibrium climate sensitivity in light of observations over the warming hiatus", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate2573


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2573.html


Abstract: "A key uncertainty in projecting future climate change is the magnitude of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), that is, the eventual increase in global annual average surface temperature in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The lower bound of the likely range for ECS given in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report was revised downwards to 1.5 °C, from 2 °C in its previous report, mainly as an effect of considering observations over the warming hiatus—the period of slowdown of global average temperature increase since the early 2000s. Here we analyse how estimates of ECS change as observations accumulate over time and estimate the contribution of potential causes to the hiatus. We find that including observations over the hiatus reduces the most likely value for ECS from 2.8 °C to 2.5 °C, but that the lower bound of the 90% range remains stable around 2 °C. We also find that the hiatus is primarily attributable to El Niño/Southern Oscillation-related variability and reduced solar forcing."

[AbruptSLR]

The linked reference discusses a roadmap for a path forward to reduce uncertainties associated with radiative forcing feedback mechanisms from clouds, atmospheric circulation (including deep convection), and climate interactions.  Hopefully, once such work is completed we will have a better understanding of climate change/sensitivity/risk than we did after AR5:

Sandrine Bony, Bjorn Stevens, Dargan M. W. Frierson, Christian Jakob, Masa Kageyama, Robert Pincus, Theodore G. Shepherd, Steven C. Sherwood, A. Pier Siebesma, Adam H. Sobel, Masahiro Watanabe & Mark J. Webb  (2015), "Clouds, circulation and climate sensitivity", Nature Geoscience, Volume: 8, Pages: 261–268, doi:10.1038/ngeo2398


http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n4/full/ngeo2398.html


Abstract: "Fundamental puzzles of climate science remain unsolved because of our limited understanding of how clouds, circulation and climate interact. One example is our inability to provide robust assessments of future global and regional climate changes. However, ongoing advances in our capacity to observe, simulate and conceptualize the climate system now make it possible to fill gaps in our knowledge. We argue that progress can be accelerated by focusing research on a handful of important scientific questions that have become tractable as a result of recent advances. We propose four such questions below; they involve understanding the role of cloud feedbacks and convective organization in climate, and the factors that control the position, the strength and the variability of the tropical rain belts and the extratropical storm tracks."

[AbruptSLR]

The linked Climate Central article discusses a model dubbed "Model for Prediction Across Scales Ocean" (see attached image of high resolution ocean model output), which is part of the ACME project.  I expect such models to demonstrate how conservative (ie how far on the side of least drama that they erred) the AR5 model projections were (see extract associated with the attached image):

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/one-image-future-climate-models-18844

Extract: "Take the ocean in the image above, for example. As LiveScience notes, oceans act like “giant sponges” to take up much of the heat in our warming world. How currents and eddies move that heat around is of particular interest to scientists, but the current crop of climate models can’t fully reproduce them.

Recent research has suggested that a key ocean current in the Atlantic could be slowing due to ice melt in Greenland, which is essentially throwing up a brick wall of cold, fresh water.

Better modeling using those supercomputers would provide more clues about future changes and impacts in oceans, along the coasts and inland. The image from Los Alamos provides a hint of what some of those finer details might look like."

See also:

http://news.discovery.com/earth/map-of-global-ocean-temperatures-is-a-work-of-art-150402.htm

[AbruptSLR]

The linked Climate Central article discusses a model dubbed "Model for Prediction Across Scales Ocean" (see attached image of high resolution ocean model output), which is part of the ACME project.  I expect such models to demonstrate how conservative (ie how far on the side of least drama that they erred) the AR5 model projections were (see extract associated with the attached image):

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/one-image-future-climate-models-18844

Extract: "Take the ocean in the image above, for example. As LiveScience notes, oceans act like “giant sponges” to take up much of the heat in our warming world. How currents and eddies move that heat around is of particular interest to scientists, but the current crop of climate models can’t fully reproduce them.

Recent research has suggested that a key ocean current in the Atlantic could be slowing due to ice melt in Greenland, which is essentially throwing up a brick wall of cold, fresh water.

