Arctic Sea Ice : Forum

Off-topic => The rest => Topic started by: AbruptSLR on May 19, 2016, 12:15:50 AM

Title: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 19, 2016, 12:15:50 AM
When it is human stupidity that has caused climate change, why do so many think that humans will be able to avoid exceeding the 2C target?
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: Revillo on May 19, 2016, 12:23:06 AM
I'd be curious to know if anyone here believes we can
avoid the 2C target. I think it was just a randomly selected number that policy makers have put forward to sound like they're making some sort of progress and appease activists.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 19, 2016, 01:20:16 AM
When NOAA has new information (see linked article) indicating that sea level could rise by 3m in the 2050-2060 timeframe due to instabilities in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, WAIS; why do so many people point to the IPCC AR5 report as being authoritative?

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/04/12/405089.htm (http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/04/12/405089.htm)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 19, 2016, 04:07:16 AM
Per the National Research Council, NRC, (2013), Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change Anticipating Surprises, The National Academies Press, Washington D.C.: "Because large uncertainties remain, the Committtee judges an abrupt change in the WAIS with this century to be plausible, with an unknown although probably low probability."

Nevertheless, since 2013 the CMIP5 projections ignored the plausible collapse of the WAIS and the associate ice-climate feedback identified by Hansen & Sato years before Hansen et al (2016); and yet the NRC is considered the gold standard of science in the USA and the world, so how did CMIP5 manage to ignore this feedback mechanism?

Edit: For Hansen et al 2016 see:

James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Paul Hearty, Reto Ruedy, Maxwell Kelley, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Gary Russell, George Tselioudis, Junji Cao, Eric Rignot, Isabella Velicogna, Blair Tormey, Bailey Donovan, Evgeniya Kandiano, Karina von Schuckmann, Pushker Kharecha, Allegra N. Legrande, Michael Bauer, and Kwok-Wai Lo (2016), "Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming could be dangerous", Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 3761-3812, doi:10.5194/acp-16-3761-2016

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.html (http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.html)
Abstract: "We use numerical climate simulations, paleoclimate data, and modern observations to study the effect of growing ice melt from Antarctica and Greenland. Meltwater tends to stabilize the ocean column, inducing amplifying feedbacks that increase subsurface ocean warming and ice shelf melting. Cold meltwater and induced dynamical effects cause ocean surface cooling in the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic, thus increasing Earth's energy imbalance and heat flux into most of the global ocean's surface. Southern Ocean surface cooling, while lower latitudes are warming, increases precipitation on the Southern Ocean, increasing ocean stratification, slowing deepwater formation, and increasing ice sheet mass loss. These feedbacks make ice sheets in contact with the ocean vulnerable to accelerating disintegration. We hypothesize that ice mass loss from the most vulnerable ice, sufficient to raise sea level several meters, is better approximated as exponential than by a more linear response. Doubling times of 10, 20 or 40 years yield multi-meter sea level rise in about 50, 100 or 200 years. Recent ice melt doubling times are near the lower end of the 10–40-year range, but the record is too short to confirm the nature of the response. The feedbacks, including subsurface ocean warming, help explain paleoclimate data and point to a dominant Southern Ocean role in controlling atmospheric CO2, which in turn exercised tight control on global temperature and sea level. The millennial (500–2000-year) timescale of deep-ocean ventilation affects the timescale for natural CO2 change and thus the timescale for paleo-global climate, ice sheet, and sea level changes, but this paleo-millennial timescale should not be misinterpreted as the timescale for ice sheet response to a rapid, large, human-made climate forcing. These climate feedbacks aid interpretation of events late in the prior interglacial, when sea level rose to +6–9 m with evidence of extreme storms while Earth was less than 1 °C warmer than today. Ice melt cooling of the North Atlantic and Southern oceans increases atmospheric temperature gradients, eddy kinetic energy and baroclinicity, thus driving more powerful storms. The modeling, paleoclimate evidence, and ongoing observations together imply that 2 °C global warming above the preindustrial level could be dangerous. Continued high fossil fuel emissions this century are predicted to yield (1) cooling of the Southern Ocean, especially in the Western Hemisphere; (2) slowing of the Southern Ocean overturning circulation, warming of the ice shelves, and growing ice sheet mass loss; (3) slowdown and eventual shutdown of the Atlantic overturning circulation with cooling of the North Atlantic region; (4) increasingly powerful storms; and (5) nonlinearly growing sea level rise, reaching several meters over a timescale of 50–150 years. These predictions, especially the cooling in the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic with markedly reduced warming or even cooling in Europe, differ fundamentally from existing climate change assessments. We discuss observations and modeling studies needed to refute or clarify these assertions."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 19, 2016, 04:48:43 AM
I'd be curious to know if anyone here believes we can
avoid the 2C target. I think it was just a randomly selected number that policy makers have put forward to sound like they're making some sort of progress and appease activists.

IPCC's AR5 calculates Carbon Budget using fully linear TCR (transient climate response) values; however, if we do not stay well below the 2C target then non-linear climate response is unavoidable; so who thinks that the authors of AR5 used good judgement in developing their guidance for policy makers?
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: Revillo on May 19, 2016, 05:59:57 AM
The IPCC reports are inevitably conservative given that the governments of all 120 participating countries approve of its every word, a number of which derive their funding largely from the sale of fossil fuels.

One must also not forget that the report compiled in 2013 was on the tail end of the so called "hiatus" that many climate models were under fire for not accurately forecasting, and was also when oil was trading at an attractive $100+/bbl range.

The fact that the report paints such a bleak picture in spite of these facts demonstrates how irrefutable the science has become. Still, the summary for policy makers is a political necessity as much a scientific text - not derived from a comprehensive, objective assesment of our situation but offering at least a few plausible scenarios for how member states could transition away from fossil fuels, given assumptions that the technology necessary to remove CO2 from the air, power economies without emissions, cool the planet, etc, will become available.

If such technologies existed, perhaps the panel could afford to be more aggressive. Keep in mind, everything in the report is qualified by terms like "likely" and "with medium confidence," as if a 66% chance of avoiding "dangerous" and "irreversible" warming was a prudent objective.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 19, 2016, 06:03:56 PM
The IPCC reports are inevitably conservative given that the governments of all 120 participating countries approve of its every word, a number of which derive their funding largely from the sale of fossil fuels.

One must also not forget that the report compiled in 2013 was on the tail end of the so called "hiatus" that many climate models were under fire for not accurately forecasting, and was also when oil was trading at an attractive $100+/bbl range.

The fact that the report paints such a bleak picture in spite of these facts demonstrates how irrefutable the science has become. Still, the summary for policy makers is a political necessity as much a scientific text - not derived from a comprehensive, objective assesment of our situation but offering at least a few plausible scenarios for how member states could transition away from fossil fuels, given assumptions that the technology necessary to remove CO2 from the air, power economies without emissions, cool the planet, etc, will become available.

If such technologies existed, perhaps the panel could afford to be more aggressive. Keep in mind, everything in the report is qualified by terms like "likely" and "with medium confidence," as if a 66% chance of avoiding "dangerous" and "irreversible" warming was a prudent objective.

Citing that IPCC engaged in a Faustian Bargain with policy makers when it produced AR5 is not an argument against human stupidity.  If no one else, at the very least James Hansen provided numerous warnings that scientific reticence was leading the IPCC consensus down a very danger pathway (with regard to its policy guidance); which will shortly lead to the public being inadequately prepared to adapt to the coming reality.

When faced with a "wick problem" like climate change, the scientific community (including the IPCC) should insist that any guidance documents must include assessments of maximum credible events/pathways w.r.t. climate change.  Saying such things as "who would have thought" that crude oil would drop below $100/bbl, or that the faux hiatus might not be real, is simply not credible when considering worse case scenarios. 

It is possible/probable that the Land-Ocean GMST departure will exceed the CMIP5 RCP 8.5 95%CL range this year; and that the Land GMST departure will exceed the CMIP5 RCP 8.5 99% CL range this year.  This is simply irresponsible modeling, and does not account for the risks that high climate sensitivity has been masked by such factors as: (a) cool spots in the ocean from ice meltwater; (b) ocean heat uptake on decadal cycles; (c) aerosol emissions & feedback; (d) natural masking of climate change due to such factors as VOCs, DSM and a temporary increase in biological uptake of CO2.  Furthermore, guidance focused on global warming downplays the importance of limiting ocean acidification and ocean deoxygenation.

Hopefully, the public will come to appreciate that "Faking it until you make it" is the wrong approach for dealing with climate change.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 19, 2016, 06:37:49 PM
With a hat tip to DavidR, the attached plot indicates that our current Arctic sea ice extent may be as much as 4 standard deviation below the mean IJIS values for this time of year.  If the Arctic Ocean experiences a seasonal blue ocean event this year, it will represent a major failure of the IPCC/CMIP5 model projections.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 19, 2016, 07:21:50 PM
For those who think that my critique of human stupidity focuses unfairly on scientists, I provide the following link to a status report on the Accelerated Climate Model for Energy, ACME; which is a state-of-the-art Earth Systems Model, ESM; for which scientists are making a major effort to improve model forecasts beyond CMIP5 (see the attached image).  The report indicates that the Version 1 of the ACME model will be released in June 2016; and that model runs that will be completed by July 2017, after which papers will be written and peer reviewed and results might possibly be incorporated into AR7.  While I have not seen the "… series of science experiments, in the works for 2 years …", I am concerned that they likely will not fully address the issues of ice-climate feedback raised both by Hansen et al (2016) and DeConto & Pollard (2016).

https://climatechangescience.ornl.gov/content/acme%E2%80%94scaling-heights

Extract: "More important, the team, which consists of eight national laboratories, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, four academic institutions, and one private-sector company, is on schedule for release of Version 1 of the ACME model in June 2016.
The major activity this past year was completion of Version 1 of the model, based on the Community Earth System Model or CESM. The team has been running tests on the model since late last year. After the release in June, the team will start a series of science experiments, in the works for 2 years, that will run from July 2016 through July 2017."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: ivica on May 19, 2016, 08:55:45 PM
Desmond Tutu: "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor."
My 2c ;)  (https://youtu.be/FUoDWR7u4Ac)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: magnamentis on May 19, 2016, 11:41:54 PM
which applies to ourselves being treated injust while the the side of the oppressor would have to be replaced with the term "cowerdice" sorry for the long speach, just so much share your 2cts that i had to chime in quickly and to be fair, not being a coward comes with a huge price tag as i'm sure you're aware :-) ;)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 19, 2016, 11:53:33 PM
which applies to ourselves being treated injust while the the side of the oppressor would have to be replaced with the term "cowerdice" sorry for the long speach, just so much share your 2cts that i had to chime in quickly and to be fair, not being a coward comes with a huge price tag as i'm sure you're aware :-) ;)

I was thinking in terms of human stupidity vs human wisdom; but a case can be made for thinking in terms of human cowardice vs human morality.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: magnamentis on May 20, 2016, 01:50:32 AM
yes, while for the stupid it's easier to be brave due to their inability to see and consider the consequences but that topic's filling entire sections of libraries, after all we are part of an interlaced system and it appears that each part has its place in it.

how far would the most sophisticated component of a machinery get without some of the cheapest and most simple but absolutely necessary 5ct pieces.

i'm sure you understand what i'm trying to say while i tend to agree because other than machinery we humans have given the gift of a will and the possibility to learn at least the basics hence not much of an excuse left IMO.

Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 20, 2016, 02:00:32 AM
In the linked May 10, 2016 article by Rolf Schuttenhelm, entitled: "Real Global Temperature Trend, p18 – Now how high is climate sensitivity? Here’s the answer of the world’s 13 leading climate experts!", Schuttenhelm ask 13 highly regarded climate experts what their guts tell them about climate sensitivity.


http://www.bitsofscience.org/real-global-temperature-trend-climate-sensitivity-leading-climate-experts-7106/ (http://www.bitsofscience.org/real-global-temperature-trend-climate-sensitivity-leading-climate-experts-7106/)


Extract: "Piers Forster, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Alan Robock, Michael Mann, Ken Caldeira, Stefan Rahmstorf, Chris Forest, Gabriele Hegerl, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Jonathan Gregory, Drew Shindell and Andrei Sokolov share their thoughts, and gut feelings, on climate sensitivity."

While I respect all of these experts, the fact that they largely indicated that their guts supported the a range of 2 to 4.5C (which largely overlaps with the AR5 finding), indicates to me that even experts can be out of touch with the latest research and tend to revert to consensus values in order to guard their well-earned reputations.  To support my position, I provide the following 20 references that either directly, or indirectly, indicate that climate sensitivity is most likely significantly higher than the range summarized by AR5:

1. The linked reference analyses the CMIP3&5 results to conclude the ECS is likely 3.9C +/- 0.45C:

Chengxing Zhai, Jonathan H. Jiang & Hui Su (2015), "Long-term cloud change imprinted in seasonal cloud variation: More evidence of high climate sensitivity", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2015GL065911


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065911/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065911/full)

2. The linked reference provides findings from CMIP5 of the continued poleward expansion of the Hadley Cell with continued global warming; which in-turn supports the idea that ECS is greater than 3C:

Lijun Tao, Yongyun Hu & Jiping Liu (May 2016), "Anthropogenic forcing on the Hadley circulation in CMIP5 simulations", Climate Dynamics, Volume 46, Issue 9, pp 3337-3350 DOI: 10.1007/s00382-015-2772-1

http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-015-2772-1 (http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-015-2772-1)

3. The linked reference presents new paleo evidence about the Eocene.  While the authors emphasize that their findings support the IPCC interpretation for climate sensitivity, when looking at the attached Fig 4 panel f, it appears to me that this is only the case if one averages ECS over the entire Eocene; while if one focuses on the Early Eocene Climate Optimum (EECO) which CO₂ levels were higher than in current modern times, it appear that ECS was higher (around 4C) than the IPCC AR5 assumes (considering that we are increasing CO2 concentrations faster now that during the EECO this gives me concern rather than reassurance).

Eleni Anagnostou, Eleanor H. John, Kirsty M. Edgar, Gavin L. Foster, Andy Ridgwell, Gordon N. Inglis, Richard D. Pancost, Daniel J. Lunt & Paul N. Pearson (2016), "Changing atmospheric CO2 concentration was the primary driver of early Cenozoic climate", Nature, doi:10.1038/nature17423


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature17423.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature17423.html)

4. Tan et al (2016) indicates that ECS may well be between 5.0 and 5.3C.

Ivy Tan, Trude Storelvmo & Mark D. Zelinka (08 Apr 2016), "Observational constraints on mixed-phase clouds imply higher climate sensitivity", Science, Vol. 352, Issue 6282, pp. 224-227, DOI: 10.1126/science.aad5300


http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6282/224 (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6282/224)

5. According to the IPCC AR5 report: "The transient climate response is likely in the range of 1.0°C to 2.5°C (high confidence) and extremely unlikely greater than 3°C"; however, the linked reference uses only observed data to indicate that TCR is 2.0 +/- 0.8C.  Thus AR5 has once again erred on the side of least drama.


T. Storelvmo, T. Leirvik, U. Lohmann, P. C. B. Phillips & M. Wild (2016), "Disentangling greenhouse warming and aerosol cooling to reveal Earth’s climate sensitivity", Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo2670


http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2670.html (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2670.html)

6. The linked reference reassesses ECS from CMIP3 &5 and find an ensemble-mean of 3.9C, and I note that CMIP3&5 likely err on the side of least drama as they ignore several important non-linear slow feedbacks that could be accelerated by global warming:

Chengxing Zhai, Jonathan H. Jiang, Hui Su (2015), "Long-term cloud change imprinted in seasonal cloud variation: More evidence of high climate sensitivity", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2015GL065911

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065911/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065911/full)

7. The linked reference could not make it more clear that paleo-evidence from inter-glacial periods indicates that ECS is meaningfully higher than 3C and that climate models are commonly under predicting the magnitude of coming climate change.

Dana L. Royer (2016), "Climate Sensitivity in the Geologic Past", Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Vol. 44


http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-earth-100815-024150?src=recsys (http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-earth-100815-024150?src=recsys)

8. Thompson indicates that ECS has a 95%CL range of from 3C to 6.3C, with a best estimate of 4C, and Sherwood (2014) has a higher value still:

Climate sensitivity by Roy Thompson published by Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, DOI: 10.1017/S1755691015000213

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=10061758&fileId=S1755691015000213 (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=10061758&fileId=S1755691015000213)


9. Tian (2015) indicates that the double-ITCZ bias constrains ECS to its high end (around 4.0C):

Tian, B. (2015), "Spread of model climate sensitivity linked to double-Intertropical Convergence Zone bias", Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, doi:10.1002/2015GL064119.


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064119/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064119/abstract)

10. Sherwood et al (2014), which found that ECS cannot be less than 3C, and is likely currently in the 4.1C range.  Also, everyone should remember that the effective ECS is not a constant, and models project that following a BAU pathway will result in the effective ECS increasing this century:


Sherwood, S.C., Bony, S. and Dufresne, J.-L., (2014) "Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing", Nature; Volume: 505, pp 37–42, doi:10.1038/nature12829

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html)

11. The linked reference studies numerous climate models and finds that: "… those that simulate the present-day climate best even point to a best estimate of ECS in the range of 3–4.5°C."
Reto Knutti, Maria A. A. Rugenstein (2015), "Feedbacks, climate sensitivity and the limits of linear models", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2015.0146

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2054/20150146 (http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2054/20150146)

12.  The linked reference indicates that the cloud feedback from tropical land is robustly positive.  As AR5 did not know whether this contribution to climate sensitivity was positive or negative, this clearly indicates that AR5 errs on the side of least drama with regard to both TCR & ECS:

Youichi Kamae, Tomoo Ogura, Masahiro Watanabe, Shang-Ping Xie and Hiroaki Ueda (8 March 2016), "Robust cloud feedback over tropical land in a warming climate", Atmospheres, DOI: 10.1002/2015JD024525

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JD024525/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JD024525/abstract)

13.  Graeme L. Stephens, Brian H. Kahn and Mark Richardson (5 May, 2016), "The Super Greenhouse effect in a changing climate", Journal of Climate, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0234.1 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0234.1)


http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0234.1 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0234.1)

14. The linked reference assumes different degrees of nonlinearity for climate feedback mechanisms and concludes that such nonlinearity for positive feedback represents a Black Swan risk that linear climate models cannot recognize:

Jonah Bloch-Johnson, Raymond T. Pierrehumbert & Dorian S. Abbot (24 June 2015), "Feedback temperature dependence determines the risk of high warming", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2015GL064240

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064240/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064240/full)


15.  While the linked (open access) reference has many appropriate qualifying statements and disclaimers, it notes that the AR5 paleo estimates of ECS were linear approximations that change when non-linear issues are considered.  In particular the find for the specific ECS, S[CO2,LI], during the Pleistocence (ie the most recent 2 million years) that:
"During Pleistocene intermediate glaciated climates and interglacial periods, S[CO2,LI] is on average ~ 45 % larger than during Pleistocene full glacial conditions."

Therefore, researchers such as James Hansen who relied on paleo findings that during recent full glacial periods ECS was about 3.0C, did not know that during interglacial periods this value would be 45% larger, or 4.35C.

Köhler, P., de Boer, B., von der Heydt, A. S., Stap, L. B., and van de Wal, R. S. W. (2015), "On the state dependency of the equilibrium climate sensitivity during the last 5 million years", Clim. Past, 11, 1801-1823, doi:10.5194/cp-11-1801-2015.


http://www.clim-past.net/11/1801/2015/cp-11-1801-2015.html (http://www.clim-past.net/11/1801/2015/cp-11-1801-2015.html)
http://www.clim-past.net/11/1801/2015/cp-11-1801-2015.pdf (http://www.clim-past.net/11/1801/2015/cp-11-1801-2015.pdf)

16.  The linked reference implies that climate sensitivity (ESS) could be much higher than previously assumed:

Jagniecki,Elliot A. et al. (2015), "Eocene atmospheric CO2from the nahcolite proxy", Geology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/G36886.1 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/G36886.1)


http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2015/10/23/G36886.1 (http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2015/10/23/G36886.1)

17.  The linked open access reference identifies three constraints on low cloud formation that suggest that cloud feedback is more positive than previously thought.  If verified this would mean that both TCR and ECS (and ESS) are larger than previously thought:

Stephen A. Klein and Alex Hall (26 October 2015), "Emergent Constraints for Cloud Feedbacks", Climate Feedbacks (M Zelinka, Section Editor), Current Climate Change Reports, pp 1-12, DOI 10.1007/s40641-015-0027-1

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40641-015-0027-1 (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40641-015-0027-1)

18.  The linked article indicates that values of TCR based on observed climate change are likely underestimated:

J. M. Gregory, T. Andrews and P. Good (5 October 2015), "The inconstancy of the transient climate response parameter under increasing CO₂", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2014.0417


http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2054/20140417 (http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2054/20140417)

19.  The linked reference indicates that most current climate models underestimate climate sensitivity:

J. T. Fasullo, B. M. Sanderson & K. E. Trenberth (2015), "Recent Progress in Constraining Climate Sensitivity With Model Ensembles", Current Climate Change Reports, Volume 1, Issue 4, pp 268-275, DOI 10.1007/s40641-015-0021-7

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40641-015-0021-7?wt_mc=email.event.1.SEM.ArticleAuthorOnlineFirst (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40641-015-0021-7?wt_mc=email.event.1.SEM.ArticleAuthorOnlineFirst)

20.  The linked reference indicates that studies that assuming linearity of climate sensitivity likely underestimate the risk of high warming.

Jonah Bloch-Johnson, Raymond T. Pierrehumbert and Dorian S. Abbot (June 2015), "Feedback temperature dependence determines the risk of high warming", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2015GL064240

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064240/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064240/abstract)

Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 20, 2016, 03:22:40 AM
I would like to add that it is one of my intentions in this thread to convey the idea that: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"; and in this regards I note that Obama's efforts to promote the use of methane (largely from fracking) as a bridge fuel to a sustainable future has contributed (along with increased agricultural activities) to the recent acceleration of the concentration of CH4 in the atmosphere.  Also, I note that per the attached plot methane has a relatively high Global Warming Potential, GWP, in the near-term (I note that the red curve is now generally accepted and the blue curve is accepted as being out of date):
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 20, 2016, 05:02:04 PM
While all kinds of decision makers are claiming progress in controlling GHG emissions the linked data indicates that these anthropogenic emissions are actually accelerating instead of decelerating, and that according to NOAA the CO₂ -equiv at the end of 2015 was 485 ppm. Most disturbing is the rapid growth in atmospheric methane concentrations, and I note that in NOAA's conversion of methane into CO₂-equiv they use the old formula (see the IPCC 2007 curve in the image in Reply #14) for methane's GWP, thus they are dumbing down these numbers by declining to utilize the most current science presented by Drew Shindell 2009 (see the figure in Reply #14):

http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html (http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html)


         Global Radiative Forcing, CO2-equivalent mixing ratio, and the AGGI 1979-2013
                         Global Radiative Forcing (W m-2)           CO2-eq
                                                                                     (ppm)        AGGI
Year     CO2     CH4    N2O   CFC12 CFC11 15-minor  Total Total   1990 = 1   %change

2013   1.882  0.496   0.184   0.167   0.059   0.114  2.901   478      1.340        2.0
2014   1.908  0.499   0.187   0.166   0.058   0.116  2.935   481      1.356        1.6
2015   1.939  0.504   0.190   0.165   0.058   0.118  2.974   485      1.374        1.8

CH4   ΔF = β(M½ - Mo½) - [f(M,No) - f(Mo,No)]   β = 0.036


See also:
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/19052016/global-co2-emissions-still-accelerating-noaa-greenhouse-gas-index (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/19052016/global-co2-emissions-still-accelerating-noaa-greenhouse-gas-index)

Extract: "The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not just rising, it's accelerating, and another potent greenhouse gas, methane showed a big spike last year, according to the latest annual greenhouse gas index released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"This inventory shows the rate of releases are increasing. It's going completely in the wrong direction, with no sign that the planet as a whole has the problem under control," said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist in the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research who wasn't involved in compiling the inventory.

The index, now in its 10th year, measures how much of the sun's warmth is trapped in the atmosphere by gases like CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. The data is compiled from a global network of measuring stations, including the famed observatory atop Mauna Loa, known for having the longest continuous record of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Mauna Loa's CO2 levels for the northern hemisphere are currently about 4 ppm higher than this time last year. Scientists there predict it may not dip below 400 ppm again.
NOAA's index shows that CO2 concentration has risen by an average of 1.76 parts per million since it was established in 1979, and that increase is accelerating. In the 1980s and 1990s, it rose about 1.5 ppm per year. Over the last five years, the rate of increase has been about 2.5 ppm, said Ed Dlugokencky, a senior scientist with NOAA's Earth Systems Research Laboratory who helped compile the inventory."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 20, 2016, 06:59:40 PM
The Faustian Bargain struck between AR5 scientists and policy makers is dependent on the complexity/uncertainty of the climate change "wicked problem" that allows for the moral hazard of applying magic thinking to future projections.  In order to shine some light on the nature of the uncertainty that allows for this moral hazard, I offer the following list of issues where AR5 scientists have consistently chosen the most Pollyannaish assumptions when making their projections and associated ranges of probability:

1.  Whatever feedback mechanisms had more than 5% uncertainty were left out of their models.  For example the modelers were not certain how much natural methane emissions would come from permafrost degradation for high warming scenarios, so they simply left these emissions out of their forecasts.  Truncating the right-tail of forcing PDFs is rampant in AR5 projections; which is a very bad idea when those right-tails are long and/or fat.

2.  Aerosol negative forcing and negative feedback mechanisms assumed in AR5 are lower than has been indicated by subsequent research discussed in the following linked thread on aerosols.  This allows AR5 modelers to assume that climate sensitivity is lower than it likely is and still match the observed record.  Furthermore, now that coal-fired power plant emissions are declining rapidly, this negative forcing/feedback is decreasing rapidly which is contributing to accelerating increases in GMST.
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?topic=1384.msg64876#msg64876 (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?topic=1384.msg64876#msg64876)

3. Increasing atmospheric CO₂ concentrations have promoted plant (particularly in the deserts)/plankton blooms that have temporarily sustained relatively high rates of natural CO₂ sequesterization on land and in the oceans.  Unfortunately, these carbon sinks are subject to reversals with continued warming as we have recently experienced during the 2015/16 Super El Nino that caused tropical rainforests to release large amounts of CO₂ back into the atmosphere.

4.  The AR5/CMIP5 models could not cope with decadal changes in ocean heat uptake, and so they gave undue weight to the possibility that the faux haitus was real, and did not include any mechanisms for the heat stored in the ocean to be released back into the atmosphere as we are experiencing now that the PDO index is very positive.

5.  The AR5/CMIP5 models did not include any hosing associated with glacial ice melting and thus to not include the ice-climate feedback identified by Hansen et al 2016.

6. The AR5/CMIP5 models do not include the impacts of wildfires and thus do not include the impacts of the current Fort McMurray megafire that may well continue to burn well into the boreal winter.

7.  The AR5/CMIP5 models do not consider that the Arctic sea ice is subject to abrupt changes and thus do not consider this reduction in associate albedo.  See the following reference:

Goldstein, M. A., Lynch, A. H., Arbetter, T. E., and Fetterer, F.: Abrupt transitions in Arctic open water area, The Cryosphere Discuss., doi:10.5194/tc-2016-108, in review, 2016.

http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/tc-2016-108/ (http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/tc-2016-108/)

8. Most of the AR5 RCP scenarios include negative emission geoengineering measures, without which global warming will trigger accelerations in non-linear positive feedback mechanisms that are thus omitted from the projections.

9.  AR5/CMIP5 RCP scenarios underestimated both population growth and the increases in per capita consumption.

These are just some of the issues associated with the Faustian Bargain between AR5 scientists and policy makers, resulting from moral hazard not only associated with wick problem uncertainty but also with the tyranny of small decisions (by policy makers, also see the next Reply #17) discussed in the following Wikipedia link and the following ASIF thread link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_small_decisions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_small_decisions)
 

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1181.50.html (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1181.50.html)

Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 20, 2016, 07:35:41 PM
Many people criticized Al Gore in that his "An Inconvenient Truth" movie/book did not offer many solutions to climate change.  In this light I provide the following link to an article written by Dante Disparte (CEO of Risk Cooperative) & Daniel Wagner (CEO of Country Risk Solutions).  They are the co-authors of “Global Risk Agility and Decision Making”.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dante-disparte/instinctive-decision-maki_b_9969998.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dante-disparte/instinctive-decision-maki_b_9969998.html)

Extract: "Man-made risks — such as cyber-attacks, climate change and terrorism — have become so prevalent and severe that they now impact most everyone, as well as the ability of organizations and governments to operate with resilience and certainty. Such risks may no longer be referred to as anomalies with limited consequences, but are, rather, indicative of the costs associated with living in the Anthropocene Era, where the actions of human kind negatively impact the environment, and collide with natural risks. In this Era, where uncertainty and unpredictability are the norm, and organizations of all kinds are being challenged like never before, the need to make great decisions has come to transcend the profit motive, for firm survival is at stake.
Traditional organizational decision-making processes - which tend to entail linear, empirical, one-dimensional thinking — have of course been widely used for decades, but have never before been put to the test with such transcendent and centrifugal forces tugging at its core. We have entered an era in which information boundaries have been erased, communication and money flows are instantaneous, and our infrastructure, cities, and even some countries face grave threats to their existence because of the pervasive threats of climate change, cyber risk, and terrorism. In such a condition, it should be clear to risk managers and leaders alike that conventional decision making may be insufficient in managing and staying ahead of such risks.



Against this backdrop, organizations face a staggering array of questions that must be addressed, such as, how can organizations adapt their decision making frameworks to create a more agile approach? Will the predominant consensus driven frameworks give way to a greater degree of instinctive or entrepreneurial approaches? Are these models size or velocity dependent? And, will decision makers feel free to move beyond their comfort zone in order to meaningfully address the risks? Many organizations - large and small - are struggling to answer these questions in a manner that sets the stage for boldly propelling them into the 21st century well prepared to resolve these issues directly and successfully.
The result is that the purchasing and investment decisions of the vast majority of decision makers - particularly in large organizations — have fallen into a trap of ‘decision avoidance’ and complacency, which is contrary to both stakeholder interests and organizational resilience. By virtue of how large organizations have evolved over many years, decision makers have fallen prey to disconnected silos, with organizational fiefdoms being run as entirely separate profit, cost or decision making centers. Decisions are increasingly being made by committees, which completely dilute and diffuse accountability while progressing at a glacial pace. The more consequential or costly the decision, the higher the likelihood that the result will be to continue with the status quo or defer making a decision entirely. In effect, the decision making process may be considerably weakened and made ineffective by the combination of low risk awareness, a constant barrage of short-term information, and far too many ‘leaders’ opining over organizational choices.
Instinctive decision making, which is most commonly associated with entrepreneurs who are constantly walking the tight rope between success and failure, is rare in all but a handful of large organizations. The cornerstone for ‘following your gut’ decision making is a leader’s innate conviction, belief in a given value system (corporate or personal), and comfort with making decisions in opaque conditions. The rise of corporate activism among a handful of firms supports this argument.

Elon Musk, founder and CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, provides another great example of an instinctive leader. While building reusable rockets like Falcon 9 (which made a successful landing on a waterborne drone) clearly depends on a vast amount of empirical data, SpaceX, like Tesla, are clearly thriving due to Musk’s stubborn commitment to his instincts and passion — that humanity’s fate depends on commercially viable space travel and the death of the internal combustion engine.


No one — no matter how experienced — can know or anticipate precisely when a problem will arise. This is particularly true in the era of man-made risk. All we can do is make educated guesses based on what history teaches us, and integrate what we have learned in the process. In the end, the ability to anticipate what the future will bring, using a combination of knowledge, insight, and a healthy sixth sense, can make all the difference. Listening to your gut and sense of smell are, in the end, as important as all the other tools at one’s disposal. Good leaders know when to follow their instincts."


Also see the thread entitled "Adapting to the Anthropocene" at the following link:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1308.0.html (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1308.0.html)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: A-Team on May 20, 2016, 09:41:34 PM
Bravo!

One thing that has bothering me for some time is the 'scientists from 120 countries' composition of IPCC. I would guess 99% of peer-reviewed research on climate change (indeed most any topic in science) is based out of 7-8 countries (as are 99% of forum originations). Would that not leave 110 countries scratching around for qualified representatives to rebut notions of representatives of the big emitters wanting to paper over the problem, ie kick the can down the road to 2100 and beyond?

I could think of some Asian countries are not punching their weight despite relative affluence and large scientific populations. On the other hand, Germany seems to be increasingly taking over the scientific leadership. Indeed I am seeing more and more published in that language, which would be like the 19th century (except for google translate).

I don't see anyone here posting ensembles of model runs. That might be possible, the code is open source, but for various reasons it is impractical w/o access to supercomputer infrastructure and more. Some of the aforementioned countries would have to shut down their whole grid or experience electrical blackouts during the course of a single run. Better to hold-out for a pay-off to your elites.

It is only when you delve into the assumptions and details that any real understanding of code is attained. As an analogy, take the Forest Plan spreadsheet for any national forest in the US. Very complex models of tree growth by species, weather, bug damage, soils, moisture, drought, temperature, elevation, slope, aspect, erosion etc but all leading to the same conclusion: more stumps. It is only when environmentalists dug into the models for themselves that they came to understand an unsustainable cut was baked in by limitations in parameter assumptions.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 20, 2016, 10:38:32 PM
One thing that has bothering me for some time is the 'scientists from 120 countries' composition of IPCC. I would guess 99% of peer-reviewed research on climate change (indeed most any topic in science) is based out of 7-8 countries (as are 99% of forum originations). Would that not leave 110 countries scratching around for qualified representatives to rebut notions of representatives of the big emitters wanting to paper over the problem, ie kick the can down the road to 2100 and beyond?

Your comments are as insightful as ever (& nice photo of current Canadian forestry practices).  Indeed, the current IPCC thinking is dominated by the few most powerful countries; & that thinking emphasizes that the poor countries will be hurt more by climate change than the rich countries, so the poor countries were strong armed to contributing to the Paris Pact where as in the Kyoto Protocol they were not required to make contributions.  However, this is only one example of the wick nature of climate change, as the weakest parties are the unborn generations who couldn't run a state-of-the-art ESM (like ACME) projection if lives depended on it (which they do); so there is an inherent moral hazard to kick the can down to road to those young/unborn who have no place at the table.  Another example of the wick nature of climate change is that for a relatively minor additional cost (carbon pricing) on fossil fuels several decades ago, climate change would be a relatively minor problem; yet in a world where all decisions are made on the margin even paying a minor carbon fee would give the edge to parties who care less (tyranny of small decisions) thus making to obvious/easy options to deal with climate change, non-starters.

This brings our discussion to the idea that the very powerful are not bothered very much by the future suffering of the masses, and in this view the IPCC AR5 Faustian Bargain has a cold logic to it.  Nevertheless, I believe that even these very powerful parties are conning themselves, as even their lives will be significantly degraded (by mass refugees, the spread of warm weather viruses like zika, extreme weather, multi-meter of SLR with major impacts on world commerce & infrastructure) in the Hansen et al (2016) scenarios that seem to be unfolding right now, and which may be impossible to stop within a decade (or two)'s time; even if people like Bill Gates are investing in geoengineering (which will not stop abrupt SLR, ice-climate feedback, ocean acidification nor ocean deoxygenation).  Which brings me back to the topic of this thread that of human stupidity; which, will bring unnecessary future suffering due to individuals clinging to the magical thinking with regards to their imagined self-interests. 

As I state in the "Adapting to the Anthropocene" thread, I suspect that after sustaining significant amounts of unnecessary suffering the remaining international society will rely on a combination of Swarm & Artificial Intelligence to better deal with wick man-made problems.

Edit:  For those who are wondering, I am fairly confident that people like Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk are not going to allow AI to be degraded with the rest of society in the coming decades.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: Revillo on May 20, 2016, 11:17:05 PM
Tempted as we may be to place blame on stupidity or greed or avarice, or to a particular institution or individual, the reality is that fossil fuels have a set of properties which make them exceptionally useful compared with other sources of energy, and substitutes are not readily available.

Climate scientist and environmentalists may be quick to jump on claims that an evil or incompetent bunch has stifled and distorted progress on alternatives to fossil fuels,  but it is simple physics which thwarts us, and thoughtful, calm, rational men and women are wracking their brains out without much gratitude over a problem more tragic than wicked.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: Buddy on May 20, 2016, 11:26:46 PM
Climate scientist and environmentalists may be quick to jump on claims that an evil or incompetent bunch has stifled and distorted progress on alternatives to fossil fuels....

That is only because THEY HAVE STIFLED AND DISTORTED PROGRESS.


.....but it is simple physics which thwarts us, and thoughtful, calm, rational men and women are wracking their brains out without much gratitude over a problem more tragic than wicked.

Simple physics could have used another 35 years AT LEAST.  Think about that for a minute.  If we didn't have people in fossil fuel companies THAT WERE LYING ABOUT IT SINCE AT LEAST 1980.... AND STILL LYING TODAY....all that time could have been used on "simple physics" to create alternatives MUCH EARLIER and put a cost on carbon.

Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 21, 2016, 12:14:40 AM
When I wrote "human stupidity" it was not my intention to single out scientists; nevertheless, scientists are at the forefront of this issue and in the linked article James Hansen makes it clear that he believes that scientific reticence is dangerous; especially in light of the recent paper Hansen et al (2016):

http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2016/03/24/dangerous-scientific-reticence/ (http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2016/03/24/dangerous-scientific-reticence/)

Extract: "There is a very important issue at play here: the relevant scientific community, in our opinion, has been exercising self-censorship in its warning to the public about the danger of human-made climate change. It would be difficult to overstate the threat of increasing human-made climate change, which we suggest threatens to bring about some of the greatest injustices in the history of the planet: of current adult generations to young people and future generations, and of people of the industrialized North to people of the South, as climate change is due mainly to emissions from nations at middle and high latitudes.

Inertia of the climate system reduces present climate impacts, but it also makes it difficult to stop larger ones in decades ahead. Inertia in our energy systems implies that it takes decades to make major changes in emissions and atmospheric composition.  Because of the combination of these two slow systems, we are in danger of passing points of no return, such that we hand young people a climate system with great consequences, including the potential for large sea level rise and shutdown of the ocean’s overturning circulations, consequences that could be locked in soon if we do not reduce global emissions rapidly.

Scientific reticence is dangerous, and wrong in my opinion. I will return to that subject soon.

One final comment, closely related to scientific reticence. A criticism of our paper that may warrant response is that the ice melt rates that we assumed were “unrealistic”.  In fact it is certain that multi-meter per century melt rates have occurred many times in Earth’s history, spurred by much weaker forcings than the human-made forcing.  We presented evidence in our paper that rapid sea level rise even occurred in late-Eemian, when there was less ice available for melt than today.  Just this week a paper was published showing that the fastest natural increase of greenhouse gas climate forcing in the past 66 million years was at least 10 times slower than the human-made change.  Unfortunately, the melt rates we talk about for the next several decades are very realistic, and we are already seeing expected response to current melt rates."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: misanthroptimist on May 21, 2016, 08:00:20 AM
I'd be curious to know if anyone here believes we can
avoid the 2C target. I think it was just a randomly selected number that policy makers have put forward to sound like they're making some sort of progress and appease activists.
No, I do not believe that we can avoid more than 2C warming. IMO, civilization is a lost cause, living on borrowed time. With that  in mind, I am planning to make a very small, self-sufficient complex in an area with very large biological diversity, with the idea that something will be able to adapt. If that idea is ultimately wrong...well, that's likely a problem for my descendants rather than me. At least no one will be able to say that I didn't try. :)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 21, 2016, 09:20:53 AM
Climate scientist and environmentalists may be quick to jump on claims that an evil or incompetent bunch has stifled and distorted progress on alternatives to fossil fuels....

That is only because THEY HAVE STIFLED AND DISTORTED PROGRESS.


.....but it is simple physics which thwarts us, and thoughtful, calm, rational men and women are wracking their brains out without much gratitude over a problem more tragic than wicked.

Simple physics could have used another 35 years AT LEAST.  Think about that for a minute.  If we didn't have people in fossil fuel companies THAT WERE LYING ABOUT IT SINCE AT LEAST 1980.... AND STILL LYING TODAY....all that time could have been used on "simple physics" to create alternatives MUCH EARLIER and put a cost on carbon.

I generally agree with Buddy's response, and I note that the problem with fossil fuels is not that they are evil, or wicked, themselves, but that under our current form of croney capitalism those who set the rules (lobbyists for the powerful) has chosen to use uncertainty to transfer the negative utility of the carbon emissions from those who use the fossil fuels to those who did not; which represents both economic theft and a moral hazard.  The uncertainty inherent in the wick problem of climate change allows those in power to avoid taking responsibility for carbon pollution; and legal systems are starting to recognize the illegality (not evilness) of this situation.  Thus we need to revise our current international socio-economic system to prevent the powerful from abusing the common good; which entails hard work to make our socio-economic interactions more intelligent (and less stupid ala the tyranny of the commons/small-decisions).

It is indeed stupid for humans to be conducting a one-shot experiment by radiatively forcing the Earth's Systems at a rate ten times that which occurred during the PETM; where no one can accurately project what exactly is going to occur; but which will clear have major negative socio-economic consequences.  It is also stupid for humans to be hoping for a technological miracle, as some kind of savior; in order to avoid doing the hard work to make all of our socio-economic interactions responsible for the negative impacts that fossil fuels create on the common good.  Also, I note that it takes hard work to make the powerful (who got power in part by transferring the negative impacts of fossil fuels to others) take responsibility for their actions; and this hard work includes shining the light of understanding (including by state-of-the-art ESMs) on the uncertainties that makes climate change a wicked (not inherently evil but complex enough to allow for moral hazard) problem.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 21, 2016, 07:31:09 PM
Climate scientist and environmentalists may be quick to jump on claims that an evil or incompetent bunch has stifled and distorted progress on alternatives to fossil fuels,  but it is simple physics which thwarts us, and thoughtful, calm, rational men and women are wracking their brains out without much gratitude over a problem more tragic than wicked.


I imagine that a great many people are making significant efforts to use magical/technological thinking in an effort to tackle climate change; however, as it was just this type of thinking that got us into our current situation; I am not sure how much faith that we should have that it will improve our future as much as these people want to take credit for:

In the 1960's LBJ was provided with climate change projections, that have essentially matched what has happened in the meantime; yet his response was that if such projections were to occur, future generations would simply use geoengineering to counter them, so he continued promoting GHG emissions in order to stimulate the economy. 

Furthermore, the first linked article reports that China has targeted to increasing gas consumption from 199 billion cubic meters (bcm) today to 360 bcm by 2020; and that it is doing so in part by increasing coal to synthetic natural gas, SNG, and by planning for more fracking of shale gas (see the first attached image that shows that SNG is worse than coal, and that shale gas can be worse than coal depending on leakage rates).  Furthermore, I provide the second attached image of the AR5 SOD figure from Chapter 8 on radiative forcing showing the global warming potential (GWP) and global temperature potential (GTP) of the indicated anthropogenic emission components; which indicates the importance of limiting methane emissions (and properly accounting for aerosol reduction) as soon as possible:

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/20/11720320/china-coal-to-gas (http://www.vox.com/2016/5/20/11720320/china-coal-to-gas)

Extract: "Reuters reports that China has just approved three new plants in its western provinces that would turn coal into synthetic natural gas. The idea is that this gas would then be shipped to population centers in the east, where it would burn much more cleanly in power plants and detoxify the air in cities like Beijing.

Except there's a huge catch: The coal-to-gas (CTG) plants themselves are highly energy-intensive and can create far more CO2 overall than coal alone. It's basically swapping less smog for more climate change. China currently has three CTG plants operating, four under construction, three newly approved, and plans for another 17 in preparation. If even a fraction are built — a big "if" — that could have a sizeable impact on global warming.

Now China is taking up the torch. The country desperately wants to use less coal and more natural gas in its cities to cut local air pollution. The central government has set a target of increasing gas consumption from 199 billion cubic meters (bcm) today to 360 bcm by 2020. (The country is also rapidly ramping up nuclear, wind, and solar, but demand is so massive that those sources alone can't suffice.)

Yet China only produces about 190 bcm of natural gas domestically, gas imports are expensive, and its domestic gas deposits are difficult to tap (more on that below). Meanwhile, the country has vast coal reserves and a lot of coal miners who could be out of work if coal consumption dips too far. So coal-to-gas seems like a nifty way of squaring this circle.

It's also worth noting that CTG isn't the only option China has to increase gas supplies. The country also has massive reserves of natural gas locked in shale rock across the country, though it's had trouble accessing them. The country originally planned to produce 60-100 bcm of shale gas by 2020. More recently, it has cut that target to just 30 bcm. China's energy companies are still struggling to make use of the same fracking techniques that have worked in the United States.

A report last year from Zhongmin Wang of the Paulson Institute examined some of the challenges here. Unlike in the US, oil and gas companies can't just buy up mineral rights from private individuals, so the incentives to drill don't always line up well. Scarce water and the rather unique geology of China's shale have also posed a challenge for drilling projects."

Per the second linked article: "ExxonMobil and others pursued research into technologies, yet blocked government efforts to fight climate change for more than 50 years, findings show":

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/20/oil-company-records-exxon-co2-emission-reduction-patents (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/20/oil-company-records-exxon-co2-emission-reduction-patents)

Extract: "The forerunners of ExxonMobil patented technologies for electric cars and low emissions vehicles as early as 1963 – even as the oil industry lobby tried to squash government funding for such research, according to a trove of newly discovered records.

The attorney general of the US Virgin Islands has subpoenaed Exxon to turn over email, documents and statements over the last decades.

Exxon has dismissed the investigations as politically motivated."

The third linked article indicates that the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology is investigating: "… "green" state attorneys general and climate advocates"; in a clear & intentional effort of intimidation:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/Climate-change-denier-in-Congress-rebuked-and-7876760.php (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/Climate-change-denier-in-Congress-rebuked-and-7876760.php)

Extract: "A U.S. House committee, headed by climate change deniers, is "grandstanding" by charging collusion between "green" state attorneys general and climate advocates, Washington AG Bob Ferguson said on Friday.
The House Committee on Science, Space and Technology "appears committed to rejecting science itself," said Ferguson after getting a letter signed by the panel's chairman, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, and 12 other committee Republicans.

The House committee is investigating the investigators."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 21, 2016, 08:44:10 PM
Some people think that abrupt climate change will not occur in their lifetimes, however, the linked article indicates that the remaining carbon budget from 2015 may be as low as 590 GtCO2; and as CO₂-e emissions are around 50GtCO2, it is easy to see that we could readily exceed the 2C limit by around 2030 (or earlier depending on the actual ECS value); which could then trigger DeConto & Pollard (2016)'s cliff failures and hydrofracturing (most significantly in the WAIS but also meaningfully in the GIS).  Furthermore, in the way of additional positive feedbacks that Hansen did not include in his ice-climate feedback mechanism, I remind the reading that: (a) the bottom layer of marine glaciers typically contain methane hydrates that can be rapidly be decomposed as icebergs are calved & roll to the surface during cliff failures (as is frequently currently observed for the Jakobshavn Glacier); (b) as ice sheets lose large amounts of mass, isostatic rebound can raise the seafloor that was previously beneath the calved portions of marine glaciers by hundreds of meters (particularly in the Byrd Subglacial Basin area of the West Antarctic), which can destabilized methane hydrates within the raised seafloor; and (c) the multiple meters of global SLR can trigger seismic activity in coastal areas around the world, which could cause submarine landslides in the continental slope areas; which again could release methane from hydrates around the world.  Obviously, as NOAA has warned of a potential 3m global SLR between 2050-2060, these methane hydrate feedback mechanisms could possibly drive radiative forcing above the RCP 8.5 level before the end of the century, if they were to occur in combination with other potential sources of natural methane emissions from the Arctic and degrading (but periodically submerged) tropical rainforests:

Joeri Rogelj, Michiel Schaeffer, Pierre Friedlingstein, Nathan P. Gillett, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Keywan Riahi, Myles Allen & Reto Knutti (2016) "Differences between carbon budget estimates unravelled", Nature Climate Change, Volume: 6, Pages: 245–252, doi:10.1038/nclimate2868

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2868.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2868.html)

Abstract: "Several methods exist to estimate the cumulative carbon emissions that would keep global warming to below a given temperature limit. Here we review estimates reported by the IPCC and the recent literature, and discuss the reasons underlying their differences. The most scientifically robust number — the carbon budget for CO2-induced warming only — is also the least relevant for real-world policy. Including all greenhouse gases and using methods based on scenarios that avoid instead of exceed a given temperature limit results in lower carbon budgets. For a >66% chance of limiting warming below the internationally agreed temperature limit of 2 °C relative to pre-industrial levels, the most appropriate carbon budget estimate is 590–1,240 GtCO2 from 2015 onwards. Variations within this range depend on the probability of staying below 2 °C and on end-of-century non-CO2 warming. Current CO2 emissions are about 40 GtCO2 yr−1, and global CO2 emissions thus have to be reduced urgently to keep within a 2 °C-compatible budget."

See also:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_worlds_carbon_budget_is_only_half_as_big_as_previously_thought_20160225 (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_worlds_carbon_budget_is_only_half_as_big_as_previously_thought_20160225)

Extract: "There is general agreement that a limit of 590 billion tons would safely keep the world from overheating in ways that would impose ever greater strains on human society. The argument is about the upper limit of such estimates.
Dr Rogelj says: “In order to have a reasonable chance of keeping global warming below 2°C, we can only emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide, ever. That’s our carbon budget.
“This has been understood for about a decade, and the physics behind this concept are well understood, but many different factors can lead to carbon budgets that are either slightly smaller or slightly larger. We wanted to understand these differences, and to provide clarity on the issue for policy-makers and the public.
“This study shows that, in some cases, we have been overestimating the budget by 50 to more than 200%. At the high end, this is a difference of more than 1,000 billion tons of carbon dioxide.”"
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 21, 2016, 11:09:45 PM
I think that the NRC should begin working on a new report on Abrupt Climate Change, for publication at the end of 2017, and that it should include the works of DeConto & Pollard (2016) and Hansen et al (2016) as well preliminary findings of the ACME project on the response of ice sheets.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160216091147.htm (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160216091147.htm)

Extract: "To better understand this loss, a team of Sandia National Laboratories researchers has been improving the reliability and efficiency of computational models that describe ice sheet behavior and dynamics. The team includes researchers Irina Demeshko, Mike Eldred, John Jakeman, Mauro Perego, Andy Salinger, Irina Tezaur and Ray Tuminaro.
This research is part of a five-year project called Predicting Ice Sheet and Climate Evolution at Extreme Scales (PISCEES), funded by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC) program. PISCEES is a multi-lab, multi-university endeavor that includes researchers from Sandia, Los Alamos, Lawrence Berkeley and Oak Ridge national laboratories, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Florida State University, the University of Bristol, the University of Texas Austin, the University of South Carolina and New York University.

For the old 2013 NRC report see:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10136/abrupt-climate-change-inevitable-surprises (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10136/abrupt-climate-change-inevitable-surprises)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4hWHlpq3iU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4hWHlpq3iU)

See also:

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/research/proposals/accelerated-climate-modeling-energy-acme-ocean-and-sea-ice-processes (https://scripps.ucsd.edu/research/proposals/accelerated-climate-modeling-energy-acme-ocean-and-sea-ice-processes)


The attached image shows the normalized impact on humans of a 5m sea level rise; which could happen well before the end of this century.


Finally, I note that per the following linked article, Australia's CSIRO has just laid-off 275 climate scientists including its leading expert on sea level rise: John Church.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/world/australia/australia-to-lay-off-leading-scientist-on-sea-levels.html?_r=2 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/world/australia/australia-to-lay-off-leading-scientist-on-sea-levels.html?_r=2)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: Revillo on May 23, 2016, 06:49:51 AM
I just don't see the point in villifying oil companies. Maybe it will satisfy our bloodlust to attack Exxon for hiding evidence of climate change, but all the evidence and science was a matter of public record well before the 1980s. The fact that they had a patent for a contraption to lower emissions that was prohibitively expensive isn't exactly a scandal.

Climate change isn't a problem caused by a few oil companies and corrupt politicians. Neither is it a problem caused by capitalism. If you're gonna blame anything, it's really industrialization and combustion engines and our own cleverness. China doesn't use coal because it's corrupt or beholdent to lobbyists or in admiration of capitalistic ideals - they use it because it's an abundant and accessible source of energy necessary to run their economy and fulfill their very human aspirations. It's tragic that the consequences of industrialization on the environment are so severe (global warming just being one example, and perhaps not even the worst), but we lived on farms for thousands of years, and change was inevitable.

It'd be better in these conversations to bridge the gap between energy engineers, politicians and climate scientists, unfortunately, most of the discourse is mud slinging and name calling. And a lot of it is born out of ignorance. You might be the world's foremost mind on the physics of cascading ice cliff failures, but if you think solar panels and lithium ion batteries are going to replace fossil fuels in some timely matter, you are ignorant of the relevant science that could stand to do anything about it.

Even Elon Musk doesn't sound too hopeful about our ability to adapt fast enough. He might have some bright ideas and his products may make a little dent, but his solar panel company is fairing poorly because solar panels aren't very productive, and the supply of batteries for his cars are in doubt because lithium and other metals are pricey and environmentally destructive to obtain and process.

Ultimately, if we come together, we can embrace the science on both sides and stop fighting. As for solutions to the predicament, well, I for one encourage the use of contraceptives indiscriminately among all populations, and suggest we may wish to reduce our fears over nuclear power and try to find safe and economical means of deploying it, as well as keep our minds open to researching geoengineering.
But if all that fails, we should prepare ourselves emotionally and spiritually for our fate.



Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 23, 2016, 09:48:15 AM
I just don't see the point in villifying oil companies. Maybe it will satisfy our bloodlust to attack Exxon for hiding evidence of climate change, but all the evidence and science was a matter of public record well before the 1980s. The fact that they had a patent for a contraption to lower emissions that was prohibitively expensive isn't exactly a scandal.

...

But if all that fails, we should prepare ourselves emotionally and spiritually for our fate.


First, my point about oil companies is to hold them legally responsible for their actions, which is something for the courts to decide.

Edit: The following is related to ExxonMobil's situation:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/exxon-facing-heat-climate-change-holds-annual-meeting-39368799 (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/exxon-facing-heat-climate-change-holds-annual-meeting-39368799)
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36332076 (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36332076)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/25/exxon-climate-change-greenhouse-gasses (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/25/exxon-climate-change-greenhouse-gasses)


Second, this thread is not about mud slinging, but rather to look at our true situation and not some "Fake it until we make it" approach, and in this regards climate change is not only coming faster than most decision makers admit, but also it acts as a stress riser for all the other challenges facing humanity (as publically acknowledged by the US Military).

Third, when faced with climate change uncertainty, one should follow the Precautionary Principle; and per "optimal stopping" theory when faced with a wick problem one should stop avoiding action (like carbon pricing, and regulation) once one has 37% of the full information that could be obtained by waiting on a time critical problem, one should follow the Precautionary Principle and stop allowing carbon pollution without economic, or legal, consequences.

See also:

For Wick Problems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem)

For Optimal stopping:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_stopping (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_stopping)

For the Secretary Problem:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: magnamentis on May 23, 2016, 12:34:23 PM
thanks for this great post, great read in such concentrated form, provided by the links ;)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 24, 2016, 05:09:25 PM
I noted in Reply #14 that Obama's policy of promoting the use of methane (especially shale gas) as an energy bridge to more sustainable power sources; seems to be actually accelerating radiative forcing at the moment due to the relatively high rate of methane leaks (and the high GWP of methane) associated with methane development as a fuel (including shale gas).  As a follow on to that post, the linked article indicates that when Hillary Clinton was part of Obama's administration she promoted the use of shale gas in numerous foreign countries, but was only successful in Canada, China and Argentina due to energy market volatility, including Saudi Araba's recent efforts to flood the market with crude oil.  Furthermore, the article indicates that if Clinton become president she may well continue to promote the use of shale gas (both in the USA and overseas); which might further accelerate global warming if methane leaks are not better controlled (which is particularly difficult to control overseas).  Note, I am not promoting Trump as president as he has claimed that climate change is a hoax:
 
https://theintercept.com/2016/05/23/hillary-clinton-fracking/

Extract: "The Global Shale Gas Initiative, Clinton’s program for promoting fracking, was announced on April 7, 2010, by David Goldwyn, the State Department’s special envoy for energy affairs, at the United States Energy Association (USEA), whose members include Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and Shell.



Now called the Unconventional Gas Technical Engagement Program, the Global Shale Gas Initiative lives on under Secretary of State John Kerry (though they’ve taken down the website) but with the prospect of a commercial-scale global shale gas boom greatly reduced. Only the U.S., Canada, Argentina and China have commercialized the controversial horizontal drilling technique.
The pause in fracking, however, might be momentary. A number of energy companies that worked closely with the State Department now employ lobbyists that are fundraising furiously for Clinton’s campaign. ExxonMobil’s top lobbyist, as well as lobbyists for liquefied natural gas terminals designed to connect the U.S. to the global gas market, are among the most prolific fundraisers.