Better modeling using those supercomputers would provide more clues about future changes and impacts in oceans, along the coasts and inland. The image from Los Alamos provides a hint of what some of those finer details might look like."

For anyone not following the other threads, the following link leads to the "recent research" by Rahmstorf et al in Nature Climate Change (2015) that the AMOC is slowing down:

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/RahmstorfEtAl_NatureCC15.pdf

[AbruptSLR]

The linked reference cites that despite variable time lags for the complex non-linear paleo climate record, dynamical system theory proves that the paleo-record confirms that internal Earth systems mechanisms included marked positive feedback effect from temperature variability on greenhouse-gas concentrations.  Hopefully, this new insight will allow researchers to better use paleo-data to reduce the uncertainties associated with estimating climate sensitivities.

Egbert H. van Nes, Marten Scheffer, Victor Brovkin, Timothy M. Lenton, Hao Ye, Ethan Deyle & George Sugihara (2015), "Causal feedbacks in climate change", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate2568

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2568.html


Abstract: "The statistical association between temperature and greenhouse gases over glacial cycles is well documented, but causality behind this correlation remains difficult to extract directly from the data. A time lag of CO2 behind Antarctic temperature—originally thought to hint at a driving role for temperature—is absent at the last deglaciation, but recently confirmed at the last ice age inception and the end of the earlier termination II. We show that such variable time lags are typical for complex nonlinear systems such as the climate, prohibiting straightforward use of correlation lags to infer causation. However, an insight from dynamical systems theory now allows us to circumvent the classical challenges of unravelling causation from multivariate time series. We build on this insight to demonstrate directly from ice-core data that, over glacial–interglacial timescales, climate dynamics are largely driven by internal Earth system mechanisms, including a marked positive feedback effect from temperature variability on greenhouse-gas concentrations."

See also:
http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2015/03/confirmed-positive-feedback-occurs-climate-change

Edit: Also see:

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/evidence-found-of-climate-change-positive-feedback.html

[sidd]

Ref 8. in the van Nes paper (doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE2568)  is to Sugihara (2012, doi:10.1126/science.1227079) which also is a very nice paper, about detecting causal relations in ecosystems. I was waiting for someone to use the technique in paleoclimate. They are both very recommended reading, the van Nes paper moves me to use the Sugihara technique in one of my little projects also.


Read em both, they're sweet.

sidd

[AbruptSLR]

Many people (including most AR5 scientists) ignore the risks posed by Atmospheric River, AR, events with increasing global warming; however, in my opinion that is a mistake, particularly considering that such AR events could deliver considerable amount of rainfall to both the Greenland Ice Sheet, GIS, and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, WAIS, before the end of this century if we follow a pathway comparable to RCP 8.5 for a couple more decades.

In this regards, the linked reference discusses modeling conditions for improving forecasts for such AR events:

Samson Hagos, L. Ruby Leung, Qing Yang, Chun Zhao, and Jian Lu, 2015: Resolution and Dynamical Core Dependence of Atmospheric River Frequency in Global Model Simulations. J. Climate, 28, 2764–2776, DOI:10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00567.1


http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00567.1?journalCode=clim


Abstract: "This study examines the sensitivity of atmospheric river (AR) frequency simulated by a global model with different grid resolutions and dynamical cores. Analysis is performed on aquaplanet simulations using version 4 of Community Atmosphere Model (CAM4) at 240, 120, 60 and 30 km model resolutions each with the Model for Prediction Across Scales (MPAS) and High-Order Methods Modeling Environment (HOMME) dynamical cores. The frequency of AR events decreases with model resolution and the HOMME dynamical core produces more AR events than MPAS. Comparing the frequencies determined using absolute and percentile thresholds of large-scale conditions used to define an AR, model sensitivity is found to be related to the overall sensitivity of sub-tropical westerlies, atmospheric precipitable water content and profile and to a lesser extent on extra-tropical Rossby wave activity to model resolution and dynamical core. Real world simulations using MPAS at 120 km and 30 km grid resolutions also exhibit a decrease of AR frequency with increasing resolution over southern East Pacific, but the difference is smaller over northern East Pacific. This inter-hemispheric difference is related to the enhancement of convection in the tropics with increased resolution. This anomalous convection sets off Rossby wave patterns that weaken the subtropical westerlies over southern East Pacific but has relatively little effect on those over northern East Pacific. In comparison to NCEP2 reanalysis, MPAS real world simulations are found to underestimate AR frequencies at both resolutions likely because of their climatologically drier sub-tropics and poleward shifted jets. This study highlights the important links between model climatology of large-scale conditions and extremes."