The State Department’s shale gas initiative “was clearly driven by the promotion of Big Oil’s expansion,” Charlie Cray, senior researcher at Greenpeace USA, told The Intercept. “That it was one of State’s highest priorities undermines their credibility as leaders in the global effort to prevent the calamitous threats of climate change.”"
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: solartim27 on May 24, 2016, 05:40:03 PM
The only reason fracking is profitable  is president cheney's halliburton  rule
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/21828-time-to-end-the-cheney-halliburton-loophole (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/21828-time-to-end-the-cheney-halliburton-loophole)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 24, 2016, 11:33:26 PM
The linked reference indicates society currently only looks at the impacts of climate of individual sectors (like agriculture) in isolation; which is likely to misrepresent the true impacts.  For example the Paris Pact does not limit carbon emissions from agriculture yet it is impossible to achieve its stated goals when considering the impacts of agriculture growth on the climate:

Paula A. Harrison et al. Climate change impact modelling needs to include cross-sectoral interactions, Nature Climate Change (2016). DOI: 10.1038/nclimate3039


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3039.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3039.html)

Abstract: "Climate change impact assessments often apply models of individual sectors such as agriculture, forestry and water use without considering interactions between these sectors. This is likely to lead to misrepresentation of impacts, and consequently to poor decisions about climate adaptation. However, no published research assesses the differences between impacts simulated by single-sector and integrated models. Here we compare 14 indicators derived from a set of impact models run within single-sector and integrated frameworks across a range of climate and socio-economic scenarios in Europe. We show that single-sector studies misrepresent the spatial pattern, direction and magnitude of most impacts because they omit the complex interdependencies within human and environmental systems. The discrepancies are particularly pronounced for indicators such as food production and water exploitation, which are highly influenced by other sectors through changes in demand, land suitability and resource competition. Furthermore, the discrepancies are greater under different socio-economic scenarios than different climate scenarios, and at the sub-regional rather than Europe-wide scale."

See also:
http://phys.org/news/2016-05-full-picture-climate-impacts.html (http://phys.org/news/2016-05-full-picture-climate-impacts.html)

Extract: "How can society plan for the future if we only look at individual issues in isolation? Climate change impact studies typically focus on a single sector such as agriculture, forestry or water, ignoring the implications of how different sectors interact. A new study, published in Nature Climate Change, suggests that an integrated, cross-sectoral approach to climate change assessment is needed to provide a more complete picture of impacts that enables better informed decisions about climate adaptation.


Using the CLIMSAVE Integrated Assessment Platform (IAP), which links models of agriculture, forestry, urban growth, land use, water resources, flooding and biodiversity, the new study compares single-sector and integrated modelling approaches and their outcomes.
The resulting discrepancies are particularly evident for indicators such as food production and water exploitation which are highly influenced by other sectors through changes in demand, land suitability and resource competition.
"This analysis has demonstrated quantitatively for the first time the uncertainty arising from a single sector perspective. This highlights the importance of developing adaptation plans that are robust to changes in climate and socio-economic pathways and that take account of cross-sectoral interactions", concludes Dr. Harrison."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 25, 2016, 06:36:39 PM
Experts have a lot of doubts about the feasibility of implementing negative emissions technology, NET, any time soon:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/experts-assess-feasibility-neg-emissions.html (https://www.skepticalscience.com/experts-assess-feasibility-neg-emissions.html)

I note that achieving the goals of the Paris Pact is highly dependent on the successful implementation of NET on large scales.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 25, 2016, 09:36:40 PM
Per the first linked reference, theory and experiments indicate that if scientists were able/willing to identify an upcoming tipping point with catastrophic damage [such as that identified by Hansen et al. (2016) taken together with DeConto & Pollard (2016)] that this would simplify collective action to control GHG emissions.  Unfortunately, the research also indicates that the higher degree of strategic reasoning used by current policy elites increase the risk for climate catastrophe:

Vilhelm Verendel, Daniel J. A. Johansson & Kristian Lindgren (2015), "Strategic reasoning and bargaining in catastrophic climate change games", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate2849

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2849.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2849.html)


Abstract: "Two decades of international negotiations show that agreeing on emission levels for climate change mitigation is a hard challenge. However, if early warning signals were to show an upcoming tipping point with catastrophic damage, theory and experiments suggest this could simplify collective action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At the actual threshold, no country would have a free-ride incentive to increase emissions over the tipping point, but it remains for countries to negotiate their emission levels to reach these agreements. We model agents bargaining for emission levels using strategic reasoning to predict emission bids by others and ask how this affects the possibility of reaching agreements that avoid catastrophic damage. It is known that policy elites often use a higher degree of strategic reasoning, and in our model this increases the risk for climate catastrophe. Moreover, some forms of higher strategic reasoning make agreements to reduce greenhouse gases unstable. We use empirically informed levels of strategic reasoning when simulating the model."

There is a concern that: "Capital today serves nothing other than capital itself." Salon May 25 2016
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/23/donald_trump_is_going_to_win_this_is_why_hillary_clinton_cant_defeat_what_trump_represents/ (http://www.salon.com/2016/05/23/donald_trump_is_going_to_win_this_is_why_hillary_clinton_cant_defeat_what_trump_represents/)

As evaluating the matter of making the global socio-economic system requires consideration of sustainability as well as capital, thus the following focuses on the finding of the Verendel (2015) finding that: "It is known that policy elites often use a higher degree of strategic reasoning, and in our model this increases the risk for climate catastrophe. Moreover, some forms of higher strategic reasoning make agreements to reduce greenhouse gases unstable."

Without science modern society is effectively blind as to how to re-balance our socio-economic system in order to better meet the challenges of climate change; and in this regard I provide the following quote from the philosopher C.D. Broad (1925), "The Mind and its Place in Nature", New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company, Inc.:

Quote: "The speculative philosopher and the scientific specialist are liable to two opposite mistakes. The former tends to deliver frontal attacks on Reality as a whole, armed only with a few wide general principles, and to neglect to isolate and master in detail particular problems. The latter tends to forget that he has violently abstracted one part or one aspect of Reality from the rest, and to imagine that the success which this abstraction has given him within a limited field justifies him in taking the principles which hold therein as the whole truth about the whole world. The one cannot see the trees for the wood, and the other cannot see the wood for the trees. The result of both kinds of mistake is the same, viz., to produce philosophical theories which may be self-consistent but which must be described as "silly". By a "silly" theory I mean one which may be held at the time when one is talking or writing professionally, but which only an inmate of a lunatic asylum would think of carrying into daily life."

Furthermore, C. D. Broad is often misquoted as saying: "induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy"; however, the actual quote was: "May we venture to hope that when Bacon's next centenary is celebrated the great work which he set going will be completed; and that Inductive Reasoning, which has long been the glory of Science, will have ceased to be the scandal of Philosophy?"  Broad, C.D. (1926), "The philosophy of Francis Bacon: An address delivered at Cambridge on the occasion of the Bacon tercentenary, 5 October, 1926", Cambridge: University Press, p. 67.

I provide these quotes from C.D. Broad to emphasize that in order to re-balance our climate change stressed modern socio-economic world system [and to try to reduce the risk of catastrophic climate change due to the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet beginning in the next few decades] we need to consider the whole system (including man & nature) and not to focus excessively on deductive scientific logic (which can leave parts out of consideration when re-assembling the whole after applying the reductionist scientific method), but rather use inductive logic while working to re-balance our currently dysfunctional system; while guarding (via the judicial system) against the corrupting influence of executive, & legislative, power.  Currently, skeptics have expertly played the card of scientific uncertainty to avoid implementing effective climate change action; however, the use of both inductive logic and "optimal stopping" theory can allow of a much better assessment of the consequences of such foot-dragging such as passing non-linear tipping points that lead to climate catastrophes.

Integrated assessment models, or IAMs, have historically been very poor at including non-linear effects in their projections, so in the past they projected only minor climate change impacts on wealthy countries.  However, the first following linked reference, Burke et al. (2015), shows that when non-linear effects are included in macro assessments even rich countries suffer from climate change; while the second following linked Vox article indicates the uncertainty loop (shown in the first image) and the risks from "fat-tailed" climate sensitivity pdfs (see second image); which could make the impacts of climate change to be far worse that that indicated by Burke et al. (2015):

Marshall Burke, Solomon M. Hsiang & Edward Miguel (2015), "Global non-linear effect of temperature on economic production", Nature, doi:10.1038/nature15725


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature15725.html#ref5 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature15725.html#ref5)


http://www.vox.com/2015/10/23/9604120/climate-models-uncertainty (http://www.vox.com/2015/10/23/9604120/climate-models-uncertainty)

Extract: "For most variables, model uncertainty represents less than a quarter of overall uncertainty. Most of the uncertainty in IAMs is parametric uncertainty. (The only variable for which model uncertainty is the majority is the social cost of carbon, probably because it's powerfully affected by choice of discount rate.)
The authors conclude that "relying upon ensembles as a technique for determining the uncertainty of future outcomes is (at least for the major climate change variables) highly deficient. Ensemble uncertainty tends to underestimate overall uncertainty by a significant amount."


The point about "catastrophic climate outcomes" is important, and the basis for another common critique of IAMs. The charge is that IAMs can only model continuous damage functions — that is, damages that rise smoothly and continuously. They are incapable of dealing with discontinuities, with sudden, nonlinear changes. These are the "tipping points" people are always worrying about, wherein some natural or social system, subjected to continuous stress, experiences a rapid, lurching phase shift to a different state. Some argue that cost-benefit analysis — of which IAMs are an elaborate form — are intrinsically incapable of dealing with such catastrophes.

A Harvard climate economist named Martin Weitzman has, for several years now, been mounting a counterargument to the use of IAMs (and conventional cost-benefit generally) to assess climate policy. The best expression of the argument remains his influential 2009 paper "On Modeling and Interpreting the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change." (See also last year's "Fat Tails and the Social Cost of Carbon" and his new book with economist Gernot Wagner, Climate Shock.)
In a nutshell, Weitzman argues that climate risks have "fat tail" distributions. In a normal bell-shaped probability curve, the sides drop off quickly — the risks of more extreme outcomes (the tails on either end) fall quickly to zero. But in a fat-tail distribution, risks fall off more slowly at the tails. There are small but non-negligible risks of very extreme outcomes."

Furthermore, "... the algorithms that researchers have developed to solve the hardest classes of problems have moved computers away from an extreme reliance on exhaustive calculation.  Instead, tackling real-world tasks requires being comfortable with chance, trading off time with accuracy, and using approximations.

Intuitively, we think that rational decision-making means exhaustively enumerating our options, weighting each one carefully, and then selecting the best.  But in practice, when the clock – or the ticker – is ticking, few aspects of decision-making (or of thinking more generally) are as important as this one: when to stop." Algorithms to Live By, 2016, by Brian Christian and Tom Griffiths".  And knowing when to stop and what to do then falls in the realm of inductive logic, and the use of "Swarm Intelligence" could fulfill C.D. Broad's wish for the year 2026, so that we can safely apply inductive reasoning to the "higher degree of strategic reasoning" used by policy elites: "May we venture to hope that when Bacon's next centenary is celebrated the great work which he set going will be completed; and that Inductive Reasoning, which has long been the glory of Science, will have ceased to be the scandal of Philosophy?"  Broad, C.D. (1926)

In this regards, per Carl Sagan: "Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge." Thus with the use of Swarm Intelligence to use AI to leverage human wisdom/insight (the opposite of human stupidity), hopefully, policy elites will stop playing brinksmanship with climate catastrophe, and instead start making timely decision to limit the consequences of our fat tailed climate risks.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 26, 2016, 01:09:26 AM
The title of this thread "Human Stupidity" includes the question of the difference between "The Tragedy of the Commons/Small Decisions" and the tendency for state elite to intentionally plan to acquire more power at the expense of others; with the goal of finding a more effective path forward to fight climate change; as our current efforts are woefully inadequate.

Assuming the policy elite are well informed about our climate situation and have concluded from their knowledge of what is actually possible in the real world that we live in that "there is no path to a solution", then their brinksmanship (such as LBJ's assumption that solar radiation management, SRM, or Bill Gates' 'technological miracle', could be used at the last minute before we go past a tipping point) 'makes sense" [particularly in the light that we might be headed towards nationalism, ala Donald Trump] and would lead to the Faustian Bargain that I mentioned earlier in this thread where policy elite pressured scientists into making Pollyannaish projections about our current situation.

That said, just because children believe that they are thinking correctly does not mean that it is a good idea if they play with snakes; and just because our current (and past) state elites think that following a BAU path (green, black, brown or otherwise) is a necessary evil does not mean that we in the blogosphere should accept this as a good idea.  As I do not like the idea of authoritarianism/nationalism in our future, I suggest that ala Ray Kurzweil we need to facilitate upgrading the common man using Swarm Intelligence, and in this line of thinking I offer the following extended extract from "Algorithms to Live By The Computer Science of Human Decisions" by Christian & Griffiths (2016):
 
"Conclusion: Computational Kindness

"I firmly believe that the important things about humans are social in character and that relief by machines from many of our present demanding intellectual functions will finally give the human race time and incentive to learn how to live well together." Merrill Flood

Any dynamic system subject to the constraints of space and time is up against a core set of fundamental and unavoidable problems.  These problems are computational in nature, which makes computers not only tools but also our comrades.  From this come three simple pieces of wisdom.

First, there are cases where computer scientists and mathematicians have identified good algorithmic approaches that can simply be transferred over to human problems.  The 37% rule, the Least Recently Use criterion for handling overflowing caches, and the Upper Confidence Bound as a guide to exploration are all examples of this.

Second, knowing that you are using an optimal algorithm should a relief even if you don't get the results you were looking for.

If you followed the best possible process, then you've done all you can, and you shouldn't blame yourself if things didn't go your way.

Finally, we can draw a clear line between problems that admit straight forward solutions and problems that don't.  If you wind up stuck in an intractable scenario, remember that heuristics, approximations, and strategic use of randomness can help you find workable solutions.

What's more, being aware of complexity can help us pick our problems: if we have control over which situation we confront, we should choose the ones that are tractable.
But we don't only pick the problems that we pose to ourselves.  We also pick the problems we pose each other, whether it's the way we design a city or the way we ask a question.  This creates a surprising bridge from computer science to ethics – in the form of a principle that we call computational kindness.

One of the implicit principles of computer science, as odd as it may sound, is that computation is bad: the underlying directive of any good algorithm is to minimize the labor of thought.  When we interact with other people, w present them with computational problems – not just explicit requests and demands, but implicit challenges such as interpreting our intentions, our beliefs, and our preferences.  It stands to reason, therefore, that a computational understanding of such problems casts light on the nature of human interaction.  We can be "computationally kind" to other by framing issues in terms that make the underlying computational problem easier.  This matters because many problems – especially social ones, as we've seen – are intrinsically and inextricably hard.

In almost every domain we've considered, we have seen how the more real-world factors we include – whether its having incomplete information when interviewing job applicants, dealing with changing world when trying to resolve the explore/exploit dilemma, or having certain tasks depend on others when we're trying to get things done –the more likely we are to end up ina situation where finding the perfect solution takes unreasonably long.  And indeed, people are almost always confronting what computer science regards as the hard cases.  Up against such hard cases, effective algorithms make assumptions, show a bias towards simpler solutions, trade off the costs of error against the costs of delays, and take chances.
These aren't the concessions we make when we can't be rational.  They're what being rational means."

Finally, the linked article discusses how: "How Idealism, Expressed in Concrete Steps, Can Fight Climate Change", by giving guidance to people how to behave socially in order to promote sustainability.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/upshot/how-idealism-expressed-in-concrete-steps-can-fight-climate-change.html?_r=1&abt=0002&abg=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/upshot/how-idealism-expressed-in-concrete-steps-can-fight-climate-change.html?_r=1&abt=0002&abg=0)

Extract: "From an economic standpoint, international efforts until now have foundered on a fundamental “free rider problem.” In a nutshell, individuals and nations that bear the immediate costs of measures to protect the atmosphere will experience only a small fraction of the benefits, which are shared by all the people and nations on the planet. Why not just take a “free ride” and let others do the hard work?

In traditional economic theory, the benefits of reducing emissions take the form of an “externality,” meaning they are external to the local environment because they are spread over the whole world. Our own contributions are often too small to see or feel.
When the problem is an externality, it is, for the most part, futile to ask people to volunteer to fix it — by taking actions like car-pooling or riding a bike to work to cut back on emissions or, in the case of governments, by enacting laws and regulations.
….
But in a new book, “Climate Shock: The Economic Consequences of a Hotter Planet” (Princeton 2015), Gernot Wagner of the Environmental Defense Fund and Martin L. Weitzman, a Harvard economist, question that assumption. In a proposal that they call the Copenhagen Theory of Change, they say that we should be asking people to volunteer to save our climate by taking many small, individual actions."

Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 26, 2016, 01:33:37 AM
State elites have repeatedly demonstrated that they are willing to use warfare to promote national self-interest, and climate change is a clear stress riser that can contribute to the risk of war.  Carl von Clausewitz (using the thesis-antithesis-synthesis triad) makes it clear (see the following extract from Wikipedia) that while governments start wars to try to get what they want (normally based on violent emotions), the "fog of war" (or chance) forces on-the-fly changes to the original state policy based on genius (or "military genius").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz)

Extract: "In On War, Clausewitz sees all wars as the sum of decisions, actions, and reactions in an uncertain and dangerous context, and also as a socio-political phenomenon. He also stressed the complex nature of war, which encompasses both the socio-political and the operational and stresses the primacy of state policy.

The first is his dialectical thesis: "War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will." The second, often treated as Clausewitz's 'bottom line,' is in fact merely his dialectical antithesis: "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means." The synthesis of his dialectical examination of the nature of war is his famous "trinity," saying that war is "a fascinating trinity—composed of primordial violence, hatred, and enmity, which are to be regarded as a blind natural force; the play of chance and probability, within which the creative spirit is free to roam; and its element of subordination, as an instrument of policy, which makes it subject to pure reason."  Thus the best shorthand for Clausewitz's trinity should be something like "violent emotion/chance/rational calculation."

Clausewitz acknowledges that friction creates enormous difficulties for the realization of any plan, and the fog of war hinders commanders from knowing what is happening.  It is precisely in the context of this challenge that he develops the concept of military genius, whose capabilities are seen above all in the execution of operations."

While the state elite may view the use of geo-engineering as the equivalent of "military genius" to use rational calculations to control the consequences of their manipulations of climate change to achieve their goals (based on violent emotions); I postulate that due to its fat-tailed PDF (or more likely a dragon tailed PDF) climate change is different than normal warfare, and thus it is likely that all national interests (USA, Russia, China, EU etc) will be diminished if they use geo-engineering for reasons including:

1.  The loss of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, WAIS, is now inevitable and the use of solar radiation management, SRM, can only slow the rate at which sea level will rise by several meters.
2. The incursion of warm ocean waters into the Arctic Ocean Basin will accelerate in the next couple of decades; which will rapidly degrade the submerged permafrost and associated methane hydrates, regardless of whether SRM can restore the Arctic Sea Ice extent, or not.
3. The use of SRM will very likely lead to more warfare which will lead to more radiative forcing and the risk that the SRM will be abruptly discontinued, which would create a period of extreme weather.

Increased use of inductive thinking (which acknowledges the uncertainties of the fat-tailed risks rather than ignoring them) has historically allowed science to effectively tackle such fat-tailed problems (such as climate change), & I believe that von Clausewitz's "military genius" also uses such induction to identify solutions to complex problems clouded by "the fog of war".  Finally in note that inductive reasoning allows for the possibility that the conclusion be false, even where all of the premises are true; thus allowing von Clausewitz's "military genius" (such as Elon Musk, Larry Page, or Mark Zuckerberg) to make one-the-fly adjustments in order to better deal with problems clouded by "the fog of war."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 26, 2016, 01:38:09 AM
I postulate that so little has been achieved in the fight against climate change because the power elite have corrupted (or undermined): politics, press-coverage, legislative & executive governmental branches, and even the scientific message conveyed by the IPCC.  Furthermore, I propose that the judicial branch of government may be one of the more effective manner to force the legislative & executive branches of government to appropriately internalize the externalization of dis-benefits of anthropogenic radiative forcing (which under current law amounts to theft by those who benefit vs those who sustain dis-benefit due to costs of non-internalized anthropogenic radiative forcing).

In this regards, the linked study (focused on the socio-political divide between believers & skeptics in the USA with regard to climate change) cite that the real reason that more progress isn't being made is not that we do not understand the science of climate change but rather that we do not yet effectively manage the socio-political conflict between these opposing groups who are vying for cultural status.


Ana-Maria Bliuc, Craig McGarty, Emma F. Thomas, Girish Lala, Mariette Berndsen & RoseAnne Misajon  (2015), "Public division about climate change rooted in conflicting socio-political identities", Nature Climate Change, Volume: 5, 226–229, doi:10.1038/nclimate2507

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n3/full/nclimate2507.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n3/full/nclimate2507.html)

Abstract: "Of the climate science papers that take a position on the issue, 97% agree that climate change is caused by humans, but less than half of the US population shares this belief. This misalignment between scientific and public views has been attributed to a range of factors, including political attitudes, socio-economic status, moral values, levels of scientific understanding, and failure of scientific communication. The public is divided between climate change 'believers' (whose views align with those of the scientific community) and 'sceptics' (whose views are in disagreement with those of the scientific community). We propose that this division is best explained as a socio-political conflict between these opposing groups. Here we demonstrate that US believers and sceptics have distinct social identities, beliefs and emotional reactions that systematically predict their support for action to advance their respective positions. The key implication is that the divisions between sceptics and believers are unlikely to be overcome solely through communication and education strategies, and that interventions that increase angry opposition to action on climate change are especially problematic. Thus, strategies for building support for mitigation policies should go beyond attempts to improve the public’s understanding of science, to include approaches that transform intergroup relations."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 26, 2016, 01:48:13 AM
While all kinds of decision makers are claiming progress in controlling GHG emissions the linked data indicates that these anthropogenic emissions are actually accelerating instead of decelerating, and that according to NOAA the CO₂ -equiv at the end of 2015 was 485 ppm. Most disturbing is the rapid growth in atmospheric methane concentrations, and I note that in NOAA's conversion of methane into CO₂-equiv they use the old formula (see the IPCC 2007 curve in the image in Reply #14) for methane's GWP, thus they are dumbing down these numbers by declining to utilize the most current science presented by Drew Shindell 2009 (see the figure in Reply #14):

[url]http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html[/url] ([url]http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html[/url])


         Global Radiative Forcing, CO2-equivalent mixing ratio, and the AGGI 1979-2013
                         Global Radiative Forcing (W m-2)           CO2-eq
                                                                                     (ppm)        AGGI
Year     CO2     CH4    N2O   CFC12 CFC11 15-minor  Total Total   1990 = 1   %change

2013   1.882  0.496   0.184   0.167   0.059   0.114  2.901   478      1.340        2.0
2014   1.908  0.499   0.187   0.166   0.058   0.116  2.935   481      1.356        1.6
2015   1.939  0.504   0.190   0.165   0.058   0.118  2.974   485      1.374        1.8

CH4   ΔF = β(M½ - Mo½) - [f(M,No) - f(Mo,No)]   β = 0.036


See also:
[url]http://insideclimatenews.org/news/19052016/global-co2-emissions-still-accelerating-noaa-greenhouse-gas-index[/url] ([url]http://insideclimatenews.org/news/19052016/global-co2-emissions-still-accelerating-noaa-greenhouse-gas-index[/url])

Extract: "The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not just rising, it's accelerating, and another potent greenhouse gas, methane showed a big spike last year, according to the latest annual greenhouse gas index released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"This inventory shows the rate of releases are increasing. It's going completely in the wrong direction, with no sign that the planet as a whole has the problem under control," said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist in the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research who wasn't involved in compiling the inventory.

The index, now in its 10th year, measures how much of the sun's warmth is trapped in the atmosphere by gases like CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. The data is compiled from a global network of measuring stations, including the famed observatory atop Mauna Loa, known for having the longest continuous record of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Mauna Loa's CO2 levels for the northern hemisphere are currently about 4 ppm higher than this time last year. Scientists there predict it may not dip below 400 ppm again.
NOAA's index shows that CO2 concentration has risen by an average of 1.76 parts per million since it was established in 1979, and that increase is accelerating. In the 1980s and 1990s, it rose about 1.5 ppm per year. Over the last five years, the rate of increase has been about 2.5 ppm, said Ed Dlugokencky, a senior scientist with NOAA's Earth Systems Research Laboratory who helped compile the inventory."


Edit: I note that if one assumes that the GWP100 for methane is 35 instead of 25 (per the plot in Reply #14), then NOAA's calculated value for the CO2-eq for 2015 would be 518ppm instead of 485ppm; which is a big difference, and one that NOAA should publically acknowledge.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 26, 2016, 05:13:48 PM
For those who are not familiar with swarm intelligence, the linked article discusses how swarm intelligence is becoming more & more practicable by combining machine AI together with human intelligence:

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/158076/20160513/swarm-intelligence-could-be-gamblers-key-to-betting-heres-how-it-works.htm (http://www.techtimes.com/articles/158076/20160513/swarm-intelligence-could-be-gamblers-key-to-betting-heres-how-it-works.htm)

Extract: "Swarm intelligence seeks to amplify, not replace, human intelligence, with the idea that large groups predict an event outcome better than just one individual can. According to UNU inventor and Unanimous AI chief executive Louis Rosenberg, forcing polarized groups into a swarm lets them find that answer that will satisfy most people."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: EgalSust on May 26, 2016, 07:14:57 PM
It is possible/probable that the Land-Ocean GMST departure will exceed the CMIP5 RCP 8.5 95%CL range this year; and that the Land GMST departure will exceed the CMIP5 RCP 8.5 99% CL range this year.


I can't see this happening. CMIP5 scenarios and observations are compared here:

(http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/files/2016/01/fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2016-panela.png)
(source (http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/))

The latest observations in the above graph are the 2015 annual temps. 2016 up to now is somewhere between 0,15 degrees (Cowtan & Way) to 0,3 degrees (NASA) warmer than 2015 average was. It's difficult to say from the spaghetti graph where the limits to the different ranges lie, but at least it is still inside the "spaghetti range". Of course it would help a lot to have the CMIP5 temperatures in numerical format.

My sources for the temp. observations:

Cowtan & Way:
http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/had4_krig_annual_v2_0_0.txt (http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/had4_krig_annual_v2_0_0.txt)

NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 27, 2016, 01:21:22 AM
It is possible/probable that the Land-Ocean GMST departure will exceed the CMIP5 RCP 8.5 95%CL range this year; and that the Land GMST departure will exceed the CMIP5 RCP 8.5 99% CL range this year.


I can't see this happening. CMIP5 scenarios and observations are compared here:



I provide the following comparison between the Global, NH & SH GISS Land & Ocean temperature departure values for: (a) the 2015 Mean values, (b) the approximate force adjusted CMIP5 2016 RCP 8.5 (and 95% CL range per Steven) and (c) the Jan./Feb./March/April 2016 12-month running average GISS temp departures (from 1951-1980).  This data shows that as compared to the RCP 8.5 CMIP5 2016 average mean value the April 2016 12-month running average Global, NH and SH are all running hot.  It will be interesting to see if this trend continues through Dec 31 2016:

GISS Land & Ocean Temp Departure degrees Celsius, base period: 1951-1980

Year                             Global         NHem        SHem
2015 Mean                      0.86         1.13          0.60 
2016 RCP 8.5/CMIP5        0.85         1.05           0.65
RCP 8.5 95% CL Range (0.5–1.2)   (0.6–1.5)    (0.3–1.0)

12-mo. running ave.
April 2016:                    0.99           1.30            0.69
March 2016:                  0.96           1.27           0.66
Febr. 2016:                   0.93            1.22            0.64
Jan. 2016:                     0.89            1.16            0.62
(To convert 1951-1980 temp departures to pre-industrial add: + 0.256 Celsius)

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/NH.Ts+dSST.txt (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/NH.Ts+dSST.txt)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/SH.Ts+dSST.txt (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/SH.Ts+dSST.txt)



With regards to CMIP5 land temperatures, from Steven May 21 2016 (see the GMST thread):
Relative to baseline 1951-1980, the CMIP5 mean land surface air temperature anomaly for 2016 under the RCP8.5 scenario is 1.31°C  (with 95% CI: 0.8 to 1.8°C).  That is without forcing adjustment.  To correct for that, subtract 0.1°C or 0.15°C or so from these numbers.

GLOBAL Land Temp Anom in degrees Celsius base period: 1901-2000
Year   Jan    Feb       Mar      Apr       
'15 1.3837 1.6916 1.6309 1.0975   
'16 1.5460 2.2841 2.3803 1.9315   
'16       
run 1.3474 1.3968 1.4592 1.5179
ave                   


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land/p12/12/1880-2016.csv (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land/p12/12/1880-2016.csv)


Note that the force adjustment is required because the radiative forcing assumed by CMIP5 RCP 8.5 did not occur.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 27, 2016, 10:24:04 AM
The issue of intergenerational ethics is called the Tyranny of the Contemporary, and the linked article indicates that at least since the IPCC has been established, the current "me" generation has badly failed this ethical test:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/01/09/why-climate-change-is-an-ethical-problem/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/01/09/why-climate-change-is-an-ethical-problem/)

Extract: "The real climate challenge is ethical, and ethical considerations of justice, rights, welfare, virtue, political legitimacy, community and humanity’s relationship to nature are at the heart of the policy decisions to be made. We do not “solve” the climate problem if we inflict catastrophe on future generations, or facilitate genocide against poor nations, or rapidly accelerate the pace of mass extinction. If public policy neglects such concerns, its account of the challenge we face is impoverished, and the associated solutions quickly become grossly inadequate. Ongoing political inertia surrounding climate action suggests that so far, we are failing the ethical test."