[AbruptSLR]

The linked reference introduces the concept of Global Precipitation-change Potential (GPP), and indicates the with regards to recent GHG & aerosol emissions, methane is the dominant driver of positive precipitation changes due to those emissions.  Therefore, I think that more people (& particularly IPCC scientists) should take the likely consequences of increasing anthropogenic and natural methane emissions (as we continue down the BAU path) very seriously (note that AR5 ignored future methane emissions for permafrost degradation and did not adequately promote resisting fracking as a mitigation measure to fight climate change).

Shine, K. P., Allan, R. P., Collins, W. J., and Fuglestvedt, J. S. (2015), "Metrics for linking emissions of gases and aerosols to global precipitation changes", Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., 6, 719-760, doi:10.5194/esdd-6-719-2015.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/6/719/2015/esdd-6-719-2015.html

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/6/719/2015/esdd-6-719-2015.pdf


Abstract: "Recent advances in understanding have made it possible to relate global precipitation changes more directly to emissions of particular gases and aerosols that influence climate. Using these advances, a new index is developed here called the Global Precipitation-change Potential (GPP), which measures the precipitation change per unit mass of emissions. It is recognised that precipitation changes are predicted to be highly variable in size and sign between different regions, and ultimately climate change impacts will be more dependent on these regional changes. Nevertheless, the GPP presents a useful measure of the global-mean role of emissions of individual forcing agents.

Results are presented for pulse (GPPP) and sustained (GPPS) emissions for selected long- and short-lived forcing agents (CO2, CH4, N2O, sulphate and black carbon – BC) using illustrative values of required parameters. The GPP can be used as a metric to compare the importance of emissions. This is akin to the global warming potential (GWP) and the global temperature-change potential (GTP) which are used to place emissions on a common scale. The GPP is further down the cause-effect chain from emissions to impacts than the GWP and GTP, and so provides an additional perspective.

One key parameter needed for the GPP is the surface–atmosphere partitioning of radiative forcing. Few studies have presented results for this partitioning for different forcings, leading to more uncertainty in quantification of the GPP than the GWP or GTP. Using CO2 as references gas, the pulse and sustained GPP values for the non-CO2 species are larger than the corresponding GTP values, because the CO2 GPP is the sum of two quite strongly opposing terms. For BC emissions, the atmospheric forcing is sufficiently strong that the GPPS is opposite in sign to the GTPS. The choice of CO2 as a reference gas is problematic, especially for the GPPS at time horizons less than about 60 years, because the opposing terms make the CO2 GPPS particularly sensitive to uncertainties in input parameters.

The GPP can also be used to evaluate the contribution of different emissions to precipitation change during or after a period of emissions. As an illustration, the precipitation changes resulting from emissions in 2008 (using the GPPP) and emissions sustained at 2008 levels (using the GPPS) are presented. These indicate that for periods of 20 years (after the 2008 emissions) and 50 years (for sustained emissions at 2008 levels) methane is the dominant driver of positive precipitation changes due to those emissions. For sustained emissions, the sum of the effect of the 5 species included here does not become positive until after 50 years, by which time the global surface temperature increase exceeds 1 K."

[jai mitchell]

Magical Thinking behind all emission scenarios that will limit the earth to 2C in the IPCC (conservative) Models

http://roadtoparis.info/2015/03/30/will-negative-emissions-technology-get-us-to-2-degrees/

Here’s the thing though. The vast majority of the scenarios that allow us to stick to the two-degree limit—the worrying ones, that is—assume that by some point in the second half of this century, we will have achieved net negative emissions. In other words, we will be taking more greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere than we put into it.