See also:
The Tyranny of the Contemporary by Stephen M. Gardiner
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195379440.003.0006

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195379440.001.0001/acprof-9780195379440-chapter-6 (http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195379440.001.0001/acprof-9780195379440-chapter-6)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 27, 2016, 06:07:49 PM
It would appear that donations and jobs still buy influence:

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/26052016/agu-american-geophysical-union-exxon-climate-change-denial-science-sponsorship (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/26052016/agu-american-geophysical-union-exxon-climate-change-denial-science-sponsorship)

Extract: "Donations tied to Exxon have totaled more than $600,000 since 2001, and a former Exxon vice president sits on the AGU's board of directors.



Geologists Vs. Climate Scientists

Kerry Emanuel, a professor of meteorology at MIT who studies hurricanes and climate change, said the AGU's decision to continue ties with Exxon likely reflects AGU's constituency, which includes some climate skeptics.
"I know that AGU has gotten a lot of pressure from geologists in general not to pay much attention to the climate issue," said Emanuel, who also signed the petition and is considering boycotting AGU's annual conference this year. "I just don't know how to quantify that.""
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 27, 2016, 06:25:28 PM
The linked articles discuss where Africa's "Great Green Wall" project is a waste of time & resources:

http://www.fastcoexist.com/3060069/is-the-1-billion-project-to-plant-a-wall-of-trees-across-africa-a-good-idea (http://www.fastcoexist.com/3060069/is-the-1-billion-project-to-plant-a-wall-of-trees-across-africa-a-good-idea)

Extract: "The Great Green Wall of Africa is one of the most ambitious environmental and social projects in the world. But is the premise flawed?

It's been called a new "world wonder," highly "ambitious," and one of Africa's most important climate change projects. Stretching 4,400 miles across 11 countries, from Senegal in the west to Djibouti alongside the Indian Ocean, it would contain up to 11.6 million hectares of vegetation, all aimed at keeping the Sahara from encroaching southwards and maintaining productive land for the people of the Sahel region. The World Bank, the African Union, and the French government have collectively invested, or pledged, billions of dollars to the project."

Also see:
https://www.issafrica.org/iss-today/commanding-the-sahara-to-retreat (https://www.issafrica.org/iss-today/commanding-the-sahara-to-retreat)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 27, 2016, 07:08:36 PM
When the definition of insanity is when you keep doing the same thing and expect different results; are we going to continue our same old approach when Robert DeConto (of DeConto & Pollard 2016) indicates that per his model projections cliff failures and hydrofacturing in the WAIS will accelerate markedly when the GMST departures from pre-industrial get into the 2 to 2.7C range?

In this regards, state elite have fossil fuel ties, and they expect "computational kindness" (i.e. a "Go along to get along" attitude) from the public by means such as: fossil fuel development subsidies, cost free carbon emissions, ESLD climate change projections; ineffective implementation of carbon related regulations, easy access to third world resources and cheap labor, etc.  Fossil fuel linked state elite engage in higher level negotiation strategies with people to maintain our current crony capitalistic global socio-economic system; however, Gaia does not negotiate the physics of climate change with regards to such issues as:

(a) The oceans currently re-releasing heat content stored in it during the faux hiatus.

(b) The probably higher values of climate sensitivity that has been temporarily masked by such mechanisms as: natural and anthropogenic aerosols, melting of both sea and glacial ice, degradation of the permafrost and blooming of the deserts (due to increased CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere); which is dangerous considering that all of these temporary masking factors could be significantly degraded in coming decades.

(c) Cooling of both the North Atlantic, and Southern, Oceans due to ice meltwater, is already beginning to trigger Hansen's ice-climate feedback mechanism.

(d) Arctic sea ice appears to be primed to exhibit Albedo Flip this boreal summer, leading to a likely increase in Arctic Amplification.

(e) The recent Super El Nino of 2015-16 has led to extensive drought damage of rainforests around the world, and if a La Nina develops as forecasted, much of this dead rainforest vegetation could soon be inundated leading to an acceleration of associated methane emissions on top of the decrease in CO₂ absorption associated with the rainforest losses.

(f) Wildfires are already well above average around the world this year, and we are only at the beginning of the boreal burning season.

The following linked articles provide some insights on the sense of entitlement of the fossil fuel linked elites; to which Gaia is not likely to exhibit any "computational kindness", as the elite are so accustom to:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/05/26/3781761/bill-gates-exxon-climate-policy/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/05/26/3781761/bill-gates-exxon-climate-policy/)

Extract: "There was some bad news for billionaire Bill Gates at Exxon’s shareholder meeting Wednesday. Exxon chairman, president, and CEO Rex Tillerson said of Gates, “there’s no space between he and I” on what the world needs to do about climate change. “We’ve gotta have some technology breakthroughs but until we achieve those, just saying turn the taps off is not acceptable to humanity.”"

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-energy-drilling-fossil-fuels-223628 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-energy-drilling-fossil-fuels-223628)

Extract: "Donald Trump outlined an "America first" energy agenda Thursday that includes eliminating a slew of environmental regulations, expanding fossil fuel development, killing the Paris climate deal and ending U.S. reliance on OPEC — with the aim of creating what he called “complete American energy independence.”

“This plan will make America wealthy again,” Trump told an audience in North Dakota, an epicenter of the U.S. oil boom, which has been suffering in the past two years from a global plunge in petroleum prices. He said: “It’s a choice between sharing in this great energy wealth or sharing in the poverty promised by Hillary Clinton.”"

Edit: Regarding "computational kindness" see the book: "Algorithms to Live By" (by Christian & Griffiths 2016) at the following link.  Also, I note that that this book discusses how when faced with a wick problem, to be most effective one should "Dumb it down" and focus exclusively on solutions that give you want.  Unfortunately, crony capitalism is very effective in doing just that by focusing on money while dumbing down sustainability (as being too complex); while both current & future generations will need to learn to include sustainability as one of the goals that we should focus on exclusively.

http://us.macmillan.com/algorithmstoliveby/brianchristian (http://us.macmillan.com/algorithmstoliveby/brianchristian)


Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: timallard on May 27, 2016, 08:55:11 PM
Experts have a lot of doubts about the feasibility of implementing negative emissions technology, NET, any time soon:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/experts-assess-feasibility-neg-emissions.html (https://www.skepticalscience.com/experts-assess-feasibility-neg-emissions.html)

I note that achieving the goals of the Paris Pact is highly dependent on the successful implementation of NET on large scales.
While feasible to some it's not very promising to play as your ace with no cards ?!?

We need to end the Steam Age for electricity on all counts, the other strong player is shipping & aircraft which weren't regulated in Paris so bye-bye 2C for sure, eh?

We're putting out over 9-petagrams of carbon a year so these miracle methods must remove that then remove all the rest? This sounds like cleaning the oceans of plastic without stopping the supply.

Sea-level rises for several centuries or more AFTER CO2 turns around, it we just level off it means nothing sea-level continues to rise to 25m/82ft higher than today, we can't continue to fire coal plants, duh, is "clean coal" a "manifest destiny"-like term, coined to sound ok as a method of theft by burning fossil fuels?

Is it time to quit the psychotic addictions to bad-debts being paid off from their investing intentionally into a dying industry for 30-years knowing it was wrong just because they are international bullies with fancy-clothes lawyers?

Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 28, 2016, 02:47:49 AM
As a follow-up to the climate sensitivity information in Reply #13, I provide the linked reference that uses an information-theoretic weighting of climate models by how well they reproduce the satellite measured deseasonlized covariance of shortwave cloud reflection, indicates a most likely value of ECS of 4.0C.  As this satellite data is certainty biased by the recent acceleration of natural aerosol emissions associated with the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration, the actually ECS is likely higher than 4.0C, as will become apparent if climate change reduces future plant activity.  Unfortunately, the envisioned upgrades to the Paris Pact do not have any contingency for addressing such high values (4 to 4.5C) of ECS (including accelerting NET):

Florent Brient & Tapio Schneider (2016), "Constraints on climate sensitivity from space-based measurements of low-cloud reflection", Journal of Climate, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0897.1 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0897.1)


http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0897.1 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0897.1)

Abstract: "Physical uncertainties in global-warming projections are dominated by uncertainties about how the fraction of incoming shortwave radiation that clouds reflect will change as greenhouse gas concentrations rise. Differences in the shortwave reflection by low clouds over tropical oceans alone account for more than half of the variance of the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) among climate models, which ranges from 2.1 to 4.7 K. Space-based measurements now provide an opportunity to assess how well models reproduce temporal variations of this shortwave reflection on seasonal to interannual timescales. Here such space-based measurements are used to show that shortwave reflection by low clouds over tropical oceans decreases robustly when the underlying surface warms, for example, by −(0.96±0.22)%/K (90% confidence level) for deseasonalized variations. Additionally, the temporal covariance of low-cloud reflection with temperature in historical simulations with current climate models correlates strongly (r = −0.67) with the models’ ECS. Therefore, measurements of temporal low-cloud variations can be used to constrain ECS estimates based on climate models. An information-theoretic weighting of climate models by how well they reproduce the measured deseasonalized covariance of shortwave cloud reflection with temperature yields a most likely ECS estimate around 4.0 K; an ECS below 2.3 K becomes very unlikely (90% confidence)."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 28, 2016, 12:00:00 PM
With a hat tip to Richard Rathbone for his post in the Antarctic folder with a link to the following April 2016 EGU General Assembly press conference 8 video clip roughly focused on the implications of the Paris Pact:


http://client.cntv.at/egu2016/press-conference-8 (http://client.cntv.at/egu2016/press-conference-8)

While the entire video is worth watching I provide the four attached screenshots from the video.  The first two images are from the second (MIT EGU) speaker with:
(a) The first image showing the impact of the faux hiatus on both effective ECS (top panel) and effective oceanic diffusion (bottom panel), and the blue lines showing PDF values using observations until 2000 and the black lines showing PDF values using observations until 2010 (including part of the faux hiatus).  Further the lower panel clearly indicates that the faux hiatus (in GMST departures) was due to more heat content temporarily being sequestered into the oceans during the faux hiatus (some of which heat is now being released from the oceans).  Thus I believe that the blue line climate parameter distributions (with observations to 2000) is more "Realistic" (and indicates a mean ECS value of about 4C) and the black line climate parameter distributions is more "Pollyannaish" (and is best ignored).
(b) The second image shows the implications of both MIT's more "Realistic" climate parameters (left panel, which is good to consider) and "Pollyannaish" climate parameters (right panel, which is best ignored) for different carbon emission scenarios described in the video but with the current Paris pledges indicated by the red lines for which the more "Realistic" climate parameters indicate that we will reach 2C by about 2050 and 2.7C by about 2060.
The last two images are from the DeConto & Pollard EGU presentation with:
(c) The third image showing different carbon concentration pathways with the upper left panel showing the RCP scenarios used by DeConto & Pollard (2016) for their SLR projections; and the bottom left panel showing three new pathways postulated by DeConto where we follow the RCP 8.5 50%CL scenario until we reach 2C (by about 2040), 2.7C (by about 2065) and 3.6C (by about 2090), respectively for the blue, green and red lines.
(d) The fourth image shows DeConto & Pollard's (2016 EGU) projections of Antarctic contributions to changes in global mean sea level, GMSL, by the 2C (blue line), 2.7C (green line) and 3.6C (red line) forcing scenarios.  I believe that DeConto & Pollard's 2C scenario is not achievable in the real world (as confirmed by the second attached MIT analysis), and that by 2100 the 2.7C and the 3.6C forcing scenario produce essentially the same amount of increase in GMSL.  Taken together with the more "Realistic" MIT analysis the DeConto & Pollard (2016 EGU) findings indicate it likely that the WAIS collapse will begin about 2050 following the current Paris Pact pledges (and also ignoring the increase in carbon emissions associated with increasing agricultural growth).

Also I note that the indicated DeConto & Pollard (2016 EGU) findings do not include Hansen et al (2016)'s ice-climate feedback and thus errs on the side of least drama.

Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: timallard on May 28, 2016, 02:41:56 PM
Noting from a recent paper and now at 3-ppm/year we hit 600-ppm in 67-years where Antarctica begins to go fast and by 800-ppm it's dedicated to all melt within 130-years thus AbruptSLR's post shows a situation where 3-5C in 85-years is quite reasonable along with 2m of SLR.

It won't stop there.

The albedo gains with an open Arctic Ocean make Paris goals a fantasy, it's adding 1/5-w/m² alone and equal to the accumulated CO2 forcing for 20-years.

This process has become what I call the Beaufort Blob, a thermal-mass that is permanent, year-round and being added to every season to where it's basal melted the entire area down from a large amount of 4-9 year ice to fast-ice today.

It's game-over to lose the sea-ice due to albedo loss creating heat gains that can't be countered in a practical way without a global political will that rather a long shot, regardless, it means the Paris goals need upping to equal these gains or you lose the game.

The Beaufort Blob is our score card now.


If it grows we fail, the need is to restore the ice not calculate how fast it disappears, once it's gone that 1/5th-watt turns into 2-3 watts/m^2 pretty fast as the area heated expands to the entire Arctic Ocean and it will.

Thus a new calculation is needed, the extent & volume of these layers and the calculated albedo-loss heat-gains for assorted scenarios to estimate the timelines to estimate the near future. There is some buoy data for currents, temps & salinity. There's a list for albedo-loss yet it's not tied to the direct effect of the loss on the Blob.

A newbie here, I grew up on geomorphology more my long-term studies began with glaciology, oceanography then later more general like planetary atmospheres, as a kid it was Continental Drift so into tectonics.

I'm watching all glaciers melt and the sea-ice disappear, these thoughts never occurring growing up the conditions today considered impossible to happen so fast, Antarctica is fine for at least a 1000-years.

Wrong.

Now we're are behind a big 8-ball without a clue to solve it, my strong suggestion is simply to stop allowing heat-flux from the Pacific into Bering Straits, that's the move to play nothing else matters to dealing with the Blob, it's growing as-is with no chance of receding w/o that gap closed space sun-brellas or not.

The consequences are critical for this one move to the early melting and late forming caused by the Pacific water, this leads seasonal melting into the Beaufort earlier than the rest of the mass, there are no other moves like it to make.

Can anyone see another move to make globally with the possibility to have such an effect on the Arctic sea-ice in a positive way?

We can't control this via incremental reductions in emissions, too much latent heat is stored per season and CO2 is 3-ppm/year, Pleistocene average 1-ppm/1000-years, big jump after the last ice-age 1-ppm/180-years it's called an "excursion" by paleontologists what we're doing.

Consider that ours is a geologic excursion directly comparable to the PETM, it's a big ask to fight to save the sea-ice, what other options are there, chemtrails are already being used, aerosols didn't do the job and never will because the oceans move the heat that matters to sustaining the ice.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 28, 2016, 07:34:19 PM
Consider that ours is a geologic excursion directly comparable to the PETM, it's a big ask to fight to save the sea-ice, what other options are there, chemtrails are already being used, aerosols didn't do the job and never will because the oceans move the heat that matters to sustaining the ice.

Tom,

While I appreciate the "can-do" tone of your posts, I would like to point-out that you are underestimate the severity of our current situation in that:
1.  Our radiative forcing is currently over ten times that experienced during the PETM.
2.  The DeConto & Pollard (2016 EGU) projections do not consider: (a) the Arctic Albedo flip that you reference, so even if you do figure out how to save the season Arctic sea ice extent, you have done nothing towards improving DeConto & Pollard (2016 EGU), projections; (b) the fact that the current positive phase of the PDO will likely continue until at least 2035 to 2040, and net heat content will be existing the ocean into the atmosphere that entire time; (c) the indicated projections are for RCP 8.5 50%CL while we are currently exceeding RCP 8.5 95%CL; (d) Hansen et al (2016)'s ice-climate feedback (which per both the North Atlantic, and Southern, Oceans cold spots has already been activated for well over the past ten years); (e) the fact that climate sensitivity is likely higher than their models assume and that current masking factors like aerosol negative forcing from coal-fired power plants are decreasing faster than they assume; and (f) the recent Super El Nino has likely accelerated carbon emission both from the tropical rainforests and from global wildfires faster than assumed.

A-Team hints that to make my points more effectively I should run a state-of-the-art ESM superior to the Phase 3 ACME model circa 2024, and then that I should both publish my results in peer review journals and have AR8 adopt the data for guidance purposes, circa 2035.  Unfortunately, by that time DeConto & Pollard (2016 EGU)'s information indicates that the WAIS will have already passed its tipping point, for which no amount of solar radiation management geo-engineering will stop (as the cliff failure mechanism can/will continue even without hydrofracturing).  Finally, I attached some images from DeConto & Pollard's earlier work so that you can get a better appreciation of the sequence of events w.r.t. Antarctic ice mass loss that they envision assuming that we follow an RCP 8.5 50%CL radiative forcing scenario through about 2040 to 2050.

With this in mind, the most effective actions are to reduce carbon emissions rapidly via a combination of both high progressively increasing revenue neutral carbon pricing together with aggressive emission regulation and promoting investment in sustainable energy research.

Best,
ASLR
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: timallard on May 28, 2016, 09:10:37 PM
Consider that ours is a geologic excursion directly comparable to the PETM, it's a big ask to fight to save the sea-ice, what other options are there, chemtrails are already being used, aerosols didn't do the job and never will because the oceans move the heat that matters to sustaining the ice.

Tom,

While I appreciate the "can-do" tone of your posts, I would like to point-out that you are underestimate the severity of our current situation in that:<snip>

With this in mind, the most effective actions are to reduce carbon emissions rapidly via a combination of both high progressively increasing revenue neutral carbon pricing together with aggressive emission regulation and promoting investment in sustainable energy research.

Best,
ASLR
I challenge the assumption that in the case of the Beaufort Sea-ice that emission reductions as outlined in Paris or the 80% reductions science suggests by 2030 will have any effect on sustaining sea-ice in a timely manner.

The rotten ice is demanding proof of a new regime in-force at this time
that will not go away due to a thermal-mass of water, The Beaufort Blob has grown from the seasonal cycle of albedo-loss adding a heat pulse incrementally each season to now having destroyed all the old ice for some millions of km² that now worth 0.21-watts/m² of increase globally in forcing.

That forcing alone constrains Paris goals needing to be 2-3 times what they are in reductions, a huge economic impact.

So, it's very critical to control albedo-loss as a global effort more than emissions right now it's 1/5-watt/m².

This is in respect to any method proposed to restore the ice as integral to any solution, (albedo-loss forcing) = (20-years worth of forcing by CO2 emissions), the published ratio.

That's a fairly large piece of evidence to ignore of a changed state and with climate-hysteresis via natural systems no way back via CO2 we're at 3-ppm/year, as you point out to paleontologists that's an "excursion" via ocean acidification rate being 10-times faster than the PETM & the carbon input similar that heating lasted 200,000-years so the ante is high.

This is to say all that's well known and the political situation has CO2 at 3-ppm/year., intentionally delayed action for 30-years now, we need a physical solution to try was the conclusion that's global in effect to preserve Arctic ice as the highest priority of action.

Can you now consider some other way to restore sea-ice at 405-ppm gaining 3-ppm/year not effected by emissions it using what's here-now as the priority to provide intentional refuge that values sustaining the ice in Bering Strait as the sole geographic switch able to affect the thermal regime in the Beaufort.

Consider we are at over 9-petagrams of total carbon annually, that's the excursion, nature can't do that.

The removal of 10-terawatts/winter, 20-terawatts/summer of heat-flow into the Arctic basin at a volume-rate of 1-sverdrup, 5-Amazons on the face of it is mandatory, a very significant source of heat right at the surface being relatively colder and fresher than the Atlantic water below, with a Catch-22 of melting out the straits reinforcing a loss of ice.


This current melts out Bering Strait early and stalls it freezing in fall
and you can see the breakout north into the Beaufort leading the way with that ice to be gone, that must be stopped or it's game-over and the "bluewater event" is on the way.

Paris didn't restrict shipping & aircraft,
they alone counteract a lot of reductions then add in albedo loss and it's a fantasy to think runaway feedbacks in the Arctic can be avoided without a sea-ice cover.

I always liked the space umbrella idea to fix it, colorful bamboo ones from China shipped to: Orbit ... oh yeah.

Seeing the heat-flow & rotten ice new to science, the Pacific must be dammed for most of it's flow or the multi-year sea-ice in the Beaufort Blob will never return in anyone's lifetime the reality.

Consider that.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 29, 2016, 01:30:11 AM
Consider that.

Your line of "technological fix"  thinking is exactly how we got into our current situation; and I do not believe that geo-engineering is any more cost effective than limiting GHG emissions at reducing future climate change impacts.

In general terms, I opened this thread based on the position that one cann't fix a problem until one admits that it is real, as this is the first step in almost all addiction treatments; and this world is currently addicted to cheap fossil fuels.  Currently, we do not impose any carbon pricing on the pollution of GHG emissions which if done knowingly is a criminal act as may fossil fuel companies are likely to find-out in the next few decades.

I will continue to post about what I believe to be important, as I imagine you will also continue to do.

Edit: Separately, I note that the Paris Pact does not include a carbon pricing plan, and if such a plan were to be sufficiently progressive, it would have an impact.  Also, I reiterate that knowingly polluting without compensating for it is a criminal act.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: sidd on May 29, 2016, 05:45:11 AM
I must agree with Mr. AbruptSLR on the inefficacy of massive engineering to save arctic sea ice. But on a more cynical note, and since this is a thread on human stupidity:

Timing is everything.

There will come a time when SLR is half an inch a year, and then and inch a year and then ... and there will be multiple rich fools to finance anything you want including a dam across Bering Straits and sea water pumping onto Antarctica, or more prosaically (ha!) building sea walls to protect expensive realestate in Tokyo or New York.

None of it will help, of course, as Mr. AbruptSLR points out, but if one has the stomach for it, take the money and run. Personally, I do not, rather spend my leisure running the fossillers outta business.

sidd
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 29, 2016, 08:35:06 AM
None of it will help, of course, as Mr. AbruptSLR points out, but if one has the stomach for it, take the money and run. Personally, I do not, rather spend my leisure running the fossillers outta business.

sidd

While I do believe that local acts of adaptive engineering do make sense, in general terms I fully concur with sidd, in that putting a technological band-aid on-top of an abruptly increasing non-linear problem (as Hansen et al 2016 describe) is nothing more than giving an opiate to a patient with cancer.  And while early treatment (in the form of a few percent carbon pricing plan enacted in the 1970 to 1980 timeframe) would have been preferable, surgery today (in the form of aggressively progressive carbon pricing together with regulation, investment in sustainable energy and a significant "Green Fund") is still better than leaving the cancer in-place and applying a balm.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 29, 2016, 02:31:19 PM
To my last post I would like to add that today all too many people are looking of a "savior" (ala technological miracles and/or Donald Trump) so that they do not need to assume responsibility themselves (whether for climate change, pollution or socio-economic inequalities).  Also, I do not mean to single out the fossil fuel industry, when governments also have exposure to climate change law suits (ala the recent case in Massachusetts).

If the majority of people are not willing to assume climate responsibility themselves, then hopefully, they can copy trend setters (ala California in the USA, etc.) so that they can be shown "computational kindness" so that they do not need to deal with too much uncertainty.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: timallard on May 29, 2016, 05:46:54 PM
Consider that.

Your line of "technological fix"  thinking is exactly how we got into our current situation; and I do not believe that geo-engineering is any more cost effective than limiting GHG emissions at reducing future climate change impacts.

In general terms, I opened this thread based on the position that one cann't fix a problem until one admits that it is real, as this is the first step in almost all addiction treatments; and this world is currently addicted to cheap fossil fuels.  Currently, we do not impose any carbon pricing on the pollution of GHG emissions which if done knowingly is a criminal act as may fossil fuel companies are likely to find-out in the next few decades.

I will continue to post about what I believe to be important, as I imagine you will also continue to do.

Edit: Separately, I note that the Paris Pact does not include a carbon pricing plan, and if such a plan were to be sufficiently progressive, it would have an impact.  Also, I reiterate that knowingly polluting without compensating for it is a criminal act.
Well, for going off the addiction I have fundamental designs for living systems dealing with those to be off-grid for food, water & fuel with the same materials & methods, no nano.

For transportation fuels using photo-bioreactors these insulated cubes 1/2m on a side they stack, full of glass plates light, air & power piped in and grow algae for biodiesel at home-farm-ranch scale the intent of the system is to purify the water so the fuel was an intended consequence not the priority.

This gives anyone the ability to have those needs from living in the place and scales, my studies in Phoenix, AZ, most plants 10-million/gal/day that's over 20,000 tons of algae food, aka dissolved solids, and if you bought it as fertilizer worth $8bn/day to grow algae and worth about 3-million gal/day in biodiesel.

For architecture it's more simple, insulate only on the outside of buildings, do the heat-transfer modeling, it's 3-4 times more efficient.

Also for architecture if you don't collect-n-store energy you have to buy it, thermal-storage for each buildings is absent, if you add in solar-thermal collection-n-storage in northern climes use concentrating collectors on the daily cycle, yeah, you may fire up the heater three times a winter and the AC the same.

As for economics if you own the system it's a monthly payment, a fixed budget not pay by-the-watt, this is a huge savings & reduction in stress to not have mammoth winter or summer bills, solar-thermal uses night coolness to store in summer and radiative loss if a clear night.

End airline travel if you feel so strongly about the addiction to fossil, emergencies only, create an auxiliary-sail merchant marine, keep the emissions only at ground level.

Aircraft and shipping were not regulated by Paris they are needed by the "growth economy" to deliver cheap-labor goods across borders or "get it tomorrow" marketing for profit a key issue and giant carbon-footprint.

So if you like that great, I'm not a millionaire I'm a climber, did a lot of solo climbs and to relate that if you don't know the risk you think you're safe.

I know the risk of losing the sea-ice, period, the thought of losing it must be like the thought by the Dutch to give up on the battle.

My issue with your focus is to broaden it to realize if we don't stop the loss of sea-ice, as a geologist I'm telling you game-over and the ice is functionally gone already and your solution takes too much time to save it.

We have passed a geophysical tipping point that can't be returned to using emissions reductions they are like nature's way over time is the geophysical reality to now be aware of, natural systems will take 200,000-years to "fix" what we've already done.

We're at the Last Hurrah of sea-ice for thousands of years if we lose what's left the oceans are the thermal-mass of the planet, not the air or land concerning climate, one must deal with them.

The reason is excess heat captured by the water and not returned to the atmosphere in fall, that's it, this has created a Beaufort Blob, now a significant thermal-mass that must be dealt with or game-over for the ice.

Those are the rules, you can't make up your own rules, it's physics, heat-transfer & mass-transport of fluids these are the metrics and why you can't fix it with emissions quickly:

(albedo-loss heat-gain) = (20-years of CO2 forcing).

[Figures used by Prof. Wadhams for cred, it's a direct heating by albedo-loss, greenhousing isn't direct, that's LWIR emissions back to earth]

This wasn't accounted for per se at Paris afaik, that implies to reach those same goals you want will take reductions in CO2 equal to the growing input from albedo-loss plus the reduction goal.

The equation above with our rate of 3-ppm/year gained means we must reduce CO2 at that rate 20-years to match the gain from albedo-loss today, it was easier a decade ago, eh?

That's a reduction of 60-ppm+.

To me that's totally impossible in today's political-economic climate, ymmv.

As stated what we've done already is a geologic "excursion", we are no longer doing normal geologic climate processes, we passed into another more radical climate path proven by the oceans acidifying 10-times faster than the PETM.

Meanwhile albedo-loss plus a new feature being reported of basal ice melting in new areas by Atlantic water to help remove what ice is left, these are creating polynyas all over the place, open ice percentages are increasing in ALL months of the year.

Another evidence the ice is going-going ... this a recent talk by Dr. Barber that's longer so most complete with very up-to-date information; "Arctic Ice: A Slippery Slope?"; 1:32:26; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBjI9pu-XLc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBjI9pu-XLc)

With 10-20 terawatts entering from the Pacific plus albedo-loss heat-gain the Beaufort Blob grows every year, the new polynyas growing from Atlantic water being sucked in by having the Pacific water adding more volume causing a circulation, without the Pacific water this should stop.

It's not a pretty picture.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 31, 2016, 06:17:00 PM
While some posts here offer a range of ideas on how to reduce the stupidity of current human behavior/impacts, the following link leads to the thread entitled "Climate Change Triage - cutting out the rot and the fat", which contains many more such ideas.

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1099.0.html (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1099.0.html)

Furthermore, the linked article focuses on what will soon be the first large-scale demonstration of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, BECCS, technology.  However, the article also notes that the large-scale application of such technology is uncertainty, and may have numerous negative impacts:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-negative-emissions-tested-worlds-first-major-beccs-facility (http://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-negative-emissions-tested-worlds-first-major-beccs-facility)

Extract: "Even if countries overshoot the 2C target, there is some hope that the planet can subsequently get back down to this level, if humans are able to remove carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere.
This is a process known as “negative emissions”, or “carbon dioxide removal”. As Carbon Brief explained in detail earlier this year, there are various ways of going about it, ranging from the bizarre to the plausible.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that most scenarios that return a likely chance of staying below 2C rely on the “widespread deployment” of BECCS in the second half of the century — removals of around 616 gigatonnes of CO2 (GtCO2) by 2100.
Despite this, the technology remains untested and uncertain, and climate campaigners are increasingly raising risks such as land grabs and food security, as witnessed at the latest round of UN climate negotiations.