Even many of the scenarios that will likely lead to three degrees of warming—the frightening ones—still assume a large role for negative emissions. Even if we don’t manage to achieve net negative emissions, there are a lot of scenarios that require bulk CO2 removal from the atmosphere. It’s just that the amount removed does not exceed the rest of the emissions pumped out, so this will not be enough to dip below zero.

“We are late with mitigation,” economist Sabine Fuss of the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change reminds Road to Paris. “As a result, many scenarios require negative emissions.”

We have explored in this thread that the carbon cycle feedback parameters are likely severely understated in the models, that the complete lack of frozen soil-feedbacks is an Achilles heel for all scenarios and that the arctic albedo feedback response is significantly ahead of the modeled projections, as well as understating some key forcing parameters. 

Therefore, the net negative emissions needed by 2050, on a global scale, will likely not prevent 2C of warming.

[AbruptSLR]

Therefore, the net negative emissions needed by 2050, on a global scale, will likely not prevent 2C of warming.

jai,

I imagine that the top US decision makers agree with you assessment and that they are just following through with the COP21 process in Paris, to see how much the various countries are willing to voluntarily contribute to fighting climate change given the challenge of dealing with "free riders" (i.e. the Tragedy of the Commons).  Even if COP21 only gets the increase in global mean temperature increase down to 4C, this is still a major improvement on where we are currently headed.  Once we reach the 2040 to 2050 timeframe I expect that governments will augment the UN process with major "clubs" of developed countries that are willing to impose strict climate change regulations/carbon pricing, and that will hit non-club members (generally developing countries) will heavy tariffs on all imported items.  This will raise global tensions, and this tension will probably be used as a justification by the USA to develop its remaining oil reserves in the Arctic, and in the remaining fracking prospects.

Best,
ASLR

[jai mitchell]

 

With pleasure: http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?topic=1053.msg40351#msg40351
I don't know where you came up with that whopper, but Gavin thinks it's a load of crap, and so do I. Your numbers are completely unsupported at all by any climate scientists. No one has even hinted at an increase of 8 plus degrees, and if they have, they are completely in the minority.

see you there.

[jai mitchell]

Bry.

I don't know where you get your information but you are obviously not quite clear on what you read or even say:

Did you not see the post where I mentioned Yamal? Also, I highly doubt a 12 degree Celsius change is likely. Eight is possible but also not likely. And methane release is by far the biggest of the potential feedbacks. All others pale in comparison, and I'm calling out Jai on his extreme projections that are completely unsupported by any evidence.

The 150%-400% quote above is based on observations of informal polls at conferences where show of hands are used.  In nearly every case the show of hands indicates that climate scientists expect a climate response (note I did not specify temperature here so that is one thing you misunderstood) that is greatly exceeding the likely projections of the IPCC.

The informal polls that I have witnessed involved the expectation for achieving arctic sea ice free states (from 2012) and from expected sea level rise (also from 2012).  In addition, these environmental response of drought, desertification arctic amplification and permafrost degradation are all responding at rates much higher than those previously modeled in the AR4.

With regard to temperature response (which you incorrectly inferred from my statement)

Climate sensitivity is significantly understated because the models severely underestimate aerosol forcing.  This is evidenced by the ocean heat content accumulation imbalance between the north and south hemispheres and the simple fact that we are currently operating at a relative forcing level that is the effective 1994 levels (due to a combination of aerosol forcing, thermal inertia and suppressed arctic ice loss) 

Climate models predict that there will remain significant arctic sea ice through 2060, since arctic albedo changes represent 20% of all post-industrial global warming, when this ice melts out completely within the next 10 years, a significant temperature response will occur that is not represented in AR5 temperature projections.

With regard to permafrost disassociation, no disassociation  model that I have seen to date projects the bifurcation temperature response that will occur once the summer ice is gone by mid summer.  The temperature response under this scenario is sudden and massive.  Combine this with recent models of microbial heating, the newly understood aerosol cooling effect on the arctic that is suppressing disassociation and the likelihood of increased Boreal forest and peat fires increasing atmospheric carbon loading and the thawing depth profile may reach 3 meters by 2050, not 2090 as the most severe and recent models indicate.