While it is good to identify, and list, such ideas for triaging our current situation, I believe that we have collectively delayed the implementation of such positive actions to the point where major climate change impacts to our global socio-economic system are inevitable.  And in this regards I have posted many ideas in the "Adapting to the Anthropocene" thread (at the following link) on how we (as a both individuals and as a global society) can better adapt to the coming reality of the coming consequences of our current, and likely coming, climate change situation:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1308.0.html (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1308.0.html)

Also, the "Revolution" thread at the following link has some discussion on the need to revolutionize our current socio-economic system:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1569.0.html (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1569.0.html)


In coming posts, I plan on briefly summarizing some of my thoughts on measures for changing the fundamentals of our socio-economic; which could improve future conditions for coming generations.

Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: anotheramethyst on June 01, 2016, 03:35:54 AM
Here's my 2 cents.  Take them for what they're worth, and I apologize in advance to everyone that I'm about to offend.  Civilization is going to blow right past 2°C and probably 2.5°C as well, but I expect our human-emitted greenhouse gases will peak and start to decline in the next decade or so.  If Earth reaches 3°C, 4°C, 6°C or higher it will be from a runaway greenhouse effect that we will be powerless to stop. 

The reduced emissions will not come from green technology or valiant energy conservation efforts.  There is too much political inertia in our civilization to change so fundamentally in such a short time.

Conventional crude oil peaked in 2006.  Since then, high gas prices enabled increased extraction of unconventional crude, but the high price of oil tanked the global economy in 2008.  The financing glut that followed created a fracking bubble that caused oil production to spike, which has now slashed the price per barrel of oil to a price lower than the cost of extraction.  Companies and countries are now pumping as much as they can, not to generate profits (a lost cause right now) but to pay the interest on their debts, and a lot of them are going bankrupt.  Just look at Venezuela right now.  Meanwhile, the lower price of gas never really boosted the economy the way it should have, so we are not far from another global recession (and the last global recession lowered our CO2 emissions). 

Humanity is running full speed into the limits to growth, and I don't expect civilization to meaningfully survive the oil fiasco that will unfold over the next 10 years.  Humans will continue to emit CO2 for a while after that, but at a much slower rate. 

I'm sure I've just single-handedly pissed everyone off.  For those of you that disagree, (all of you hahaha) just remember that the variety of opinions and perspectives of humans have led to our many strengths and discoveries, and gaining the ability to civilly agree to disagree reduces more violence than any other human skill. 

:)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: swoozle on June 01, 2016, 05:58:11 AM
Ha.

I don't think a thread titled "Human Stupidity" is a place where you should assume you'll upset people by being pessimistic / realistic. I, for one, generally agree with you. 10 years seems a little fast but who knows.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 01, 2016, 05:15:58 PM
Given the human stupidity that got us into our current situation is it really surprising that the US Senate has just pass a bill for a multi-billion dollar program on the most dangerous form of geoengineering (albedo hacking), and that many in the US Congress are pushing for funding for field tests.  Additionally, besides the inherent dangers of albedo hacking it will likely do little or nothing about Hansen et al (2016)'s ice-climate feedback (which is tied to the collapse of the WAIS, which once trigger is tied to gravity); nor to ocean acidification:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jun/01/scientists-debate-experimenting-with-climate-hacking-to-prevent-catastrophe (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jun/01/scientists-debate-experimenting-with-climate-hacking-to-prevent-catastrophe)

Extract: "Recently the US Senate appropriations committee passed a spending bill that mysteriously included funding for the computational study of albedo hacking.

Some are pushing not just for the computational experiments funded by the Senate appropriations bill, but also for field experiments. They cite the NAS report as supporting such field tests, but one of its authors, Ray Pierrehumbert explained that the report first calls for some sort of regulatory process to be put in place:
Our NRC report does have a cautious statement saying that under some circumstances small scale field trials may become necessary to address scientific questions, but that statement is loaded with caveats concerning the (as-yet undemonstrated) scientific payback from such experiments regarding the questions that most need to be answered, and the need for some form of governance process (“serious deliberative process”) which would define what would count as “small scale.” There has not yet been any “deliberative process” of any sort, open, serious or otherwise, and indeed nobody seems to know what such a process would look like.
The concern is that there are risks associated with these experiments, and without an international oversight framework in place, conflict could arise between nations with different ideas about the associated dangers:
The risk is of a sociopolitical nature: it opens the door to a process that is unregulated, and which nobody knows how to stop, for which there is no governance in place, and which some scholars (myself included) think is fundamentally ungovernable. It’s similar to a nation without nuclear weapons beginning underground weapons testing. It’s not the threat to the physical environment that is the chief source of concern, but rather that the tests breach a significant barrier on the path leading to deployment, and have a substantial risk of triggering escalation as other nations respond.
Moreover, this form of climate hacking is inherently riskier than researching technologies to remove carbon from the atmosphere:
It’s strange and alarming that they chose to highlight the most dangerous form of climate intervention (albedo hacking) instead of asking for a big push on carbon capture, which addresses the root cause of the problem and moreover is the key backstop technology for staying under 2°C in a way that doesn’t put the Earth in a perilous state."

See also:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/fight-global-warming-senate-calls-study-making-earth-reflect-more-light (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/fight-global-warming-senate-calls-study-making-earth-reflect-more-light)

Extract: "The call for further research comes in a bill that would provide $5.4 billion for DOE's Office of Science next year. It also builds on the recommendations of a February 2015 report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) entitled Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. That report warned explicitly that albedo modification shouldn't be deployed now because the risks and benefits were far too uncertain. Still, the committee urged further research to find out what those risks and benefits might be."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: magnamentis on June 01, 2016, 05:21:41 PM
probably "Halliburton" and/or "Dick Cheney" are holding a crucial patent in the technology that will get the biggest part of the state funding. while this is indeed a possibility, one should not take the two names literally, i think (hope) it's clear what i'm heading at.

Generally i think that the most stupid part is that so many people admire such people and adorn their vita with them instead of imprisoning them or worse.

i once had a partner who was bragging that he is on the phone with that guy ( D.C.) and all i could tell him was that for me that means more of a disqualification than a qualification. later everyone understood, because that was in 1997.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 01, 2016, 05:26:15 PM
probably "Halliburton" and/or "Dick Cheney" are holding a crucial patent in the technology that will get the biggest part of the state funding. while this is indeed a possibility, one should not take the two names literally, i think (hope) it's clear what i'm heading at.


I think that the big concern is that China or Russia (etc) might view geoengineering as an act of war (which might be one of Dick Cheney's goals) as if the USA implements such a albedo hacking plan we would certainty minimize our own risk while maximizing the risks to our adversaries (especially if Donald Trump becomes president).

However, who's to say that the Green BAU approach doesn't exhibit the same degree of human stupidity as the geoengineering boys (see the linked article)?

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/world/997441/forest-destroying-palm-oil-powers-cars-in-eu (http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/world/997441/forest-destroying-palm-oil-powers-cars-in-eu)

Extract: "Palm oil produced on tropical plantations that drive deforestation has become a major biofuel for vehicles in the European Union, industry figures released Tuesday by an environmental group revealed."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 01, 2016, 05:36:10 PM
Another sign of human stupidity is the fact that it is not what you say, but how you say it that counts.  For example AR5 contains all kinds of caveats about the potential for higher ECS values and the potential collapse of the WAIS that are ignored; and the following link shows that unless you make a fancy animated spiral graph of increasing GMST departure values than no one pays attention:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/temperature-spiral-update-20399 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/temperature-spiral-update-20399)

Extract: "The Temperature Spiral Has an Update. It’s Not Pretty."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: LRC1962 on June 01, 2016, 07:32:36 PM
Related: Laws of unintended consequences.
We often believe that technology is always useful and that new technologies will save us from the disasters befalling on us.  I am starting to think that what we need is not more technology but less.
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-03-23/how-the-greatest-technology-ever-developed-backfired-on-us (http://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-03-23/how-the-greatest-technology-ever-developed-backfired-on-us)
When there’s no immediate threat to our understanding of the world, we change our beliefs. It’s when that change contradicts something we’ve long held as important that problems occur.
http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/i-dont-want-to-be-right (http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/i-dont-want-to-be-right)
An apapro song maybe:
THE DARKNESS LYRICS
"Seemed Like A Good Idea At The Time"

We may not get back what we had, what I threw away
But you know I would do anything, anything you say
I'd cross a thousand miles of broken glass on my hands and knees
I would crawl if for a moment we could cease hostilities

But it seemed like such a good idea at the time,
such a very very good idea at the time.

I don't know where I am, I don't know where I went wrong
either way let's start again
I don't know where I am, I don't know where I went wrong
I don't know where to start again

Now our dream is over, but lately I have found
That you only seem to come alive when I am not around

But it seemed like such a good idea at the time,
such a very very good idea at the time.

I don't know where I am, I don't know where I went wrong
either way let's start again
I don't know where I am, I don't know where I went wrong
I don't know where to start again

[Solo]

But it seemed like such a good idea at the time,
such a very very good idea at the time.

I don't know where I am, I don't know where I went wrong
either way let's start again
I don't know where I am, I don't know where I went wrong
I don't know where to start... again

https://youtu.be/bc2XWbDAmNA (https://youtu.be/bc2XWbDAmNA)

Point is, we need to be very careful about fixes, as fixes can sometimes be worse than the original problem.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 01, 2016, 07:55:42 PM
I note that for many years/decades many scientists have misinterpreted paleo-data, causing them to underestimate climate sensitivity, and we are currently forcing global warming at a rate over ten times that during the PETM; which is a clear example of human stupidity.  Smart scientists like Hansen, DeConto and Pollard have used paleo-data to better calibrate their climate models to indicate the risk of abrupt climate change due to ice-climate interaction.  The linked references below provide additional paleo-evidence of both high ice-climate feedback sensitivity and of high ECS values:

1) The first two linked articles appear in the May 28 2014 online version of Nature, about new paleo-evidence about how quickly the AIS can contribute to rapid SLR (including during Meltwater Pulse 1A):

Trevor Williams, (2014), "Climate science: How Antarctic ice retreats", Nature, doi:10.1038/nature13345

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13345.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13345.html)


Summary: "New records of iceberg-rafted debris from the Scotia Sea reveal episodic retreat of the Antarctic Ice Sheet since the peak of the last glacial period, in step with changes in climate and global sea level."


M. E. Weber, P. U. Clark, G. Kuhn, A. Timmermann, D. Sprenk, R. Gladstone, X. Zhang, G. Lohmann, L. Menviel, M. O. Chikamoto, T. Friedrich & C. Ohlwein, (2014), "Millennial-scale variability in Antarctic ice-sheet discharge during the last deglaciation", Nature, (2014), doi:10.1038/nature13397


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13397.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13397.html)



See also:

http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/antarctic-iceberg-flotilla-caused-huge-sea-level-rise-140528.htm (http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/antarctic-iceberg-flotilla-caused-huge-sea-level-rise-140528.htm)

Extract: "Antarctica's melting glaciers launched so many icebergs into the ocean 14,600 years ago that sea level rose 6.5 feet (2 meters) in just 100 years, a new study reports. The results are the first direct evidence for dramatic melting in Antarctica's past — the same as predictions for its future.

"The Antarctic Ice Sheet had been considered to be fairly stable and kind of boring in how it retreated," said study co-author Peter Clark, a climate scientist at Oregon State University. "This shows the ice sheet is much more dynamic and episodic, and contributes to rapid sea-level rise.""

2) The following extract from the third linked article about the Weber et al (2014) paper, not only reinforces the importance of AIS SLR contribution to Meltwater Pulse 1A, but more importantly that the fresh melt water causes a stratification of ocean water with a cool surface and warmer deep waters that creates a positive feedback mechanism that accelerates the rate of grounding-line retreat of Antarctic marine glaciers, particularly like those in the ASE; which supports Hansen et al (2016)'s ice-climate feedback mechanism
 
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/05/29/4014978.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/05/29/4014978.htm)


Extract: "Feedback system

Recent studies have shown that a significant amount of warming occurs directly from the ocean transferring heat to the ice shelves from underneath and causing melt.
"Our models indicate that when you add the fresh water, you initiate a positive feedback through subsurface ocean warming," says Menviel.

Fresh water from the Antarctic ice sheet melts into the Southern Ocean causing stratification of ocean water into separate layers, resulting in cool water on the surface, and warmer water deeper down which further erodes the icesheet.

"So what starts as a small melting can be amplified leading to more rapid melting than just through changes in atmospheric temperature," says Menviel."

3) The following fourth link leads to the University of Alaska Fairbank's website focused on Lake Elgygytgn research, and the extract following the link is from an article Posted on February 4th, 2014 by Laura Nielsen on "Inter-hemispheric climate coupling". The extract emphasizes that in the paleo-past the Antarctic generally responded more quickly to orbital induced solar insolation variations, and that repeatedly paleo-collapses of the WAIS resulted in subsequent Arctic amplification, due both to changes in ocean currents, and to increases in sea level pushing more warm Pacific water through the Bering St. into the Arctic Ocean.  If the WAIS collapses this century, we may soon see a marked increase in Arctic amplification:


http://frontierscientists.com/tag/lake-elgygytgyn/ (http://frontierscientists.com/tag/lake-elgygytgyn/)

Extract: "Antarctica and the Arctic
Climate at the North and South pole are connected. Sediment records from Antarctica show that the West Antarctic ice sheet melted at various times in history. Following many of those events, the Arctic warmed. These recurring intervals of paired warming show that climate in the two hemispheres is linked – it’s called inter-hemispheric climate coupling.
“When the West Antarctic ice sheet pulls back we see a corresponding warmth in the high lattitudes again, probably affecting the size of the Greenland ice sheet with major implications for changes in sea level,” says Julie Brigham-Grette. “Our results mesh with what glaciologists are seeing today. Seven of the 12 major ice shelves around the Antarctic are melting or are gone. We suspect the tipping point for the gradual de-glaciation of Greenland and the Arctic may be lower than glaciologists once thought.”
Complex systems
Earth is a complicated place. We can’t explain past warming using only orbital dynamics or levels of Carbon Dioxide. Scientists affiliated with the project outlined some past events that might explain the rapid warming the sediment records show occurred in both Antarctica and the Arctic around similar times.
When you imagine Antarctica, the picture includes large ice shelves that hang off the rocky edge of the ice-covered continent. Normally that ice keeps nearby ocean water very cold. The cold water travels along currents toward the north Pacific where it wells up to the surface. Ocean circulation can be affected, though. If Antarctic ice sheets disintegrate or melt away, they no longer enforce cold water currents that journey to the Arctic. Instead, surface ocean waters in the Arctic become warmer.
When Antarctica’s ice sheets disintegrate the ocean gains more water and sea levels rise globally. The Bering Strait usually restricts how much warm surface water approaches the Arctic from the south, but higher sea levels would mean warm surface water didn’t have to squeeze through such a narrow space, letting more warm water past the Bering Strait into the Arctic Ocean.
Either way, a warmer ocean means higher temperatures and more rainfall for the Arctic, which impacts paleoclimatology and sea ice history. Grasping the climate connections between the hemispheres gives us insight into our near future."

4) The fifth linked reference could not make it more clear that paleo-evidence from inter-glacial periods indicates that ECS is meaningfully higher than 3C and that climate models are commonly under predicting the magnitude of coming climate change.

Dana L. Royer (2016), "Climate Sensitivity in the Geologic Past", Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Vol. 44


http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-earth-100815-024150?src=recsys (http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-earth-100815-024150?src=recsys)

5) While the sixth linked (open access) reference has many appropriate qualifying statements and disclaimers, it notes that the AR5 paleo estimates of ECS were linear approximations that change when non-linear issues are considered.  In particular the find for the specific ECS, S[CO2,LI], during the Pleistocence (ie the most recent 2 million years) that:
"During Pleistocene intermediate glaciated climates and interglacial periods, S[CO2,LI] is on average ~ 45 % larger than during Pleistocene full glacial conditions."

Therefore, researchers such as James Hansen who relied on paleo findings that during recent full glacial periods ECS was about 3.0C, did not know that during interglacial periods this value would be 45% larger, or 4.35C.

Köhler, P., de Boer, B., von der Heydt, A. S., Stap, L. B., and van de Wal, R. S. W. (2015), "On the state dependency of the equilibrium climate sensitivity during the last 5 million years", Clim. Past, 11, 1801-1823, doi:10.5194/cp-11-1801-2015.


http://www.clim-past.net/11/1801/2015/cp-11-1801-2015.html (http://www.clim-past.net/11/1801/2015/cp-11-1801-2015.html)
http://www.clim-past.net/11/1801/2015/cp-11-1801-2015.pdf (http://www.clim-past.net/11/1801/2015/cp-11-1801-2015.pdf)

Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: LRC1962 on June 01, 2016, 08:39:03 PM
I note that for many years/decades many scientists have misinterpreted paleo-data, causing them to underestimate climate sensitivity, and we are currently forcing global warming at a rate over ten times that during the PETM; which is a clear example of human stupidity. 
We also have a great propensity to look at things myopically. In other words, we create an hypothesis, collect the data and develop the theory. We then ignore any extraneous data, because that just creates too much complexity. Problem with that is that the data not used may be vital to understanding the real truth. Another issue is that we seemed to think we have be best questions to ask.
Alexander Graham Bell is said to have never answered a childs question with Because. Reason was he never knew when he tried to actually anwser the question, he himself may have discovered something he did not know.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: johnm33 on June 01, 2016, 10:54:20 PM
"We also have a great propensity to look at things myopically. In other words, we create an hypothesis, collect the data and develop the theory. We then ignore any extraneous data"
      My favourite is RapaNui, an island that struggled to maintain it's population for centuries,[very narrow genetic base] then visited by Europeans who first gave them the 'pox' then carried out numerous raids to carry them into slavery in the brothels and plantations of South America, saved only by the fact that having no natural immunity they died very quickly and thus had no value, plus by now instead of the traditional extremely warm welcome they used to offer sailors they now all hid; this didn't work out too well because now the island acquired the reputation of being deserted and next thing some mad Scot turned up with a load of sheep which proceeded to devour the centuries old permaculture gardens and anyone who objected got shot, once the gardens were destroyed famine ensued and general uprising took care of the shepherd. Now of course to add insult to injury their main source of employment is showing around European tourists and academics who fly in from all around the world to study, explore and wonder why these people couldn't see what was coming? I mean you just couldn't make this stuff up!
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 01, 2016, 11:03:51 PM
The oil & gas industry have known about the impacts of climate change since at least the early 1970's and the American Petroleum Institute, API, has already updated all of its offshore design requirement for oil drilling equipment to consider the impacts of increase storm/wave activity due to climate change (see the first attached image).  Furthermore, I note that for planning/funding purposes government policy makers at best consider 50%CL impact/load levels; while for the design of infrastructure confidence levels, CLs, of at least 90% are required.  Also, durations for planning/environmental studies/engineering/permitting/construction have not yet been adequately considered within Integrated Assessment Models; & consequently these model projections indicate less vulnerability than is the actual case.  Also, virtually no impact assessment exercises have yet considered abrupt changes in the climate state (see the second attached image) such as possible changes in the Arctic sea ice extent and/or collapse of the WAIS. Finally, should some adaptive measures be built to the current "Fake it Until You Make it" climate change standards, they will most likely be overwhelmed by the actual future environmental loads, leaving us collectively in a worse position than if we have not taken the limited adaptive actions; which is another clear example of human stupidity.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: abbottisgone on June 02, 2016, 10:20:11 AM
I'd be curious to know if anyone here believes we can
avoid the 2C target. I think it was just a randomly selected number that policy makers have put forward to sound like they're making some sort of progress and appease activists.
No, 2C can't be avoided as Dr David Mills from the Ausra initiative of solar thermal fame was on Youtube years ago saying the science confirmed 440ppm was locked in.

I, obviously, assume 2C equates to this statement more or less.

Yes, so I am guessing...
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 02, 2016, 06:29:29 PM
The linked reference assesses the different impacts from the 1.5C case (which we might reach before the end of this year) and the 2C case.  While this reference cites considerable regional impacts for the 2C case; I reiterate that using ESLD logic DeConto has demonstrated numerically that well before we reach 2.7C the WAIS should start to irreversibly collapse:

Schleussner, C.-F., Lissner, T. K., Fischer, E. M., Wohland, J., Perrette, M., Golly, A., Rogelj, J., Childers, K., Schewe, J., Frieler, K., Mengel, M., Hare, W., and Schaeffer, M. (2016), "Differential climate impacts for policy-relevant limits to global warming: the case of 1.5 °C and 2 °C", Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 327-351, doi:10.5194/esd-7-327-2016.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/7/327/2016/ (http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/7/327/2016/)

http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/7/327/2016/esd-7-327-2016.pdf (http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/7/327/2016/esd-7-327-2016.pdf)

Abstract. Robust appraisals of climate impacts at different levels of global-mean temperature increase are vital to guide assessments of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. The 2015 Paris Agreement includes a two-headed temperature goal: "holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C". Despite the prominence of these two temperature limits, a comprehensive overview of the differences in climate impacts at these levels is still missing. Here we provide an assessment of key impacts of climate change at warming levels of 1.5 °C and 2 °C, including extreme weather events, water availability, agricultural yields, sea-level rise and risk of coral reef loss. Our results reveal substantial differences in impacts between a 1.5 °C and 2 °C warming that are highly relevant for the assessment of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. For heat-related extremes, the additional 0.5 °C increase in global-mean temperature marks the difference between events at the upper limit of present-day natural variability and a new climate regime, particularly in tropical regions. Similarly, this warming difference is likely to be decisive for the future of tropical coral reefs. In a scenario with an end-of-century warming of 2 °C, virtually all tropical coral reefs are projected to be at risk of severe degradation due to temperature-induced bleaching from 2050 onwards. This fraction is reduced to about 90 % in 2050 and projected to decline to 70 % by 2100 for a 1.5 °C scenario. Analyses of precipitation-related impacts reveal distinct regional differences and hot-spots of change emerge. Regional reduction in median water availability for the Mediterranean is found to nearly double from 9 % to 17 % between 1.5 °C and 2 °C, and the projected lengthening of regional dry spells increases from 7 to 11 %. Projections for agricultural yields differ between crop types as well as world regions. While some (in particular high-latitude) regions may benefit, tropical regions like West Africa, South-East Asia, as well as Central and northern South America are projected to face substantial local yield reductions, particularly for wheat and maize. Best estimate sea-level rise projections based on two illustrative scenarios indicate a 50 cm rise by 2100 relative to year 2000-levels for a 2 °C scenario, and about 10 cm lower levels for a 1.5 °C scenario. In a 1.5 °C scenario, the rate of sea-level rise in 2100 would be reduced by about 30 % compared to a 2 °C scenario. Our findings highlight the importance of regional differentiation to assess both future climate risks and different vulnerabilities to incremental increases in global-mean temperature. The article provides a consistent and comprehensive assessment of existing projections and a good basis for future work on refining our understanding of the difference between impacts at 1.5 °C and 2 °C warming.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 02, 2016, 08:34:36 PM
As noted in Reply #61, the first linked article indicates that the US Senate appropriations committee has approved over USD $5 billion in funds to study albedo hacking (solar radiation management, SRM):

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jun/01/scientists-debate-experimenting-with-climate-hacking-to-prevent-catastrophe (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jun/01/scientists-debate-experimenting-with-climate-hacking-to-prevent-catastrophe)

Furthermore, the second linked reference indicates that the remaining carbon budget from 2015 may be as low as 590 GtCO2; and as CO₂-e emissions are around 50GtCO2, it is easy to see that we could readily exceed the 2C limit by around 2030 (or earlier depending on the actual ECS value).  Therefore, it is not too hard to image that a future US Republican Congress and Administration, might authorize a SRM field test circa 2030 to 2040 and the full-scale implementation of an albedo hacking (SRM) scheme sometime between 2050 and 2060.
 
Joeri Rogelj, Michiel Schaeffer, Pierre Friedlingstein, Nathan P. Gillett, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Keywan Riahi, Myles Allen & Reto Knutti (2016) "Differences between carbon budget estimates unravelled", Nature Climate Change, Volume: 6, Pages: 245–252, doi:10.1038/nclimate2868

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2868.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2868.html)

Also, the third linked article provides a convenient summary and discussion of the GIS and the AIS contributing to irreversible abrupt SLR beginning by 2040-2050 (or earlier):

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/abrupt_sea_level_rise_realistic_greenland_antarctica/2990/ (http://e360.yale.edu/feature/abrupt_sea_level_rise_realistic_greenland_antarctica/2990/)

Next, the fourth linked reference indicates that the AMOC oscillates on about a 60-year cycle

Kurtz, B.E. (2014), "An Electrical Analogy Relating the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation to the Atlantic Meridional", PLoS One 9(6): e100306; doi:10.137/journal.pone.0100306

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0100306 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0100306)

Next the fifth linked reference indicates that the AMOC may have peaked in the 1995 to 2005 (see the first attached image) timeframe, so we might reasonably expect another natural oscillation peak circa 2055 to 2065:
Laura C. Jackson, K. Andrew Peterson, Chris D. Roberts and Richard A. Wood; Recent slowing of Atlantic overturning circulation as a recovery from earlier strengthening; Nature Geoscience (2016) doi:10.1038/ngeo2715

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2715.html (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2715.html)

Abstract: "The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) has weakened substantially over the past decade. Some weakening may already have occurred over the past century, and global climate models project further weakening in response to anthropogenic climate change. Such a weakening could have significant impacts on the surface climate. However, ocean model simulations based on historical conditions have often found an increase in overturning up to the mid-1990s, followed by a decrease. It is therefore not clear whether the observed weakening over the past decade is part of decadal variability or a persistent weakening. Here we examine a state-of-the-art global-ocean reanalysis product, GloSea5, which covers the years 1989 to 2015 and closely matches observations of the AMOC at 26.5° N, capturing the interannual variability and decadal trend with unprecedented accuracy. The reanalysis data place the ten years of observations—April 2004 to February 2014—into a longer-term context and suggest that the observed decrease in the overturning circulation is consistent with a recovery following a previous increase. We find that density anomalies that propagate southwards from the Labrador Sea are the most likely cause of these variations. We conclude that decadal variability probably played a key role in the decline of the AMOC observed over the past decade."

Caption for the first attached image: "Time series of AMOC strength. a,b, AMOC at 26.5◦ N (a) and AMOC − Ekman (b) for the GloSea5 analysis (black) and the observations from the RAPID program (red)."

However, the second attached image shows that the AMOC is subject to Stommel bifurcation if the NADW flow slows down sufficiently; which is projected to occur by Hansen et al (2016) once their postulated ice-climate feedback mechanism is sufficient engaged (say circa 2060).  Thus if the AMOC is naturally slowing down after 2060 and the ice-climate feedback mechanism slows it further, then it is possible that the full-scale implementation of an albedo hacking plan could push the AMOC below the Strommel bifurcation point, thus spirally the world into "The Day After Tomorrow" (see the third attached image) before 2100; which if it were to occur would be a major example of human stupidity.

Edit 1: I forgot to note previously that as most climate change models currently neither include the ice-climate feedback, nor wildfire feedback (which can serve as negative forcing), it is possible that model projections of possible albedo hacking could accidentally omit these feedbacks, which consequently could increase the probability of a "The Day After Tomorrow" scenario unfolding prior to 2100.

Edit 2: See also:
M. Dima, and G. Lohmann, "Evidence for Two Distinct Modes of Large-Scale Ocean Circulation Changes over the Last Century", Journal of Climate, vol. 23, pp. 5-16, 2010.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2009JCLI2867.1 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2009JCLI2867.1) free full text

Extract: "Based on the separation of these two patterns the authors show that the global conveyor has been weakening since the late 1930s and that the North Atlantic overturning cell suffered an abrupt shift around 1970. The distinction between the two modes provides also a new frame for interpreting past abrupt climate changes."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 02, 2016, 11:31:10 PM
The following link leads to daily values of estimate world population, which on June 2 2016, was well over 7.426 Billion people and climbing.  It will certainly be difficult to adequately address climate change with such a rapidly rising world population:

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ (http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/)

Perhaps policy makers should try harder to implement the 10 ways to control population growth listed at the following linked website, which are: (1) Development; (2) Easy and Cheap availability of Contraceptives, (3) Education, (4) Eradicate Poverty, (5) Women Empowerment, (6) Spread Awareness; (7) Providing Incentives, (8 ) Legislative Actions, (9) Medical Facilities, and (10) Delayed Marriages:

http://listcrux.com/10-effective-ways-to-control-population/ (http://listcrux.com/10-effective-ways-to-control-population/)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 03, 2016, 05:19:55 AM
In coming posts, I plan on briefly summarizing some of my thoughts on measures for changing the fundamentals of our socio-economic; which could improve future conditions for coming generations.