Carbon cycle feedback system responses under multiple modeled scenarios, with the average being considered only for RCP 8.5 hold as much uncertainty in the volume of emissions as there is difference between the RCP 8.5 and the RCP 2.6 emission scenarios.  In other words, the incredible uncertainty of carbon cycle feedbacks could produce double as much GHG forcing as is produced under the RCP 8.5, and this does NOT include frozen soils discussed above.

So, in the observational world of boreal forest dieoff, AMOC slowdown, Arctic ocean warming, and Amazon and Indonesia rainforest die off, we can safely assume that the carbon cycle feedback response will be as high, or higher than the worst-case modeled scenarios.

This is all happening under current forcing parameters which is operational under 1994 GHG levels due to thermal inertia and aerosols.

So, in summary, with an ECS response between 4.5C and 6C, coupled with significantly underestimated arctic albedo response, carbon cycle response and permafrost emission response.  We will be hard pressed to prevent a 3C warming by 2040 and, once all coal and oil consumption is halted around 2050, the lack of sulfur aerosol loading will produce even more rapid warming responses.

This is the 8C by 2100 scenario with the potential for 12C if a massive methane hydrate release occurs sometime around 2060.

See also: 

[bryman]

Bry.

I don't know where you get your information but you are obviously not quite clear on what you read or even say:

Did you not see the post where I mentioned Yamal? Also, I highly doubt a 12 degree Celsius change is likely. Eight is possible but also not likely. And methane release is by far the biggest of the potential feedbacks. All others pale in comparison, and I'm calling out Jai on his extreme projections that are completely unsupported by any evidence.

The 150%-400% quote above is based on observations of informal polls at conferences where show of hands are used.  In nearly every case the show of hands indicates that climate scientists expect a climate response (note I did not specify temperature here so that is one thing you misunderstood) that is greatly exceeding the likely projections of the IPCC.

The informal polls that I have witnessed involved the expectation for achieving arctic sea ice free states (from 2012) and from expected sea level rise (also from 2012).  In addition, these environmental response of drought, desertification arctic amplification and permafrost degradation are all responding at rates much higher than those previously modeled in the AR4.

With regard to temperature response (which you incorrectly inferred from my statement)

Climate sensitivity is significantly understated because the models severely underestimate aerosol forcing.  This is evidenced by the ocean heat content accumulation imbalance between the north and south hemispheres and the simple fact that we are currently operating at a relative forcing level that is the effective 1994 levels (due to a combination of aerosol forcing, thermal inertia and suppressed arctic ice loss) 

Climate models predict that there will remain significant arctic sea ice through 2060, since arctic albedo changes represent 20% of all post-industrial global warming, when this ice melts out completely within the next 10 years, a significant temperature response will occur that is not represented in AR5 temperature projections.

With regard to permafrost disassociation, no disassociation  model that I have seen to date projects the bifurcation temperature response that will occur once the summer ice is gone by mid summer.  The temperature response under this scenario is sudden and massive.  Combine this with recent models of microbial heating, the newly understood aerosol cooling effect on the arctic that is suppressing disassociation and the likelihood of increased Boreal forest and peat fires increasing atmospheric carbon loading and the thawing depth profile may reach 3 meters by 2050, not 2090 as the most severe and recent models indicate.

Carbon cycle feedback system responses under multiple modeled scenarios, with the average being considered only for RCP 8.5 hold as much uncertainty in the volume of emissions as there is difference between the RCP 8.5 and the RCP 2.6 emission scenarios.  In other words, the incredible uncertainty of carbon cycle feedbacks could produce double as much GHG forcing as is produced under the RCP 8.5, and this does NOT include frozen soils discussed above.

So, in the observational world of boreal forest dieoff, AMOC slowdown, Arctic ocean warming, and Amazon and Indonesia rainforest die off, we can safely assume that the carbon cycle feedback response will be as high, or higher than the worst-case modeled scenarios.