As a follow-on to Reply #58:

The root of our climate change problems are associated with the “moral hazard” that individuals try to optimize their personal advantage to the disadvantage of the common good (creating darkness, or the Tyranny of the Commons/Small Decisions/Contemporary).  The solution to this situation is for such individuals to realize that by optimizing the common good they optimize their own good (creating light).  In his book the "Descent of Man" Charles Darwin argues that natural selection developed in man:  "… the greater strength of the social or maternal instincts than that of any other instinct or motive."  Darwin reasoned that social instincts such as sympathy, empathy and compassion must be mankind's strongest instincts because compassionate individuals are more successful in raising healthier offspring that can successfully adapt to the ever changing demands of evolutionary pressures.    Discussing evolution philosopher Peter Singer states: "… bequeath(ed) humans with a sense of empathy – an ability to treat other people's interest as comparable to one's own.  Unfortunately, by default we apply it only to a very narrow circle of friends and family.  People outside that circle were treated as subhuman and can be exploited with impunity.  But over history the circle has expanded … form village to the clan to the tribe to the nation to other races to other sexes … and other species."

Furthermore, anthropologists have recently postulated that early complex society did not develop until the early societal elites developed the concept of vengeful gods that held people accountable for their actions even after death, so that the "Moral Hazard" opportunities created by the uncertainties of life, would not temp people to succumb to temptation (moral hazard) and take advantage of the common good for ones personal gain.

Such vengeful gods created a sense of awe in the common man, and indeed  awe is the ultimate “collective” emotion, as it motivates people to do things that enhance the greater good; thus allowing the historical circle of inclusion to expand from friends and family to village to clan to tribe to nations and now out of necessity to the entire world.

Karl Marx called religion the “opiate of the masses”; however, currently materialism has replaced religion as the new “opiate of the masses”, and due to habituation they need a stronger and stronger fix to feel alive.  Habituation leads to a decrease in response to a stimulus after repeated exposure; which results in a loss of gratitude for contributions to the greater good.

However, in the near future the emotion of awe can be developed in a clear-thinking (mindful) few individuals and then multiplied by Swarm Intelligence to reduce the apathy generated by habituation in our masses consumption global socio-economic system.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: sidd on June 03, 2016, 05:27:37 AM
I would suggest a different first step for the tenfold way to reduce population:

1) Basic literacy for girls
2)-10) is up to you.

This has worked everywhere. it takes a generation, but once you educate the girls, they make sure their children are educated, and the cycle ratchets up in a lot of different ways. The best case study is Bangladesh.

Oh, educate the boys too, but first the girls.

sidd
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: magnamentis on June 03, 2016, 11:40:10 AM
If it were funny i'd have posted this in the humor section but it's definitely stupid.

This is was AP has published upon covering the opening celebrations of the new 57km tunnel "S. Gottardo" through the alps WITHIN Switzerland, connecting the cantons of "Uri" and "Ticino"

Distance to Germany is roughly 150km and distance to Italian border is approximately 100km.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 03, 2016, 04:08:24 PM
I would suggest a different first step for the tenfold way to reduce population:

1) Basic literacy for girls
2)-10) is up to you.

This has worked everywhere. it takes a generation, but once you educate the girls, they make sure their children are educated, and the cycle ratchets up in a lot of different ways. The best case study is Bangladesh.

Oh, educate the boys too, but first the girls.

sidd

It sounds like you are volunteering the 1st World to pay for 3rd World education, as how can the 3rd World pay for education without development.  Hopefully, you can get the new Trump controlled GOP to go along with you.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 03, 2016, 05:06:48 PM
When money is to be made, how can we expect countries to honor the Paris Pact and more than they did the Kyoto Protocol?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/parkland-ccpa-report-oilsands-growth-climate-change-1.3612479 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/parkland-ccpa-report-oilsands-growth-climate-change-1.3612479)
Extract: "Oilsands growth makes it nearly impossible for Canada to meet Paris Agreement targets: report."

With both the media and the GOP dumbing down the truth about climate change, how can we expect the USA to achieve its Paris Pact commitments?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/02/sanders-knocks-trump-and-the-media-over-climate-change/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/02/sanders-knocks-trump-and-the-media-over-climate-change/)
Extract: "Sanders knocks Trump (and the media) over climate change"

Are "Green BAU" advocates underestimating the climate pacts of their proposed policies?

http://koin.com/2016/06/02/the-cost-of-green-energy-is-more-pollution/ (http://koin.com/2016/06/02/the-cost-of-green-energy-is-more-pollution/)
Extract: "The cost of green energy is more pollution - For every green energy source, a natural gas equivalent has to balance it out."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: sidd on June 04, 2016, 06:09:28 AM
"It sounds like you are volunteering the 1st World to pay for 3rd World education, as how can the 3rd World pay for education without development. "

The cost of basic literacy for a child on the streets in the third world is a few dollars a year. I happen to know since i support an organization doing precisely this on the streets of South Asia. Ludicrously low compared to the military budgets of the countries owning the streets.

That aside, I have long since given up on first world aid programs as anything but the source of more problems, many worse than those the aid was purportedly meant to alleviate.

More cynically

a)  the first world might consider child education in a different light, if they could look beyond quarterly results. A generation of educated children might save them a generation of war, or a score or two of Osama bin Ladens.

b) As has been observed long ago, the innocent savage is notoriously difficult to corrupt. Until you educate (unkind people may say "indoctrinate") the children in their formative years, how else will you entice them into entering your capitalist economy ? In fairness, this scheme blows up now and again, when some of the educated begin to understand the game, but of course, the blowups only kill small, unimportant, distant and coloured people, and you own their rulers anyway.

sidd
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 04, 2016, 07:06:00 PM
The linked LBNL report discusses technological means to reduce climate impact of the projected installation of 700 million new air conditioners by 2030, and 1.6 billion new air conditioners by 2050 (see the attached associated image).  While smart scientists can imagine such "Superefficiency and Low Global Warming Potential Refrigerants in Room Air Conditioning", I wonder whether the government officials and the global socio-economic system is smart enough to implement such technologies in a timely manner.

 
Nihar Shah, Max Wei, Virginie Letschert, Amol Phadke (October 2015), "Benefits of Leapfrogging to Superefficiency and Low Global Warming Potential Refrigerants in Room Air Conditioning", LBNL-1003671


http://eetd.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-1003671_0.pdf (http://eetd.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-1003671_0.pdf)


See also:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/05/31/the-world-is-about-to-install-700-million-air-conditioners-heres-what-that-means-for-the-climate/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/05/31/the-world-is-about-to-install-700-million-air-conditioners-heres-what-that-means-for-the-climate/)

Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 05, 2016, 02:25:26 AM
As a follow-on to my Reply #74:

The linked video interview of George Monbiot on "The Elephant" Feb 2016: 'Climate Change Goes Deeper Than Captialism' provides discussion into our addiction to endless growth of materialism; which are not fundamental to human happiness, including the citizens of developed nations are disengaged from the consequences of our actions and so we care less (become habituated); while citizens of developing nations care more about consequences are they are not protected from those consequences (I note that citizens of developed nations will not be protected from the consequences of abrupt climate).  Further the video indicates that we must limit fossil fuel supply because only limiting consumption is not sufficient, i.e. we must: "Keep it in the ground".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9ViX90ehOQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9ViX90ehOQ)
 
I note that in our complex world filled with "wicked problems", we have tiny spots of vision/understanding in a box of darkness, rather than having blind spots in an otherwise clear field of view; which our egotistical view of ourselves lead us to believe.  In reality we need to limit both fossil fuel production and consumption.  Corporate power defines the limits of what is politically possible; particularly since the Regan Revolution (i.e. neo-liberalism) of the 1980's, and that neo-liberalism used a "shock doctrine" to grab and retain power.  It is also critical that one create a positive vision of "awe/love" of the natural complex world (including humans); rather than provoking fear in others which in turn promotes a socio-economic reaction of survival mode of survival of the fittest, rather than where natural selection promotes empathy and love of the common good.  This means learning how to cooperate with others, either by limiting the socio-economic complexity that one is exposed to (say in a rural town) until one can active cooperatively; or else by developing the ability to deal with rapidly changing complex situations in real time including acknowledging consequences (not artificially limited/isolated understanding like AR5) and taking responsibility (at a systemic level) for them (unlike modern politicians and modern corporate leaders; i.e. the elite) if this is not clear then see discussion in "Adapting to the Anthropocene":

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1308.0.html (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1308.0.html)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: timallard on June 05, 2016, 04:39:12 PM
The linked LBNL report discusses technological means to reduce climate impact of the projected installation of 700 million new air conditioners by 2030, and 1.6 billion new air conditioners by 2050 (see the attached associated image).  While smart scientists can imagine such "Superefficiency and Low Global Warming Potential Refrigerants in Room Air Conditioning", I wonder whether the government officials and the global socio-economic system is smart enough to implement such technologies in a timely manner.

Nihar Shah, Max Wei, Virginie Letschert, Amol Phadke (October 2015), "Benefits of Leapfrogging to Superefficiency and Low Global Warming Potential Refrigerants in Room Air Conditioning", LBNL-1003671

[url]http://eetd.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-1003671_0.pdf[/url] ([url]http://eetd.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-1003671_0.pdf[/url])

See also:
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/05/31/the-world-is-about-to-install-700-million-air-conditioners-heres-what-that-means-for-the-climate/[/url] ([url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/05/31/the-world-is-about-to-install-700-million-air-conditioners-heres-what-that-means-for-the-climate/[/url])

Consider it's rather easy to not need AC in modern buildings if they have thermal collection-storage added into the ductwork of an existing home. The trick on this to make that easy from used aluminum 3" irrigation pipe in the dirt fits into standard rectangular ducting.

These store cold at night in summer, heat in winter for northern climes using concentrating collectors cut the number of days to fire up the heater to 2-3 at most a winter once it's balanced to needs.

So all that power disappears using standard materials & methods and if passive-solar and I use active as more practical to remodel there is no comparing the way thermal energy is handled.

For industrial applications using solar-direct to supply heat for ammonia systems does the trick, again thermal-storage is part of such a system so has a thermal-mass to cool to use later.

Sustainable design must learn thermal collection-storage, this is a visio of a thermal-storage stack for the crawl space in a home with all the metrics to design one:

 (http://www.mallard-design.com/mdc2010/media/thermal-mass-crawl-space.jpg)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: Laurent on June 05, 2016, 05:20:55 PM
I have no clue about the reality of this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPuh8IFbIzQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPuh8IFbIzQ)
Eco-Cooler: The Zero Electricity Air Cooler
If it works than certainly could be useful !

See also : http://sustainabilityzero.com/mitticool-a-clay-fridge-that-cools-through-evaporation/ (http://sustainabilityzero.com/mitticool-a-clay-fridge-that-cools-through-evaporation/)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 06, 2016, 03:04:38 AM
While it is certainly enjoyable listening to Al Gore's optimism in the linked 2016 TED talk.  Nevertheless, his optimism about the rapidly falling cost of sustainable energy makes me wonder: (a) will this cheap energy just encourage more people to consume more; and (b) with the WAIS in such a fragile condition will the large carbon foot associated with replacing the fossil fuel energy infrastructure with sustainable energy infrastructure push us past a critical ice-climate feedback tipping point?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7E1v24Dllk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7E1v24Dllk)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 06, 2016, 11:15:16 AM
As a follow-up to by last post where I criticize Al Gore's "Green BAU" approach, I note that while revenue neutral progressively increasing carbon pricing plans, together with carbon import tariffs to prevent "leakage," are not "the be-all and end-all" such plans are better than cap-and-trade plans that are susceptible to political pressure to allow weak emissions caps, volatility in emissions allowance prices, and overly generous allocations of emissions allowances to regulated entities (see the following link to the "Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan").

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1068.0.html (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1068.0.html)

Opponents to carbon pricing plans indicate that getting the U.S. Congress to pass a carbon pricing policy will be extraordinarily difficult due to the powerful corporate opposition.  However, I note that progressive carbon pricing plans are the best means to keep fossil fuels in the ground and until the state elite get serious about fighting climate change; we will all reap what we collectively sow.

Edit: Also, I note that legal action will go long ways towards curbing corporate opposition to carbon pricing as discussed in the "Legal Approach to Climate Change Resolutions" thread at the following link:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1207.0.html (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1207.0.html)

And finally, I note that much of Wall Street (in the form of hedge funds and derivatives) is now serving as a surrogate form of insurance, and as climate losses mount different parts of Wall Street will learn to more effectively fight the fossil fuel lobbyists.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 07, 2016, 06:26:09 PM
This is just a quick post to note that disconnects between scientific disciplines is also contributing to our underestimation of climate change impacts, which in turn contributes to policy makers taking inadequate action; and that while ACME is making an effort to integrate the contributions of different scientific disciplines, this is a slow process, and until then it is a case of garbage-in / garbage-out.  Furthermore, many of the radiative forcing scenarios used as inputs to ESM runs underestimate the impact of such matters as: (a) the impact of low crude oil prices on increasing consumption of oil in China and India; (b) the impact of the high average age in China on near-term consumption trends, including on meat consumption; and (c) combined military build-ups, and climate stress, that increase the risks of armed conflicts.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 08, 2016, 10:27:04 AM
With a hat tip to Richard Rathbone for his post in the Antarctic folder with a link to the following April 2016 EGU General Assembly press conference 8 video clip roughly focused on the implications of the Paris Pact:


[url]http://client.cntv.at/egu2016/press-conference-8[/url] ([url]http://client.cntv.at/egu2016/press-conference-8[/url])

While the entire video is worth watching I provide the four attached screenshots from the video.  The first two images are from the second (MIT EGU) speaker with:
(a) The first image showing the impact of the faux hiatus on both effective ECS (top panel) and effective oceanic diffusion (bottom panel), and the blue lines showing PDF values using observations until 2000 and the black lines showing PDF values using observations until 2010 (including part of the faux hiatus).  Further the lower panel clearly indicates that the faux hiatus (in GMST departures) was due to more heat content temporarily being sequestered into the oceans during the faux hiatus (some of which heat is now being released from the oceans).  Thus I believe that the blue line climate parameter distributions (with observations to 2000) is more "Realistic" (and indicates a mean ECS value of about 4C) and the black line climate parameter distributions is more "Pollyannaish" (and is best ignored).
(b) The second image shows the implications of both MIT's more "Realistic" climate parameters (left panel, which is good to consider) and "Pollyannaish" climate parameters (right panel, which is best ignored) for different carbon emission scenarios described in the video but with the current Paris pledges indicated by the red lines for which the more "Realistic" climate parameters indicate that we will reach 2C by about 2050 and 2.7C by about 2060.
The last two images are from the DeConto & Pollard EGU presentation with:
(c) The third image showing different carbon concentration pathways with the upper left panel showing the RCP scenarios used by DeConto & Pollard (2016) for their SLR projections; and the bottom left panel showing three new pathways postulated by DeConto where we follow the RCP 8.5 50%CL scenario until we reach 2C (by about 2040), 2.7C (by about 2065) and 3.6C (by about 2090), respectively for the blue, green and red lines.
(d) The fourth image shows DeConto & Pollard's (2016 EGU) projections of Antarctic contributions to changes in global mean sea level, GMSL, by the 2C (blue line), 2.7C (green line) and 3.6C (red line) forcing scenarios.  I believe that DeConto & Pollard's 2C scenario is not achievable in the real world (as confirmed by the second attached MIT analysis), and that by 2100 the 2.7C and the 3.6C forcing scenario produce essentially the same amount of increase in GMSL.  Taken together with the more "Realistic" MIT analysis the DeConto & Pollard (2016 EGU) findings indicate it likely that the WAIS collapse will begin about 2050 following the current Paris Pact pledges (and also ignoring the increase in carbon emissions associated with increasing agricultural growth).

Also I note that the indicated DeConto & Pollard (2016 EGU) findings do not include Hansen et al (2016)'s ice-climate feedback and thus errs on the side of least drama.


In Reply #49, I noted that following the Paris Pact assuming ECS is 4C we will exceed 2.7C by 2060, and that by following RCP 8.5 50%CL assuming ECS is 3C we will exceed 2.7C by 2065.

However, the second linked reference indicates that the remaining carbon budget from 2015 may be as low as 590 GtCO2; and as CO₂-e emissions are around 50GtCO2 (which exceeds RCP 8.5 50%CL), it is easy to see that assuming ECS is 3C we could readily exceed the 2C limit by around 2030, or if ECS is 4C then we could exceed 2.7C by around 2032 to 2035, if we continue on our current BAU pathway for another 16 to 19 years. 
 
Joeri Rogelj, Michiel Schaeffer, Pierre Friedlingstein, Nathan P. Gillett, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Keywan Riahi, Myles Allen & Reto Knutti (2016) "Differences between carbon budget estimates unravelled", Nature Climate Change, Volume: 6, Pages: 245–252, doi:10.1038/nclimate2868

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2868.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2868.html)

Edit: I note that the estimate of exceeding 2.7C by 2032 to 2035, does consider lag-time after the carbon budget has been exceeded, but does not consider the risk of accelerating Arctic Amplification due the potential early seasonal loss of Arctic Sea Ice Extent as implied by the attached NSIDC May extent plot through 2016:
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: timallard on June 08, 2016, 08:18:00 PM
With a hat tip to Richard Rathbone for his post in the Antarctic folder with a link to the following April 2016 EGU General Assembly press conference 8 video clip roughly focused on the implications of the Paris Pact:


[url]http://client.cntv.at/egu2016/press-conference-8[/url] ([url]http://client.cntv.at/egu2016/press-conference-8[/url])

While the entire video is worth watching I provide the four attached screenshots from the video.  The first two images are from the second (MIT EGU) speaker with:
(a) The first image showing the impact of the faux hiatus on both effective ECS (top panel) and effective oceanic diffusion (bottom panel), and the blue lines showing PDF values using observations until 2000 and the black lines showing PDF values using observations until 2010 (including part of the faux hiatus).  Further the lower panel clearly indicates that the faux hiatus (in GMST departures) was due to more heat content temporarily being sequestered into the oceans during the faux hiatus (some of which heat is now being released from the oceans).  Thus I believe that the blue line climate parameter distributions (with observations to 2000) is more "Realistic" (and indicates a mean ECS value of about 4C) and the black line climate parameter distributions is more "Pollyannaish" (and is best ignored).
(b) The second image shows the implications of both MIT's more "Realistic" climate parameters (left panel, which is good to consider) and "Pollyannaish" climate parameters (right panel, which is best ignored) for different carbon emission scenarios described in the video but with the current Paris pledges indicated by the red lines for which the more "Realistic" climate parameters indicate that we will reach 2C by about 2050 and 2.7C by about 2060.
The last two images are from the DeConto & Pollard EGU presentation with:
(c) The third image showing different carbon concentration pathways with the upper left panel showing the RCP scenarios used by DeConto & Pollard (2016) for their SLR projections; and the bottom left panel showing three new pathways postulated by DeConto where we follow the RCP 8.5 50%CL scenario until we reach 2C (by about 2040), 2.7C (by about 2065) and 3.6C (by about 2090), respectively for the blue, green and red lines.
(d) The fourth image shows DeConto & Pollard's (2016 EGU) projections of Antarctic contributions to changes in global mean sea level, GMSL, by the 2C (blue line), 2.7C (green line) and 3.6C (red line) forcing scenarios.  I believe that DeConto & Pollard's 2C scenario is not achievable in the real world (as confirmed by the second attached MIT analysis), and that by 2100 the 2.7C and the 3.6C forcing scenario produce essentially the same amount of increase in GMSL.  Taken together with the more "Realistic" MIT analysis the DeConto & Pollard (2016 EGU) findings indicate it likely that the WAIS collapse will begin about 2050 following the current Paris Pact pledges (and also ignoring the increase in carbon emissions associated with increasing agricultural growth).

Also I note that the indicated DeConto & Pollard (2016 EGU) findings do not include Hansen et al (2016)'s ice-climate feedback and thus errs on the side of least drama.


In Reply #49, I noted that following the Paris Pact assuming ECS is 4C we will exceed 2.7C by 2060, and that by following RCP 8.5 50%CL assuming ECS is 3C we will exceed 2.7C by 2065.

However, the second linked reference indicates that the remaining carbon budget from 2015 may be as low as 590 GtCO2; and as CO₂-e emissions are around 50GtCO2 (which exceeds RCP 8.5 50%CL), it is easy to see that assuming ECS is 3C we could readily exceed the 2C limit by around 2030, or if ECS is 4C then we could exceed 2.7C by around 2032 to 2035, if we continue on our current BAU pathway for another 16 to 19 years. 
 
Joeri Rogelj, Michiel Schaeffer, Pierre Friedlingstein, Nathan P. Gillett, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Keywan Riahi, Myles Allen & Reto Knutti (2016) "Differences between carbon budget estimates unravelled", Nature Climate Change, Volume: 6, Pages: 245–252, doi:10.1038/nclimate2868

[url]http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2868.html[/url] ([url]http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2868.html[/url])

Edit: I note that the estimate of exceeding 2.7C by 2032 to 2035, does consider lag-time after the carbon budget has been exceeded, but does not consider the risk of accelerating Arctic Amplification due the potential early seasonal loss of Arctic Sea Ice Extent as implied by the attached NSIDC May extent plot through 2016:


Consider this thesis: We are now in a geologic excursion-climate-path and can no longer assume carbon reductions matter to human timescales as the start-to-finish is some 200,000-years for the planet to return from an excursion, our closest analogy of such a carbon perturbation is the PETM.

That implies, heavily, that zeroing emissions while great as it fixes where sea-level will stop rising centuries from now, and also how hot it gets short-term and that heating lasts 180k+ years is now the ante on the table to do something that matters to preserving the sea-ice.

To watch it go means ethically it's ok to allow runaway albedo-loss assuming all know what that means till it's gone & stay gone for 180k+ years the point being there are no miracles once in an excursion, which we are.

That's the essential thesis, emissions are rather meaningless to when the sea-ice goes now, we can quit today, CO2 will not drop it'll continue going up for a while then stabilize and hold it for many millennia while out-gassing oceans keep it there.

Is there agreement with this thesis?

Reference: Specific info on what an "excursion" is to paleontology & carbon metrics on recovery, main part well into the talk worth watching it all; Emiliani Lecture: AGU 2012 Fall Mtg; "No Future Without a Past 'or' History will Teach us Nothing"; Dr. Richard Zeebe, Univ.of Hawaii; 52:57; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6pyb9_PHv4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6pyb9_PHv4)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: Laurent on June 08, 2016, 09:27:47 PM
I am afraid that is where we are ! 400 ppm CO2 485 ppm CO2e more than 700 ppm CO2e on 10 years basis
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 08, 2016, 11:34:16 PM
I am afraid that is where we are ! 400 ppm CO2 485 ppm CO2e more than 700 ppm CO2e on 10 years basis


The linked reference indicates that IPCC officials are questioning what constitutes the best accounting procedure for short-live climate pollutants (like methane and black carbon) as this depends on what radiative forcing pathway we follow; which depends on how well the Paris Pact is implemented; and whether we prioritize stopping WAIS collapse and/or Arctic Sea Ice loss.

Myles R. Allen, Jan S. Fuglestvedt, Keith P. Shine, Andy Reisinger, Raymond T. Pierrehumbert & Piers M. Forster (2016), "New use of global warming potentials to compare cumulative and short-lived climate pollutants", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate2998

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2998.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2998.html)

Abstract: "Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have requested guidance on common greenhouse gas metrics in accounting for Nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to emission reductions. Metric choice can affect the relative emphasis placed on reductions of ‘cumulative climate pollutants’ such as carbon dioxide versus ‘short-lived climate pollutants’ (SLCPs), including methane and black carbon. Here we show that the widely used 100-year global warming potential (GWP100) effectively measures the relative impact of both cumulative pollutants and SLCPs on realized warming 20–40 years after the time of emission. If the overall goal of climate policy is to limit peak warming, GWP100 therefore overstates the importance of current SLCP emissions unless stringent and immediate reductions of all climate pollutants result in temperatures nearing their peak soon after mid-century, which may be necessary to limit warming to “well below 2 °C”. The GWP100 can be used to approximately equate a one-off pulse emission of a cumulative pollutant and an indefinitely sustained change in the rate of emission of an SLCP. The climate implications of traditional CO2-equivalent targets are ambiguous unless contributions from cumulative pollutants and SLCPs are specified separately."

See also:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/scientists-seek-new-measure-for-methane-20413 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/scientists-seek-new-measure-for-methane-20413)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: Laurent on June 09, 2016, 10:56:27 AM
At this point, knowing if the methane coefficient is 34 or 130 or more is irrelevant, wondering if we must reduce carbon or methane, it is gesturing! we have to reduce all gazes and not a little, we should stop emitting and adsorb all of the potent gazes  to begin with (CO2, CH4, N2O). Timallard's video, shows it clearly we are on track for the PETM (meaning extinction of human race very probable), it does show also that our models miss something huge and we should not rely on them at this point. Our liveable range is around 320 ppm of CO2e if we want a stable economy, not more, not less.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: timallard on June 09, 2016, 03:41:46 PM
Watching the FEEM lecture from 2015 last night and even Wadhams thinks carbon sequester when we end emissions is needed, space mirrors are still being promoted !!! ... he points out the maintenance problem, to me why not just order the colorful tiny bamboo umbrellas from china and ship to ---> Orbit  ;)

To be real, aircraft need to be passenger & emergency only that fly in the stratosphere a rule and Paris didn't regulate aircraft or shipping for the obvious reason to keep the "get it tomorrow" retail and cheap-labor routine going to make phantom assets crossing borders at a huge carbon-footprint.

Seeing that direct-heating is so big compared to greenhousing shown by albedo-loss, since the 70's everyone has known we must capture waste-heat from cars, power plants any strong heat source and now that must be on the table of immediate improvements that can be done w/o being tied to emissions reductions.

To me eliminating waste-heat looks far more promising than emissions controls right now to do effective cooling far better on a global scale than emissions and far easier to do politically as it just creates jobs.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: sidd on June 11, 2016, 05:52:58 AM
Eliminating waste heat would be a wonderful thing if it were possible. Unfortunately, Monsieur Carnot had cogent things to say concerning the Second Law, which make this quite difficult.

Average human power consumption is around 20 terawatt. All of it is waste heat. Aha, you might say, what about hydroelectric ? The transformation of potential energy to EMF has no waste to speak of. This is so, but alas, every joule of electrical energy ends up as heat when it is used. The situation with any heat engine working between a heat source at temperature T1 and a heat sink at temperature T2 is worse, since since a fraction T2/T1 is rejected with no work done, and all the work that is extracted also ends up as heat.

By comparison, the direct solar radiation making it to the earth surface is about 80 terawatt. This is an effective radiative input of around 300 watt/sq. m. Almost of this plus our own human waste heat is radiated away at top of atmosphere. So no problem right ?

No there is a problem: the extra  CO2  from our heat engines and other anthro impact is currently causing a radiative imbalance of 1 watt/sq. m. i.e. 1/300 of the direct solar input is not being radiated away, and that is what is causing the surface temperature to rise, and the oceans to warm.

Eliminate the extra CO2 and you eliminate the problem. The issue is the radiative imbalance, not the total fluxes involved.

sidd
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: Laurent on June 11, 2016, 09:47:13 AM
Sidd, you say that the earth receive 80 Terawatts at the surface and compare it to our total emission. That's wrong to do that because we need this 80 Tw to have the temperature we require, as you say 1/300 th is enough to unbalance so we need to compare with that amount. 80/300 = 0,27 Tw now we can compare to our emission... 20 Tw oh gosh off course it does have an impact, Timallard does not say that the radiative forcing is not a problem, he is saying (if understand that right) the quantity of energy we are releasing is not insignificant as many engineers do claim until now (mainly pro nuclear).
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: timallard on June 11, 2016, 04:48:49 PM
Sidd, you say that the earth receive 80 Terawatts at the surface and compare it to our total emission. That's wrong to do that because we need this 80 Tw to have the temperature we require, as you say 1/300 th is enough to unbalance so we need to compare with that amount. 80/300 = 0,27 Tw now we can compare to our emission... 20 Tw oh gosh off course it does have an impact, Timallard does not say that the radiative forcing is not a problem, he is saying (if understand that right) the quantity of energy we are releasing is not insignificant as many engineers do claim until now (mainly pro nuclear).
>> To tie in why to dam Bering Straits to these numbers 10-terawatts/winter, 20-terawatts/summer move through there annually ... most of that current drifts east to cause sea-ice loss in the Beaufort, it's a lot of heat and while colder than the Atlantic warm layer it still melts ice.

Something to consider as the Pacific water flows into the basin and that pulls in an equal amount with freshwater mixed in of Atlantic water to compensate the head-height of 1/2-meter, this on top of albedo-loss.

That's a direct heating and greenhousing is indirect being reflected LWIR, Prof. Wadhams uses the 20-year CO2 forcing metrics, it's from other studies I couldn't read the citation I found it in, those are like the result of such a difference in heat-transfer.

The other thing is melting ice takes energy that when gone is now heating the water, it's like 80:1 another aspect of runaway albedo-loss being now the critical jump to a heating world not emissions gains in the short-term.

With the Atlantic warmer than the Pacific water the total is more than double, it's a lot of heat being moved.

In the 2015 FEEM talk Wadhams states clearly with graphs that albedo-loss is the main reason the Arctic is heating so fast, it's the key issue.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: sidd on June 11, 2016, 07:16:01 PM
"Sidd, you say that the earth receive 80 Terawatts at the surface and compare it to our total emission."

Mea culpa, i mistyped a prefix  causing an error of three orders of magnitude..  The solar energy on the earths surface is  is around 80 petawatt not 80 terawatt. So the waste heat from human energy dissipation is rather small compared to solar flux at earth surface.

I think the word "emission" should be replaced with "energy use"

"80/300 = 0,27 Tw now we can compare to our emission..."

This i dont understand, perhaps you can explain ? the units of (Terawatt)/ (watt / sq. m.) are not terawatt , rather you are dividing a unit of power with a unit of power/area, the result is an area, not a power. ofcourse, we should use petawatt, but the point is the same.

sidd
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: sidd on June 11, 2016, 09:37:33 PM
I think the comparison Mr. Laurent was trying to make is the following, please correct me if I am wrong.

The radiative imbalance is approximately 1 watt/m^2 while the solar input is approx 300 watt/m^2 so in terms of wattage, the radiative imbalance is about 1/300 of the flux; Dividing 80Pwatt by 300 gives say 250 terawatt or so. Compare this to human energy use of 20 terawatt. A useful figure to keep in mind is  that the entire net radiative imbalance, if used to melt grounded ice above flotation, would result in a sea level rise of 60-80mm/yr or roughly about the same as the entire yearly swing in arctic sea ice volume of 20 teraton.

So the radiative imbalance alone is  ten times larger than all human energy use.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: Laurent on June 11, 2016, 09:41:46 PM
Yes that is what I wanted to say ! Nearly the tenth of the power needed to unbalance the earth, that is not something that we should dismiss totally.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 11, 2016, 11:39:18 PM
I think the comparison Mr. Laurent was trying to make is the following, please correct me if I am wrong.

The radiative imbalance is approximately 1 watt/m^2 while the solar input is approx 300 watt/m^2 so in terms of wattage, the radiative imbalance is about 1/300 of the flux; Dividing 80Pwatt by 300 gives say 250 terawatt or so. Compare this to human energy use of 20 terawatt. A useful figure to keep in mind is  that the entire net radiative imbalance, if used to melt grounded ice above flotation, would result in a sea level rise of 60-80mm/yr or roughly about the same as the entire yearly swing in arctic sea ice volume of 20 teraton.

So the radiative imbalance alone is  ten times larger than all human energy use.

I remind the readers that per Hansen et al 2016 (see the attached associated image) that if/when the WAIS beginning to collapse the radiative imbalance will likely temporarily increase from about 1 watt/m^2 to about 4 watt/m^2 (due to the reduction of Outgoing Longwave Radiation, OLR, from the polar regions associated with the Cold Spots in the Southern, and North Atlantic, Oceans.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: timallard on June 12, 2016, 12:05:35 AM
Yes that is what I wanted to say ! Nearly the tenth of the power needed to unbalance the earth, that is not something that we should dismiss totally.
>> Consider direct heating of the oceans is Joules, 4.2 per calorie, radiative forcing is a secondary process of reflected energy so comparing those is a bit confusing seeing terawatts used for heat-flux in an ocean current to me, aside from the confusion on insolation vs human.

It's easier to use the 0.21w/m² for albedo-loss to compare yet for sea-ice the water temperature matters as the thermal-mass to melt it from below with a current, that's usually done in calories ... to correlate them is important for models.

Anyway, add in now that the clathrate emissions can be the cause of the polynyas on the Eurasian side, not warm Atlantic water mixing up, something to consider as these plumes are creating local air heating that effects land snowpack melt along with melting sea-ice from above.

Last year's FEEM talk has details & slides of the general plume locations & extent on all major shallow areas in 50m-70m water with deeper plumes, one described as an "Arctic methane megaflare".

[May 12, 2015 - FEEM Lecture: "Arctic Amplification, Climate Change, Global Warming"; albedo about 50-min into 1:43:26; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-qdbICw2f8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-qdbICw2f8)]

The gas is captured by the ice until released at breakup then it's into the sky with a punch, these are what the construction technique learned closing Bering Strait is for, artificial atolls to create still-water conditions to refreeze them, there is no other feasible way to close them back down and they must be dealt with, emissions don't matter now to this process only how cold the water on the bottom is.

Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: sidd on June 12, 2016, 01:47:24 AM
Re: human stupidity and fossil fuels

I recall the Sorcerer's Apprentice when I think about burning coal. We have burned half a Teraton C since 1850 and got 20 ZJ of heat.  The exhaust has driven us to the present day radiative imbalance of 250 TW, which represents that same amount of heat added to the earth system every two years. A great deal of the exhaust will remain for hundreds of millennia, trapping heat all that time.

In short, we have got and will get a great deal more heat than we once bargained for. And every extra bit  of fossil carbon we burn will add to the fire in the sky for, essentially, ever.

I think I'll go play Sorcerer's Apprentice. But not the Disney version.

sidd

Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: nowayout on June 12, 2016, 06:54:54 AM
I guess, this one fits in here:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/09/europe/britain-royal-navy-warships/ (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/09/europe/britain-royal-navy-warships/)

Britain's Royal Navy warships are breaking down because sea is too hot...
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: magnamentis on June 12, 2016, 03:34:25 PM
I guess, this one fits in here:

[url]http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/09/europe/britain-royal-navy-warships/[/url] ([url]http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/09/europe/britain-royal-navy-warships/[/url])

Britain's Royal Navy warships are breaking down because sea is too hot...


clear case of faulty construction (flawed design) though, either the cheapest got the contract or the profit was optimized or the engineers were incabable. no-one can say that, even if temps would have raised 5C which they did not, there must of course be a margin for extraordinary temps and conditions like they exist in several parts of the oceans.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 15, 2016, 06:14:28 PM
While this article is a couple of days old (and the topic is addressed in the Policy folder), the fact that the GOP led US House of Representatives would pass a bill condemning a carbon tax, is an example of human stupidity that amounts to a crime against nature:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/grand-oil-party-republicans-denounce-carbon-tax.html (https://www.skepticalscience.com/grand-oil-party-republicans-denounce-carbon-tax.html)

Extract: "On Friday, the US House of Representatives voted on a Resolution condemning a carbon tax. As The Hill reported:

Lawmakers passed, by a 237-163 vote, a GOP-backed resolution listing pitfalls from a tax on carbon dioxide emissions and concluding that such a policy “would be detrimental to American families and businesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States.”

Six Democrats voted with the GOP for the resolution. No Republicans dissented.

The oil industry is scared of a carbon tax

ExxonMobil officially supports a carbon tax, but the company did not comment on the House Resolution prior to the vote. Meanwhile, the American Petroleum Institute, which is a key lobbying group of the oil industry, including ExxonMobil, publicly supported the anti-carbon tax resolution, as did Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) suspects that the Resolution itself originated from the oil industry:

And it’s not just a matter of lobbying by Big Oil and the Koch operation on how Republicans ought to vote; given their control over the Republican Party, it is very likely that the vote itself was brought up at their behest.

Since 2009, ExxonMobil has contributed at least $1.7 million to members of Congress who voted in favor of the resolution, according to an analysis by ClimateTruth.org.
There are some indications that GOP leadership pressured House Republicans to vote for the Resolution."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: TerryM on June 15, 2016, 11:35:15 PM
While this article is a couple of days old (and the topic is addressed in the Policy folder), the fact that the GOP led US House of Representatives would pass a bill condemning a carbon tax, is an example of human stupidity that amounts to a crime against nature:


Stupidity on the part of the citizenry that elected them. Cupidity on the part of the Congressmen, and their bosses the Oilmen. They actually know better.


Terry
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 16, 2016, 07:53:06 PM
The linked SkS article entitled: "Development banks threaten to unleash an infrastructure tsunami on the environment", presents yet another example of human stupidity.  The article indicates that by 2030 we will likely more than double the global total value of infrastructure.  Not only with this new infrastructure degrade the environment, but as almost none of it will be designed with adequate provision for abrupt climate change impacts, it is likely that a large amount of this infrastructure could become non-functional shortly after 2030 if the WAIS were to begin to collapse then.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/development-banks-infrastructure-tsunami-environment.html (https://www.skepticalscience.com/development-banks-infrastructure-tsunami-environment.html)

Extract: "We are living in the most explosive era of infrastructure expansion in human history. The G20 nations, when they met in Australia in 2014, argued for between US$60 trillion and US$70 trillion in new infrastructure investments by 2030, which would more than double the global total value of infrastructure."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 16, 2016, 10:33:32 PM
The linked reference discusses the critical need to improve our current grossly misleading integrated assessment models (IAMs), w.r.t. climate change impacts:

Nicholas Stern (Feb 2016) "Economics: Current Climate Models are Grossly Misleading", Nature, Vol 530, pp 407-409, doi:10.1038/530407a

http://www.nature.com/news/economics-current-climate-models-are-grossly-misleading-1.19416 (http://www.nature.com/news/economics-current-climate-models-are-grossly-misleading-1.19416)

Extract: "Nicholas Stern calls on scientists, engineers and economists to help policymakers by better modelling the immense risks to future generations, and the potential for action.

Current economic models tend to underestimate seriously both the potential impacts of dangerous climate change and the wider benefits of a transition to low-carbon growth. There is an urgent need for a new generation of models that give a more accurate picture."

See also:
Nicholas Stern (2015) "Why Are We Waiting?"
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/why-are-we-waiting (https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/why-are-we-waiting)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 18, 2016, 07:22:44 PM
The linked SkS article is entitled: "Timeline: How BECCS became climate change’s ‘saviour’ technology", and it explains that bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, BECCS, was originally conceived as a risk management approach to be implemented only if/when signs of abrupt climate change cross the threshold of recognition.  Unfortunately, policy makers have adopted BECCS as a savior technology that will allow them to continue with BAU behavior and not have to face the consequently, while choosing to continue to ignore the risks of abrupt climate change (e.g. say due to high values of ECS and/or the near-term collapse of the WAIS with continued BAU warming for another decade or two).  Such dependence on a savior technology instead of on hard work to rein-in our BAU behavior is another example of human stupidity:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/timeline-how-beccs-became-savior-tech.html (https://www.skepticalscience.com/timeline-how-beccs-became-savior-tech.html)

Extract: "But Obersteiner says the paper has, subsequently, been misinterpreted by some: “I think I am the inventor of the term BECCS as a tool to allow for ambitious climate targets. But the BECCS concept was unfortunately misused for regular [emissions pathway] scenarios and not in a risk management sense.”
He adds: “The argument of the 2001 paper was to use BECCS as a backstop technology in case we got bad news from the climate system (e.g. signs of abrupt climate change, unpleasant carbon cycle feedback). Thus, the strategy should be to plan climate mitigation for a still ambitious climate target without BECCS, but still prepare for it in terms of large scale afforestation and regeneration to be prepared for the backstop, if needed. All of the integrated assessment models (IAMs) are deterministic [ie, have a single outcome per model] and do not allow for risk management thinking.”"

Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 18, 2016, 07:56:37 PM
The radiative forcing pathways adopted by both IPCC and the Paris Pact modelers signal to engineers that there is little urgency to improve the sustainability of our global infrastructure, and consequently there is little chance that the coming infrastructure base (that is projected to double in size globally in the next fifteen years) will be meaningfully more sustainable than our current energy intensive infrastructure base.  For example the linked Vox article entitled: "We need lots more power lines. Why are we so bad at planning them?", discusses how challenging it will be to upgrade the US power grid, given that there are very few signals to power grid planner to encourage "better planning".  It is a clear sign of human stupidity to continue going the same thing and to expect a different result:

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/9/11881556/power-lines-bad-planning (http://www.vox.com/2016/6/9/11881556/power-lines-bad-planning)

Extract: "One of the fastest and easiest ways to boost renewable energy is to improve and expand electricity transmission, i.e., power lines. Smart transmission, in addition to its many other benefits, reduces both the engineering challenges and the cost of integrating renewables.
Unfortunately, the way transmission is planned today threatens to squander many of those potential benefits. Transmission planning badly needs to be reformed if the US wants to hit its ambitious carbon targets for 2030 and beyond.

Better planning would be better than worse planning any time, of course (that's why they call it "better"), but the need for better planning is particularly urgent at the moment.
First, it takes five to 10 years for transmission to go from planning to construction. If current market and policy trends in electricity continue or accelerate, as they are widely expected to, the landscape is going to look very different in 10 years, and even more different in the years following.
Policy-wise, the US carbon reduction goal for 2025 is challenging, but getting 80 percent reductions by 2050, which the US has also pledged, is exponentially harder. The power sector is entering a period of accelerated decarbonization that will continue until it hits zero carbon. Planning assumptions based on an extension of the status quo are disastrously off-base."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 20, 2016, 04:25:10 PM
By primarily applying environmental regulations to limit GHG emissions, while essentially ignoring carbon pricing, we are promoting the green paradox, where we are encouraging the acceleration of the production of fossil fuel resources.  This is another example of human stupidity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_paradox

Extract: "The green paradox, identified by German economist Hans-Werner Sinn, is the observation that an environmental policy that becomes greener with the passage of time acts like an announced expropriation for the owners of fossil fuel resources, inducing them to accelerate resource extraction and hence to accelerate global warming."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 20, 2016, 07:02:45 PM
The linked article is entitled: " The Multiplier Myth Why It Matters: Economic growth depends on real investment, not more spending."

To this libertarian thought I add that sustainable economics depends on investment in sustainable employment (not fossil fuels and not on waste):

https://www.progress.org/articles/the-multiplier-myth (https://www.progress.org/articles/the-multiplier-myth)

Edit: That is to say that it matters what you work on (& invest in), and just stimulating for the sake of either inflated growth or for enriching the fossil fuel resource owners, it another example of human stupidity.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 26, 2016, 11:53:24 AM
Brexit, another example of human stupidity:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/a-pyrrhic-victory-boris-johnson-wakes-up-to-the-costs-of-brexit (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/a-pyrrhic-victory-boris-johnson-wakes-up-to-the-costs-of-brexit)

Extract: "The deeper fear among Tory remainers now isn’t just of a recession. It’s about the rise of something new in British politics, unleashed when politicians with scant respect for truth meet desperate voters; and for the backlash to come, when it sinks in that Brexit hasn’t ended immigration overnight or magically given depressed communities their futures back."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 29, 2016, 02:32:22 AM
When one of the smartest men in the world cites human greed and stupidity, it is probably time to take this thread seriously:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/energy-environment/stephen-hawking-greed-stupidity-greatest-threats-to-earth/2016/06/28/ffdf422a-3d7a-11e6-9e16-4cf01a41decb_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/energy-environment/stephen-hawking-greed-stupidity-greatest-threats-to-earth/2016/06/28/ffdf422a-3d7a-11e6-9e16-4cf01a41decb_story.html)

Extract: "Physicist Stephen Hawking says pollution, greed and stupidity are the greatest threats to Earth.

...

Hawking and King also discussed artificial intelligence. Hawking says governments seem to be engaged in “an AI arms race.”"
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on July 17, 2016, 07:47:18 PM
In 2010 the Population Institute release a "Perfect Storm Scenario for 2030" that projected a world population of 8.3 billion by 2030:

https://www.populationinstitute.org/external/files/reports/The_Perfect_Storm_Scenario_for_2030.pdf (https://www.populationinstitute.org/external/files/reports/The_Perfect_Storm_Scenario_for_2030.pdf)

https://www.populationinstitute.org/about/ (https://www.populationinstitute.org/about/)

Extract: "The Population Institute (PI) is an international non-profit (registered 501(c)(3) organization) that seeks to promote universal access to family planning information, education, and services.  Through voluntary family planning, we strive to achieve a world population in balance with a healthy global environment and resource base.  PI was established in 1969 and is located on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC."


As of the end of June 2015 the UN estimated the world population to be 7.349 billion (see the third link) as of late July 2016 the same methodology (using median fertility & morality rates) results in an estimate world population of 7.437 billion people (see the fourth linked website).


https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Publications/Files/Key_Findings_WPP_2015.pdf (https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Publications/Files/Key_Findings_WPP_2015.pdf)


http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ (http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/)

Extract: "The World Population Prospect: the 2015 Revision provides the most recent data available (released on July 29, 2015). Estimates and projected world population and country specific populations are given from 1950 through 2100 and are released every two years. The latest revision has revised upwards the world population projections. Worldometers, as it is common practice, utilizes the medium fertility estimates."

Furthermore, the first attached image from the UN World Population Prospect: the 2015 Revision (see the fifth link), makes it clear that a world population of 8.3 billion by 2030 is not a "perfect storm" scenario (as postulated by the Population Institute in 2010), but rather it is a median projection

https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/ (https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/)

Caption: "Explanation: These charts show estimates and probabilistic projections of the total population for countries or areas, geographical aggregates and World Bank income groups as defined in Definition of Regions. The population projections are based on the probabilistic projections of total fertility and life expectancy at birth, based on estimates of the 2015 Revision of the World Population Prospects. These probabilistic projections of total fertility and life expectancy at birth were carried out with a Bayesian Hierarchical Model. The figures display the probabilistic median, and the 80 and 95 per cent prediction intervals of the probabilistic population projections, as well as the (deterministic) high and low variant (+/- 0.5 child) of the 2015 Revision of the World Population Prospects."

Furthermore, using the UN's median population growth methodology the Population Institute provides an assessment of population vulnerability (see the sixth link) which provides the second attached image of the 20 nations that currently have the most vulnerable populations (which are also areas of high fundamentalist beliefs):

https://www.populationinstitute.org/demovulnerability/ (https://www.populationinstitute.org/demovulnerability/)

This trend of "perfect storm" projections being replaced within a few years by "official" median projections, is yet another example of "human stupidity".  With this in mind, I list a few considerations that could transform the third attached image that projects a "pessimistic population" of 12 billion by about 2052, into an actual reality (resulting in a high risk of overshoot on the Earth's carrying capacity):

•   Conservatives pass legislation in key counties (including the USA) limiting support for family planning & contraceptives, worldwide.
•   Science assists in getting the widespread use of GMOs to be adopted around the world.
•   Philanthropists & NGOs reduces morality rates around the world.
•   Participants of the World Economic Forum (i.e. elites) implement a Fourth Industrial Revolution that supports larger world populations using high technology including: robotics, the Internet of things, AI and high rates of urbanization in Megalopolis's.
•   Fundamentalist in developing countries maintain high national fertility rates
•   Increasing global atmospheric CO₂ concentrations temporarily increase food production, followed by a collapse after 2050 to 2060.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on July 18, 2016, 12:14:00 AM
By the miracle of compound investment, in February 2015 PWC projected (see linked pdf for mean value projections) that the world economy will be at least three times its current size even if the rate of growth starts to slow after 2020.  So unless the rate of the use of sustainable energy provides all of the associated new energy demand, and a circular economy recycles all of the associate new resource demand, we can expect both fossil fuel use and overshoot conditions to continue degrading Earth's systems:

https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/the-economy/assets/world-in-2050-february-2015.pdf (https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/the-economy/assets/world-in-2050-february-2015.pdf)

Edit: For example, today 7 in 10 African still lack electrical power, and per the linked article Bill Gates is promoting means to provide all such Africans with electrical power by 2050.  While this is an admirable goal, it will make it hard to avoid an overshoot collapse circa 2050 to 2060:

http://www.techinsider.io/bill-gates-africa-needs-a-breakthrough-energy-miracle-2016-7 (http://www.techinsider.io/bill-gates-africa-needs-a-breakthrough-energy-miracle-2016-7)

Edit2: For another example, the following linked article states that Bill Gates has started a chicken initiative to increase consumption in Africa:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Guide-to-Giving/2016/0707/Will-Bill-Gates-s-100-000-chickens-help-Africans-cross-the-road-to-prosperity (http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Guide-to-Giving/2016/0707/Will-Bill-Gates-s-100-000-chickens-help-Africans-cross-the-road-to-prosperity)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on July 19, 2016, 10:06:01 AM
The first linked course notes on overshoot indicates that we are already in overshoot which might either result in either collapse or oscillation (see first image).  It also makes a distinction between carrying capacity (which is a weak transitional condition) vs biocapacity (which can support a population indefinitely), see the second image:

http://www.bioinfo.rpi.edu/bystrc/courses/population/lecture12.pdf (http://www.bioinfo.rpi.edu/bystrc/courses/population/lecture12.pdf)

While it is good to note that overshoot day in 2016 is on August 8th (vs August 13 in 2015), see the second link; my general sense on this topic is that globally we are headed for a collapse beginning between 2050 & 2060; while local populations will oscillate towards a new equilibrium.

http://www.overshootday.org/ (http://www.overshootday.org/)

This is a stupid position to find ourselves in:
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 07, 2016, 06:59:54 PM
The linked "working paper" from the UK's Centre for Climate Change Economics & Policy presents a very interesting case-study as to why so little action is currently being implemented to prepare society for the coming climate change disruptions; and asks: "Is co-producing science for adaptation decision-making a risk worth taking?".  Also, see the two attached cartoons:

James Porter and Suraje Dessai (March 2016), "Is co-producing science for adaptation decision-making a risk worth taking?" Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, Working Paper No. 263, Sustainability Research Institute, Paper No. 96

http://www.cccep.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Working-Paper-263-Porter-and-Dessai.pdf (http://www.cccep.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Working-Paper-263-Porter-and-Dessai.pdf)

Abstract: "Over the last decade, researchers have repeatedly sought to understand why adaptation planning and decision-making have failed to progress as quickly as once hoped. A major concern is that policy paralysis and inaction have arisen due to practical difficulties of delivering climate science that can actually be used for adaptation decision-making. Non-scientific actors are increasingly called upon to help reverse this trend by deliberately co-producing science. Scientists and knowledge users are expected to work closely together to produce more usable climate information. To date, our understanding of the barriers that impede the co-production of science for adaptation decision-making come almost exclusively from the perspective of decision-makers, not scientists. This paper responds to that gap by drawing on documentary analysis of key Government texts and in-depth interviews (n=48) with climate scientists, government officials, and boundary workers involved in the UK’s latest climate projections, UKCP09. Our research shows that co-production is far from a neutral activity, but the contested outcome of intense political struggles over its meaning and application. Frictions, antagonism and power imbalances can develop between those involved over ‘who’ co-produces science and ‘how’ they do it, as constraints on scientists to deliver climate science that is both usable and world-leading prove irreconcilable. Not only do scientists and users understand usable science differently but other scientists distanced from the process understand and respond to it differently as well. This can create risks for scientists and the field more broadly. If scientists respond too strongly to user needs there is the risk of antagonizing peers and creating disagreements over whether climate science is being farther than it’s ready to go. If scientists don’t respond strongly enough to user needs there is the risk that users will not adapt or may make poor decisions instead. This raises the question of whether deliberately co-producing climate science for adaptation decision-making is a risk worth taking."

Extract: "Interpreting multi-model ensemble outputs is also problematic because:
'they provide no basis to advise users on whether a response "near the middle" should be considered more likely than one "at the edge", or if the actual response lies outside the modeled range altogether' (Met Office Scientist 6, Interview).'

'[What] really gives me confidence is the Bayesian framework... we've put our own interpretation on it... but it's all written down in the maths, it's there to debate... you can see it in black-and-white. It's just good science' (Met Office Scientist 3, Interview).'

'There was a feeling that we shouldn't be arguing about what we can do or can't do [scientifically] as that'll undermine the need for action. I was sympathetic with that view when UKCP09 started [in 2003] but I'm much less so now [2013]. I think the public needs to hear scientific disagreements, especially for serious things like climate change' (Climate Scientist 5, Interview).'

'Back in 2007, Judith Curry said 'we have to be really careful about what we attribute to climate change and what we attribute to natural variability, which we don't understand'... She was accused of being a denier... when it's a very reasonable thing to say from a scientific point of view but apparently you risk your reputation if you're too vocal about it' (Climate Scientist 1, Interview).'

Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 07, 2016, 07:53:59 PM
People tend to 'put on airs' when threatened by ignorance.  While such an approach may have value when being threatened by ignorant humans, or even by savage beasts; it has absolutely no value when being threatened by Earth Systems subject to increasing radiative forcing.  This is one reason why different groups (e.g. Democrats vs Republicans) waste so much time & effort posturing for authority; why collectively we are making so little progress in fighting climate change.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/put%20on%20airs (https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/put%20on%20airs)

Extract: "When you put on airs, you act like you’re the master of something."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 08, 2016, 08:13:14 PM
Today, August 8 2016, is Earth Overshoot Day:

http://time.com/4443413/earth-overshoot-day-natural-resources-budget-used/ (http://time.com/4443413/earth-overshoot-day-natural-resources-budget-used/)

See also:
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2016/08/08/earth-overshoot-day-arrives-earlier-than-ever/ (http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2016/08/08/earth-overshoot-day-arrives-earlier-than-ever/)

&

http://www.dw.com/en/earth-overshoot-day-living-beyond-our-means/a-19444507 (http://www.dw.com/en/earth-overshoot-day-living-beyond-our-means/a-19444507)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 09, 2016, 11:52:45 PM
While the "Conservative Scientists & its Consequences" thread has much more information on other recently identified positive feedbacks, and on recently identified negative feedbacks/forcings that are diminishing, I have extracted the following list of recent (since May 2016) references that explicitly indicates that ECS is likely well above that expected by AR5 (which can be added to those listed in Reply #13).  Such research indicates that collectively we are foolish to continue using a nominal value of about 3C for ECS when calculating our likelihood of staying below the 2C Paris Pact target limit:

1. The linked reference indicates that new research (from PlioMIP2) demonstrates that the climate sensitivity for the Pliocene was higher than previously believed (from PlioMIP1):

Kamae, Y., Yoshida, K., and Ueda, H.: Sensitivity of Pliocene climate simulations in MRI-CGCM2.3 to respective boundary conditions, Clim. Past, 12, 1619-1634, doi:10.5194/cp-12-1619-2016, 2016.

http://www.clim-past.net/12/1619/2016/ (http://www.clim-past.net/12/1619/2016/)

http://www.clim-past.net/12/1619/2016/cp-12-1619-2016.pdf (http://www.clim-past.net/12/1619/2016/cp-12-1619-2016.pdf)

Abstract. Accumulations of global proxy data are essential steps for improving reliability of climate model simulations for the Pliocene warming climate. In the Pliocene Model Intercomparison Project phase 2 (PlioMIP2), a part project of the Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project phase 4, boundary forcing data have been updated from the PlioMIP phase 1 due to recent advances in understanding of oceanic, terrestrial and cryospheric aspects of the Pliocene palaeoenvironment. In this study, sensitivities of Pliocene climate simulations to the newly archived boundary conditions are evaluated by a set of simulations using an atmosphere–ocean coupled general circulation model, MRI-CGCM2.3. The simulated Pliocene climate is warmer than pre-industrial conditions for 2.4 °C in global mean, corresponding to 0.6 °C warmer than the PlioMIP1 simulation by the identical climate model. Revised orography, lakes, and shrunk ice sheets compared with the PlioMIP1 lead to local and remote influences including snow and sea ice albedo feedback, and poleward heat transport due to the atmosphere and ocean that result in additional warming over middle and high latitudes. The amplified higher-latitude warming is supported qualitatively by the proxy evidences, but is still underestimated quantitatively. Physical processes responsible for the global and regional climate changes should be further addressed in future studies under systematic intermodel and data–model comparison frameworks.