This is all happening under current forcing parameters which is operational under 1994 GHG levels due to thermal inertia and aerosols.

So, in summary, with an ECS response between 4.5C and 6C, coupled with significantly underestimated arctic albedo response, carbon cycle response and permafrost emission response.  We will be hard pressed to prevent a 3C warming by 2040 and, once all coal and oil consumption is halted around 2050, the lack of sulfur aerosol loading will produce even more rapid warming responses.

This is the 8C by 2100 scenario with the potential for 12C if a massive methane hydrate release occurs sometime around 2060.

See also: 

So you have no direct evidence, just so-called polls you have witnessed? Kind of convenient, don't you think? According to various documented surveys of climate scientist, their estimates are nowhere near that high.

As far as aerosol forcing  over the arctic is concerned, that was well-accounted for on a recent study that concluded the region could warm up to 8 degrees Celsius by 2100.
 
And recent work done by Dr. Kate Marvel (2015) and others have concluded ECS is closer to 2.5-3 degrees Celsius.

According to  Wadhams (2013), sudden methane release over 10 years would result in .6 degrees Celsius increase, and terrestrial permafrost more or less matches up to that number.

And you seem to be comfortable making a lot of assumptions, which is something AbruptSLR does not do. And how do you know we won't contain emissions. AbruptSLR seems to think we can, and you're completely ignoring SRM and other geoengineering techniques that could contain temperature rise and mitigate these feedbacks. Uncertainty in their deployment, sure, but the research is solid. Also, I too have looked at informal statements by climate scientists on Twitter and in handwritten notes, none of which support you rather off-based views. And that's based on actual evidence, not some show of hands I claimed to have seen and have no proof of ever taking place.

[AbruptSLR]

It is my opinion that much of the problem with expressing to the public what the true risk of climate sensitivity is not only that it is a complex problem, but more importantly is the fact that scientists talk about uncertainty in a manner that confuses the general public (and policy makers) as to what they truly mean.  For example, several days ago Gavin Schmidt posted an article on the Ringberg workshop at RealClimate (see link & extract).  While Gavin leans toward supporting the common AR5 message, the extract below (and associated first attached image indicating that the climate sensitivity parameter is not constant, particularly due to tropical cloud elevation) indicates that he is reasonably open to changing the current AR5 message given sufficient evidence (i.e. increasing ECS above 3C). If you look at the first attached figure (from Gregory 2014), you can think of an ECS value of 3C as being represented by the chord of the non-linear climate response curve; however, the true ECS is the tangent at some point of the curve that is currently unknown (representing uncertainty in the minds of scientists like Schmidt, as he does not know where on the curve we are today & even less so where we will be on the curve at different times over the coming century).  Therefore, most AR5 type scientists keep pointing at the chord value of climate sensitivity instead of the tangent at some unknown point on the non-linear curve.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/04/reflections-on-ringberg/

Extract: "The variation in climate sensitivity in models seems to be dominated by the simulations of low clouds (which are a net cooling to the climate) which have a tendency to disappear as the climate warms. Whether this can be independently constrained in the observations is unclear.
The conversations around these issues got into multiple connected areas, including aerosol forcings, observational uncertainty, climate model tuning and independence, the nature of probability, Bayesian updating, detection and attribution, and internal variability. It looks like there will be some interesting upcoming papers on many of these aspects that will help clarify matters.

While the workshop wasn’t designed to produce a new assessment of the evidence, we did spend time specifying the problems there would be if equilibrium sensitivity was less than 2ºC or greater than 5ºC. Specifically, what would have to be true for all the evidence to fit? This was useful at underlining the challenge in shifting or constraining the ‘classic’ range by very much."

Furthermore, Schmidt acknowledges that: (1) ECS is likely somewhere between 2 and 5C; (2) the higher altitude clouds (particularly in the tropics) raise in the atmosphere the higher ECS is likely to be and/or increase to with continued global warming; and (3) per the second attached image of the conclusions from Schmidt et al's 2015 Ringberg presentation (see link below) shows that the ECS calculated from the observational record are biased low and should be increase by from 35 to 60% (edit: including due to need to unmask the affect of the higher efficacy of anthropogenic aerosols than previously understood).

Edit: I neglected to state that as the tropical thunderheads are increasing in altitude ECS is moving towards 5C; and this does not consider the influence of transient positive feedback mechanisms such as Arctic methane emissions (from permafrost & hydrate degradation) that can increase the effective ECS still higher for many decades/centuries; and/or the acceleration of what are conventionally called "slow response" positive feedback mechanisms (such as changes many changes in albedo when the WAIS collapses).
 
http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/atmosphaere/WCRP_Grand_Challenge_Workshop/Ringberg_2015/Talks/Schmidt_25032015.pdf

Furthermore, the extract from the linked interview of Kate Marvel (one of Schmidt's co-authors) confirms that particularly tropical thunderheads due to deep convection near the topical equator are increasing in altitude due to anthropogenic global warming since at least the 1980's (ie since the satellite era began):

http://degreeofsatisfaction.blogspot.com/2015/03/kate-marvel-physicist-climate-scientist.html

Interview Extract: "At least in a couple data sets, you can see clouds rising, which is what’s predicted under global warming conditions.

What do you mean, you can see them rising?

So we’ve got cloud satellites dating back to the early 80’s, and in the satellite data, you can basically see the fingerprint of human-caused climate change in the cloud records, which is really surprising, because they’re so noisy, and so difficult to get anything out of. But you can really start to see all of these patterns emerging and it’s amazing how coherent everything is.

So you mean the typical height of the clouds above the land is changing?

Yeah. So I mean the height of high clouds is changing. So these big thunderheads that you would see, like convective clouds in the tropics, those are rising, those are going higher in ways that are predicted very robustly by a lot of the climate models and some of the physics underlying them, which is incredible."


See also:
http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/atmosphaere/WCRP_Grand_Challenge_Workshop/Ringberg_2015/Talks/Geoffroy_25032015.pdf

[AbruptSLR]

As a follow-up to my Reply #748, and as an example of how the public can become confused by peer reviewed scientific articles that have to be so couched in caveats that it is difficult to understand what they are saying, the following paper by Kate Marvel et al (2015) took over 2-years to peer review; and consequently the non-scientific reader does not understand that the satellite record shows that clouds are increasing in altitude (thus increasing ECS) which justifies many more years of research (probably for at least ten to twenty years) before scientists are willing to reduce the uncertainties associated with ECS to increase the setting in the climate sensitivity models to reflect greater climate sensitivity:

Kate Marvel, Mark Zelinka, Stephen A. Klein, Céline Bonfils, Peter Caldwell, Charles Doutriaux, Benjamin D. Santer, and Karl E. Taylor (2015), "External influences on modeled and observed cloud trends", Journal of Climate, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00734.1


http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00734.1?af=R

Abstract: "Understanding the cloud response to external forcing is a major challenge for climate science. This crucial goal is complicated by inter-model differences in simulating present and future cloud cover and by observational uncertainty. Here, we perform the first formal detection and attribution study of cloud changes over the satellite era. We present CMIP5 model-derived fingerprints of externally forced changes to three cloud properties: the latitudes at which the zonally averaged total cloud fraction (CLT) is maximized or minimized, the zonal average CLT at these latitudes, and the height of high clouds at these latitudes. By considering simultaneous changes in all three properties, we define a coherent multivariate fingerprint of cloud response to external forcing and use CMIP5 models to calculate the average time to detect these changes. We find that given perfect satellite cloud observations beginning in 1983, the models indicate that a detectable multivariate signal should have already emerged. We then search for signals of external forcing in two observational datasets: ISCCP and PATMOS-x. The datasets are both found to show a poleward migration of the zonal CLT pattern that is incompatible with forced CMIP5 models. Nevertheless, a detectable multivariate signal is predicted by models over the PATMOS-x time period and is indeed present in the dataset. Despite persistent observational uncertainties, our results present a strong case for continued efforts to improve these existing satellite observations, in addition to planning for new missions."