2. The linked reference indicates that corrected recent observations indicate that the most likely value of ECS may be as high as 4.6C (see attached plot of the time dependent curve):

Kyle C. Armour  (27 June 2016), "Projection and prediction: Climate sensitivity on the rise", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate3079

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3079.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3079.html)

3. The linked reference indicates that the climate responses (climate sensitivities) projected by advanced climate models generally match observations when apple to apple comparisons are made.  This is a useful finding as advanced climate models generally indicate that climate sensitivity values are towards the high end of the IPCC climate sensitivity range:

Mark Richardson, Kevin Cowtan, Ed Hawkins & Martin B. Stolpe (2016), "Reconciled climate response estimates from climate models and the energy budget of Earth", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate3066

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3066.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3066.html)

4. The linked reference discusses paleodata to indicate that climate sensitivity increased from 3.3 - 5.6 (mean of 4.45k) at the beginning of the PETM up to 3.7 - 6.5 K (mean of 5.1K) near the peak of the PETM; and that if we burn only the easily accessible carbon reserves then GMST could increase by about 10C.  I note these climate sensitivity values are much higher than those inherent in the CMIP5 projections:

Gary Shaffer, Matthew Huber, Roberto Rondanelli & Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen (23 June 2016), "Deep-time evidence for climate sensitivity increase with warming", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2016GL069243

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL069243/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL069243/full)


5. The linked Reuters article notes that NASA reported that a new satellite-based method have located 39 unreported sources of anthropogenic emissions that, when accounted for, increase our previously estimated amount of sulfur dioxide by about 12 percent of all such anthropogenic emissions from 2005 to 2014.  This indicates that the CMIP5 projections also underestimated the impact of this negative forcing source; which raises the prospect that climate sensitivity (ECS) is likely higher than the CMIP5 models indicate, and the linked Zhai et al (2015) reference analyses of the CMIP3&5 results conclude that the ECS is likely 3.9C +/- 0.45C:

Chengxing Zhai, Jonathan H. Jiang & Hui Su (2015), "Long-term cloud change imprinted in seasonal cloud variation: More evidence of high climate sensitivity", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2015GL065911

http://in.reuters.com/article/us-nasa-pollution-idINKCN0YO1PW (http://in.reuters.com/article/us-nasa-pollution-idINKCN0YO1PW)

6. The linked reference uses an information-theoretic weighting of climate models by how well they reproduce the satellite measured deseasonlized covariance of shortwave cloud reflection, indicates a most likely value of ECS of 4.0C; which indicates that AR5 errs on the side of least drama:

Florent Brient & Tapio Schneider (2016), "Constraints on climate sensitivity from space-based measurements of low-cloud reflection", Journal of Climate, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0897.1 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0897.1)


http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0897.1 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0897.1)


7. The linked article indicates that the contribution of sea-ice loss to Arctic Amplification is regulated by the PDO and that in positive PDO phases (like we are in now) there should be less Arctic Amplification.  Thus the fact that we are currently experiencing high Arctic Amplification during a period of highly positive PDO values gives cause for concern that climate sensitivity may be higher than considered by AR5:

James A. Screen & Jennifer A. Francis (2016), "Contribution of sea-ice loss to Arctic amplification is regulated by Pacific Ocean decadal variability", Nature Climate Change, DOI: 10.1038/nclimate3011


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3011.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3011.html)

Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 11, 2016, 08:09:40 AM
Sometimes art conveys human stupidity better than facts so I offer the following on the 2009 crowdfunded drama-documentary-animation hybrid entitled: "The Age of Stupid" (presenting a Liberal British viewpoint that as Brexist shows only goes so far in the Age of Stupid).  An underlying theme of the video is that we are collectively deluding ourselves about the existential risks of climate change (and overshoot) by around 2055+/-5:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Stupid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Stupid)

Extract: "The film is a drama-documentary-animation hybrid which stars Pete Postlethwaite as a man living alone in the devastated world of 2055, watching archival footage from the mid-to-late 2000s and asking: "Why didn't we stop climate change when we had the chance?"

Writing for The Guardian, environmental activist George Monbiot, who appears in the film, said its "message, never stated but constantly emerging, is that we all have our self-justifying myths. We tell ourselves a story of our lives in which we almost always appear as the heroes. These myths prevent us from engaging with climate change."

Here is a link to the official full-length version of the YouTube video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va_MVxpboqg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va_MVxpboqg)

Edit: I guess one could say that "The Anthropocene" = "The Age of Stupid"
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 13, 2016, 01:40:55 AM
In the linked article Scribbler indicates that we will collectively smash through the 490 ppm CO₂-equivalent level either by the end of 2016, or in early 2017; and that AR4 indicated that exceeding this level would commit us to exceeding the 2C target.  While I compliment Scribbler on his excellent work in general and this article in particular (including that in this article he points out that recent paleoclimate data indicates the ECS may likely be higher than assumed by AR4); he does not point out all of the factors that could contribute to us passing the 2C target sometime between 2035 and 2040, including:

1. NOAA's calculations of CO₂-eq use a GWP-20 for methane of 85 instead of the more accurate value of 105.
2.  Many masking factors are diminishing faster than the IPCC estimates including: faster reductions in aerosol negative forcing, faster loss of Arctic albedo, and faster reduction in net CO₂ absorption by vegetation.
3.  An acceleration of Hansen's ice-climate feedback as mass loss from ice sheets accelerate.
4.  Anthropogenic radiative forcing likely will remain close to that for RCP 8.5 for some time to come.

Sugarcoating the message will only increase the pain (see the attached image) we will all collectively feel all too soon:

https://robertscribbler.com/2016/08/12/smashing-through-490-ppm-fragmenting-prospects-for-avoiding-2-c-warming/

Extract: "Smashing Through 490 — Fragmenting Prospects for Avoiding 2 C Warming
“The IPCC indicated in its fourth assessment report that achieving a 2 C target would mean stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at around 445 to 490 CO2 equivalent or lower. Higher levels would substantially increase the risks of harmful and irreversible climate change.” –Johan Eliasch"

Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 13, 2016, 09:52:22 PM
Our collective inability to effectively address climate change is actually not an example of human stupidity, but rather an example of our collective mental illness (& inability to effectively deal with reality):
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 13, 2016, 10:07:21 PM
It is insane to believe that mankind is exempt from the laws of nature in the Anthropocene just because it makes us feel good to think so:
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 13, 2016, 10:26:10 PM
Now some words on sanity:
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: budmantis on August 16, 2016, 07:37:32 AM
In regards to human stupidity, it seems we continue to make the same mistakes because evolution tends to focus us on self-preservation and feathering our own nest. Although Homo Sapiens are far more advanced than Pan Troglodytes (chimpanzees), the overwhelming majority of us still have the mindset of the chimpanzee.

As far as repeating the same mistakes over again, I'm reminded of George Harrison's song: "While my guitar gently weeps".
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 16, 2016, 07:43:36 PM
“There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don't care who gets the credit.”
― Ronald Reagan

It is little wonder that Reagan was known as the Teflon man, as the above quote could be taken to mean almost anything that the reader/listener wants it to mean including:

(a) "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (where power lies in receiving credit);
(b) Let Keynesians toil without credit, while I lead the neo-liberal economic (& Earth consuming) drive to empower the 1%;
(c) If you define your group narrowly enough your tribe can readily benefit at the expense of others by reassigning risk & effort; and
(d) Be selfless, and unassuming, and you can accomplice miracles.
 
Furthermore, it is notable that when there is money to be made that neo-liberals (Reaganites) have no problem with managing risk using limit state criteria, including defining "maximum credible events" such as those for seismic design.  However, when it comes to potentially saving billions of human lives circa 2060 from the consequences of climate change, neo-liberals can only transfer risks & consequences to "others" while fighting to maintain BAU profit margins.

See:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reaganite
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 17, 2016, 10:59:40 PM
The linked EIA article indicates that there is a "huge risk" that "both developed and developing countries spiral into a race to the bottom" possibly/probably allowing the accumulation of large banks of HFC stocks in the next 10 (ala China) to 15 (ala India) years, before any Montreal Protocol amendment takes effect.  Further as such HFCs already contribute one gigatonne of CO₂-e per year to the atmosphere, any further accumulation of additional banks of HFCs significantly accelerates the timing of the potential/probable global socio-economic collapse (possible from 2060 to 2050).  Furthermore, I note that such additional HFC emissions are not considered in the RCP scenarios:

https://eia-international.org/major-climate-commitment-closer-to-adoption-in-2016

Extract: "“Already, the HFCs used in refrigerators, air-conditioners, inhalers and other items are emitting an entire gigatonne of carbon dioxide-equivalent pollution into the atmosphere annually. Now, if that sounds like a lot my friends, it’s because it is. It’s the equivalent to emissions from nearly 300 coal-fired power plants every single year” – John F Kerry in his speech during the 3rd Extraordinary Meeting of Parties to the Montreal Protocol, July 22, 2016, Vienna

India stuck to its previously submitted amendment proposal of a freeze date in 2031 which will allow unrestrained HFC growth for 15 years from now. Other major developing countries including China, Brazil and Indonesia proposed to freeze HFC consumption close to 2025. A late freeze and a baseline set far into the future mean that developing countries lose opportunities for their industries to leapfrog dead-end technologies and allow a massive phase-in of climate damaging chemicals.

If developed parties do not inject ambition into their own reduction schedules there is a huge risk that overall ambition will be compromised, as both developed and developing countries spiral into a race to the bottom.
An ambitious agreement on HFCs is a must in Kigali if we want to retain the possibility of remaining within safe temperature limits on our planet."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 23, 2016, 12:22:40 AM
Now for something on climate uncertainties:

https://climatecrocks.com/2016/04/09/the-weekend-wonk-andy-dessler-on-clouds-and-climate-uncertainties/
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: Iceismylife on August 23, 2016, 09:13:15 PM

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_15/fig1.gif (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_15/fig1.gif)

Still figuring out how to post a pic.  Click on the link and then what do you think reversion to mean? Or continued rising temps?  What is a bigger problem.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 23, 2016, 09:29:29 PM

[url]http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_15/fig1.gif[/url] ([url]http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_15/fig1.gif[/url])

Still figuring out how to post a pic.  Click on the link and then what do you think reversion to mean? Or continued rising temps?  What is a bigger problem.


Without Anthropogenic radiative forcing we would probably revert to the mean paleoclimatic trend line; however, with Anthropogenic forcing we are currently about 1.3C (on a 12-month running average basis) above pre-industrial so we are definitely experiencing warming now and for some decades to come.

If you go to the "Early Anthropocene" thread (in the Science folder), you will find arguments that the relatively flat GMSTs during the Holocene were associated with low levels of Anthropogenic radiative forcing (associated with farming, etc); however, the Anthropocene has now been defined to begin after 1945; because our non-linear acceleration of anthropogenic radiative forcing (due to modern global capitalism) is now far exceeding the paleoclimatic cooling trending line.  Thus global warming is a far greater problem than the risk of global cooling (unless we push so hard that we significantly slow the ocean's thermohaline circulation).

Edit: Also, please note that the paleoclimatic cooling trend requires the activation of natural negative feedback mechanisms (like dust clouds) to drive Earth Systems into a cool period; however, man can now suppress many of these natural negative feedback mechanisms (say by using good farming practices to minimize dust cloud formation).
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: Iceismylife on August 23, 2016, 10:16:00 PM
...
Edit: Also, please note that the paleoclimatic cooling trend requires the activation of natural negative feedback mechanisms (like dust clouds) to drive Earth Systems into a cool period; however, man can now suppress many of these natural negative feedback mechanisms (say by using good farming practices to minimize dust cloud formation).
Sometimes it is hard to see the forest for the trees.  Just looking at the graph. something like 11 times in the past 800,000 years it has gotten within 1.2 dC of where we are now. Four times it has gotten this hot or hotter, and two times it has gotten warmer than now and no times has it gotten 1 dC warmer than now.  Inference.  Between 1.2 dC cooler than now and where we are now there are things that naturally happen that tend to cool things off.  Not 100% effective but 63% effective. (7 times out of 11)  In between current temps and 1 dC warmer there is a 100% effective mechanism that prevents warming of a natural nature.

Are we able to overpower this natural beerier to warming? Should we?

This last question, should we, is real.  We are looking at the possibilities of Arctic cyclones blowing into the fall and I'm thinking that if we have lots of open water in the Arctic then we could get a warm center cyclone in November fed by the difference between open water 0C ish. and minus 10 dC or colder air temps.  That could blow all winter.  that would pump mid level water past Greenland's glaciers,  that would accelerate calving, that would trigger cooling.  We don't know what nature has up her sleeve, but there is something that has been 100% effective at cooling us back off over the past 3 million years.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 23, 2016, 10:54:18 PM
We don't know what nature has up her sleeve, but there is something that has been 100% effective at cooling us back off over the past 3 million years.


As discussed in the linked thread on calibrating Earth Systems Models, ESMs, the CMIP6 models are currently being calibrated against paleodata (including both positive & negative feedback mechanisms) from the PMIP4 program.

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1478.0.html (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1478.0.html)

Such calibration efforts indicate that there is no "barrier" that is 100% effective at cooling us over the past 3 million years; only periods when the positive feedbacks outweigh the negative feedbacks (resulting in warming periods) or when the negative feedbacks outweigh the positive feedbacks (resulting in cooling periods); and the ESM's can calculate the balance between such net feedbacks and radiative forcing relatively well over the paleo-record.

Edit: As an example of how effective dust is as a negative feedback mechanism, the linked (open access) reference suggests that it is practicable to limit global warming to between 1.5 and 2C by the use of Iron Salt Aerosols (ISA) geoengineering, which mimics natural dust climate control:

Oeste, F. D., de Richter, R., Ming, T., and Caillol, S.: Climate engineering by mimicking the natural dust climate control: the Iron Salt Aerosols method, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., doi:10.5194/esd-2016-32, in review, 2016.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-32/ (http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-32/)
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-32/esd-2016-32.pdf (http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-32/esd-2016-32.pdf)

Abstract. Power stations, ship, and air traffic are among the most potent greenhouse gas emitters and primarily responsible for global warming. Iron salt aerosols (ISA) exert a cooling effect on climate in several ways. This article aims firstly to examine all direct and indirect natural climate cooling mechanisms driven by tropospheric aerosol particles composed partly of iron and chloride, showing their cooperation and interaction within the different environmental compartments.

Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: Iceismylife on August 24, 2016, 04:21:02 AM
Such calibration efforts indicate that there is no "barrier" that is 100% effective at cooling us over the past 3 million years; only periods when the positive feedbacks outweigh the negative feedbacks (resulting in warming periods) or when the negative feedbacks outweigh the positive feedbacks (resulting in cooling periods); and the ESM's can calculate the balance between such net feedbacks and radiative forcing relatively well over the paleo-record.
In aviation there was a sound barrier. It wasn't really a barrier it just took a new set of aerodynamic rules to follow and more robust structures.

The language used determines what is seen.  In between our present temperature and 1 dC warmer there is a mechanism in the environment that tends to start and perpetuate a cooling trend.  Calling this mechanism a negative feed back loop tends to limit what you see.  This mechanism has overpowered all warming inputs over the past 3 million years.  The dilution of the surface water in the Arctic slowing down the heat transfer from the equator comes to mind as a likely candidate.  This would tend to mean a lot of sea ice and difficulty in warm water from the south melting it.  Paint the north white with ice, snow and you overpower the radiative heating input from CO2.



Good models get good results bad models get bad results.

There was a super volcanic eruption 70,000 years ago. when you run that eruption through our current models you get it warming back up far faster than it did.  It was cold for 1,000 years after that event.  (The younger dryas was like that too.) My thinking is that the current models are over estimating CO2 and under estimating ice, snow cover loss as to relative importance.

Hansen et all has a paper that is a bit controversial that says rapid ice loss/sea level rise is possible.  When in starts is open to debate.  It is simply after the ice shelves collapse.

Those cold plumes in the Antarctic cold spot thread, what they say to me is this.  Cold water from heat loss from melting, less dense from dilution, and particularly with Ross concentrated flow leading to concentrated ice loss.  2 feet a day loss, how many feet to collapse?  How many days to failure? What duty cycle? How many years?  Ten years or less is not an outlandish estimate. IMHO  With NOAA having warned that 10 feet (two inches more than 3 meters) sea level rise is possible by 2050~2060 is the start of global cooling possible in that time frame?

Science is all about questioning your assumptions. Is reducing OC2 emissions in our best interest or is increasing it?  What is worse global cooling or global warming?
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: sidd on August 24, 2016, 06:36:26 AM
At current CO2 level we have suppressed not just the next glacial stade, but the next two.

doi:10.1038/nature16494

i attach fig 4
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: budmantis on August 24, 2016, 06:46:29 AM
At current CO2 level we have suppressed not just the next glacial stade, but the next two.

Sidd: Without AGW would we be exiting the interglacial and beginning a new ice age? Looking over your post reminded me of a question from an article I read some years ago. Don't remember the source.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: sidd on August 24, 2016, 06:59:51 AM
"Without AGW would we be exiting the interglacial and beginning a new ice age?"

I think so. Ruddiman's work outlines significant early human forcings, but I think absent those, we were headed into glaciation.

sidd
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: Iceismylife on August 24, 2016, 05:59:55 PM
My gut feeling is that soot at the start of the industrial revolution ended the little ice age.

Is there a Younger Dryas in the works?  Are we looking at enough ice loss fast enough to trigger cooling?
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 24, 2016, 06:18:52 PM
My gut feeling is that soot at the start of the industrial revolution ended the little ice age.

Is there a Younger Dryas in the works?  Are we looking at enough ice loss fast enough to trigger cooling?

Mother Nature is a tyrant and will do what she wants regardless of what people's guts suspect.  What is included in state-of-the-art Earth Systems Models is not a negotiation process but rather is an effort to better reflect reality.  Thus clear evidence needs to be cited in order to influence climate model projections.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 24, 2016, 08:56:37 PM
The following linked references all indicate that consideration of chaos theory's strange attractors in paleo-eras demonstrate that climate sensitivity is higher than traditional (AR5) climate modeling projections have assumed.  Thus while it has not finally been determined how quickly global temperatures will increase, I provide the following list (with a hat tip to Robert Scribbler) of atmosphere CO₂ concentrations vs long-term (paleo) global temperature increases. 

Furthermore, I note that per NOAA CO₂-eq at the end of 2015 was 486ppm using a GWP100 of 25 for methane; however, I note that if one uses the correct GWP100 value for methane of 35 instead of 25, then NOAA's calculated value for the CO2-eq for 2015 would be 518ppm (and rising) instead of 485ppm:

350-400 parts per million: 3 degrees (C) worth of temperature increase long-term.
400-450 parts per million: 4 degrees (C) worth of temperature increase long-term.
450-500 parts per million: 5 degrees (C) worth of temperature increase long-term.
500-600 parts per million: 6 degrees (C) worth of temperature increase long-term.
600-700 parts per million: 7 degrees (C)…
700-800 parts per million: 8 degrees (C)…
800-1200 parts per million: 9-12 degrees (C)…

1) Jones, R. N. and Ricketts, J. H.: Reconciling the signal and noise of atmospheric warming on decadal timescales, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., doi:10.5194/esd-2016-35, in review, 2016.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-35/ (http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-35/)
&
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-35/esd-2016-35.pdf (http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-35/esd-2016-35.pdf)

2) Roger Neville Jones & James Henry Ricketts (2016), "Atmospheric warming 1997–2014: hiatus, pause or regime?"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305989994_Atmospheric_warming_1997-2014_hiatus_pause_or_regime (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305989994_Atmospheric_warming_1997-2014_hiatus_pause_or_regime)

3) Ragone, F., Lucarini, V. & Lunkeit, F. (2016), "A new framework for climate sensitivity and prediction: a modelling perspective", Clim Dyn, 46: 1459. doi:10.1007/s00382-015-2657-3

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-015-2657-3 (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-015-2657-3)

4) Anna S. von der Heydt, Peter Ashwin (Submitted on 12 Apr 2016), "State-dependence of climate sensitivity: attractor constraints and palaeoclimate regimes",  arXiv:1604.03311


http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03311 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03311)
&
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03311v1.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03311v1.pdf)

Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 29, 2016, 01:04:52 AM
The linked article indicates that by evolving in a world full of wick problems the human brain/mind has been wired to be an expert "guessing machine".  Furthermore, this article indicates past attempts to use Frequentist-type of thinking has led to limited progress in understanding the wick problem of mental illness, and it finds that Bayesian analysis to be much more effective evaluation tool given the complexity of mental disorders.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/bayesian-reasoning-implicated-some-mental-disorders (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/bayesian-reasoning-implicated-some-mental-disorders)

Extract: "“The brain is a guessing machine, trying at each moment of time to guess what is out there,” says computational neuroscientist Peggy Seriès.

Guesses just slightly off — like mistaking a smile for a smirk — rarely cause harm. But guessing gone seriously awry may play a part in mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, autism and even anxiety disorders, Seriès and other neuroscientists suspect. They say that a mathematical expression known as Bayes’ theorem — which quantifies how prior expectations can be combined with current evidence — may provide novel insights into pernicious mental problems that have so far defied explanation.

Given the complexity of mental disorders such as schizophrenia and autism, it is no surprise that many theories of how the brain works have fallen short, says psychiatrist and neuroscientist Rick Adams of University College London. Current explanations for the disorders are often vague and untestable. Against that frustrating backdrop, Adams sees great promise in a strong mathematical theory, one that can be used to make predictions and actually test them.

Bayes figured out a way to put numbers to this process. By combining probabilities that come from prior evidence and current observations, Bayes’ formula can be used to calculate an overall estimate of the likelihood that a given suspicion is true. A properly functioning brain seems to do this calculation intuitively, behaving in many cases like a skilled Bayesian statistician, some studies show."

While in theory both Frequentist and Bayesian approaches are equally scientific; in practice the Bayesian approach is more suitable for tackling wick problems like mental health and climate change.  The problem with the Frequentist approach is that it is based on statistics from experiments/simulations, and if the experiments are not set-up to be infinitely repeatable then their PDFs will diverge from reality.  However, the Bayesian approach begins with a priori that is assumed to be flawed and which is thus corrected by new evidence to produce an improved posterior PDF that with a sufficient number of repetitions should towards reality.  I note that statistics are related to past/measured events, with true probabilities should be related to future reality.

In Replies #123 to 125, I indicate that mankind's demonstrated inability to deal effectively with climate change is actually an example of our collective mental illness as opposed to human stupidity.  Hopefully, the application of Bayesian logic to both mental health and climate change will bear fruit in the not too distant future.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 29, 2016, 10:06:59 AM
The linked SciAm article is entitled: "The Most Important Number in Climate Change
Just how sensitive is Earth's climate to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide?"; and it points to increased use of Bayesian techniques to gain a better understanding of uncertainties in complex Earth System Model projections:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-most-important-number-in-climate-change/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-most-important-number-in-climate-change/)

Extract: "As the saying goes: all models are wrong, but some are useful. The impact of all of these real world uncertainties can perhaps be synthesized and made into one constraint to rule them all, a kind of master ring for climate change models based on Bayesian statistical techniques that estimates an overall uncertainty based on the probability associated with each contributing factor. "We haven't quite designed that experiment yet," Schmidt says. But "the path toward that synthesis is quite clear.""
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 29, 2016, 10:26:23 AM
The linked (open access) reference uses Bayesian techniques to study regarding the challenges in updating people's belief system about the realities of AGW, when people come to opposite conclusions when presented with the same rational evidence.  This research highlights the challenges of using information to overcome the resistance of US neo-liberals (i.e. Reaganites) to acknowledging climate change risks:

John Cook & Stephan Lewandowsky (8 January 2016), "Rational Irrationality: Modeling Climate Change Belief Polarization Using Bayesian Networks", TopiCS, DOI: 10.1111/tops.12186


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tops.12186/full#references (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tops.12186/full#references)

Abstract: "Belief polarization is said to occur when two people respond to the same evidence by updating their beliefs in opposite directions. This response is considered to be “irrational” because it involves contrary updating, a form of belief updating that appears to violate normatively optimal responding, as for example dictated by Bayes' theorem. In light of much evidence that people are capable of normatively optimal behavior, belief polarization presents a puzzling exception. We show that Bayesian networks, or Bayes nets, can simulate rational belief updating. When fit to experimental data, Bayes nets can help identify the factors that contribute to polarization. We present a study into belief updating concerning the reality of climate change in response to information about the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The study used representative samples of Australian and U.S. participants. Among Australians, consensus information partially neutralized the influence of worldview, with free-market supporters showing a greater increase in acceptance of human-caused global warming relative to free-market opponents. In contrast, while consensus information overall had a positive effect on perceived consensus among U.S. participants, there was a reduction in perceived consensus and acceptance of human-caused global warming for strong supporters of unregulated free markets. Fitting a Bayes net model to the data indicated that under a Bayesian framework, free-market support is a significant driver of beliefs about climate change and trust in climate scientists. Further, active distrust of climate scientists among a small number of U.S. conservatives drives contrary updating in response to consensus information among this particular group."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: Iceismylife on August 30, 2016, 06:00:25 PM
My gut feeling is that soot at the start of the industrial revolution ended the little ice age.

Is there a Younger Dryas in the works?  Are we looking at enough ice loss fast enough to trigger cooling?

Mother Nature is a tyrant and will do what she wants regardless of what people's guts suspect.  What is included in state-of-the-art Earth Systems Models is not a negotiation process but rather is an effort to better reflect reality.  Thus clear evidence needs to be cited in order to influence climate model projections.
...

Afaik albedo-loss heat-gain is not in models as a dynamic property if at all.

...
Over estimating CO2, underestimating albedo.
I do not know the content of models.  I infer the presence of an imbalance in representation.  The quoted writing rings true to me.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 01, 2016, 10:59:04 PM
I am sharing the following 2009 quote from the NRC, that indicates to me that people (across the spectrum) have no idea how to make decisions now for the world that will be coming by 2050:

"Government agencies, private organizations, and individuals whose futures will be affected by climate change are unprepared, both conceptually and practically, for meeting the challenges and opportunities it presents. Many of their usual practices and decision rules—for building bridges, implementing zoning rules, using private motor vehicles, and so on—assume a stationary climate—a continuation of past climatic conditions, including similar patterns of variation and the same probabilities of extreme events. That assumption, fundamental to the ways people and organizations make their choices, is no longer valid." National Research Council Panel, regarding climate change, 2009
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: sidd on September 05, 2016, 11:08:58 PM
Prof. Ruddiman has kindly posted  a comment on the unforced variations september thread at realclimate regarding the early onset of industrial-era warming (  doi:10.1038/nature19082 ) in the light of his own work.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 06, 2016, 02:43:18 PM
Coal rollers, a clear sign of human mental illness:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/business/energy-environment/rolling-coal-in-diesel-trucks-to-rebel-and-provoke.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/business/energy-environment/rolling-coal-in-diesel-trucks-to-rebel-and-provoke.html?_r=0)

Extract: "There is a new menace on America’s roads: diesel truck drivers who soup up their engines and remove their emissions controls to “roll coal,” or belch black smoke, at pedestrians, cyclists and unsuspecting Prius drivers."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: OrganicSu on September 06, 2016, 04:16:54 PM
I saw a video of rolling coal a year ago. I am still sickened. My wish? One of these guys, strapped down, Guantanamo type impunity, streamed live to every other coal roller. Repeated until it stops.
Alternatively a court case to try someone like this for 'crimes against humanity' or 'facilitator of genocide'. The last time I called for such a court case was against at least 1 high level VW manager. That caused an outcry from members of this forum. Regarding that just remember those responsible are still enjoying their rewards. The pilage and wilful destruction, even when it is against the law, continues. To roll coal the law is broken, new laws are not needed. Acceptance or acquiescence of such has also got to stop.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 08, 2016, 02:33:05 AM
I am sharing the following 2009 quote from the NRC, that indicates to me that people (across the spectrum) have no idea how to make decisions now for the world that will be coming by 2050:

"Government agencies, private organizations, and individuals whose futures will be affected by climate change are unprepared, both conceptually and practically, for meeting the challenges and opportunities it presents. Many of their usual practices and decision rules—for building bridges, implementing zoning rules, using private motor vehicles, and so on—assume a stationary climate—a continuation of past climatic conditions, including similar patterns of variation and the same probabilities of extreme events. That assumption, fundamental to the ways people and organizations make their choices, is no longer valid." National Research Council Panel, regarding climate change, 2009

For those who are more visual, the first image shows a traditional relationships demand & capacity pdfs for design of infrastructure; while the second attached image show how that traditional relationship changes with increasing forcing (such as will occur on infrastructure with continued AGW).  With enough coming radiative forcing only systems with a very long (resilient/adaptable) and fat-tailed capacity pdf will survive future climate change forcing.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 20, 2016, 08:34:59 PM
The linked article is entitled: "Global Risk is Spinning Out of Control"; and it addresses some of the "unexpected" (by the consensus; even though individual experts have long warmed of such probabily "knock-on effects) consequences of climate change, such as:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dante-disparte/global-risk-is-spinning-o_b_11794332.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dante-disparte/global-risk-is-spinning-o_b_11794332.html)

Extract:
•   "Unusually dry conditions in Canada enabled someone to start a forest fire that decimated a town (Fort McMurray) at the epicenter of the country’s oil sands industry, prompting 25% of Canada’s oil production to be temporarily taken off line, and impacting global oil prices.
•   The widespread use of fungicides has greatly reduced the effectiveness of the world’s few anti-fungal agents, meaning that as many people now die from fungal infections as from malaria.
•   Syrians were migrating en masse from rural areas to cities well before the Syrian Conflict was born because of drought. The Conflict has only exacerbated the reasons for their displacement.
•   Zika’s spread has already impacted tourism and travel patterns globally, with severe knock-on effects for businesses and people who depend on tourists for their livelihood."

Also, with a hat-tip to Sigmetnow, I repost the attached cartoon of the thinking of current consensus risk managers and their approach to addressing climate change consequences.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 21, 2016, 09:41:15 PM
The linked World Economic Forum, WEF, article is entitled: "Why climate change adaptation is key to managing global risks".  Just a few years ago climate change the WEF did not rank climate change as a significant risk, and now they rank it as the risk with the greatest potential impact.  Some may see this as a sign that world leaders have a good handle on global risk (including the failure of numerous national governments) and are making well informed decisions; however, I am not of that opinion.  Climate risks were clear several decades ago, and if WEF had recognized this fact at that time, effective (relatively low-cost) measures could have been taken to reduce climate impacts markedly; without the adaptation measures that the WEF now say are key.  It is my opinion that such leaders are calling for adaptation measures such a resiliency so that they can justify reducing safety margins to the point where much of the world's population is subject to receiving Darwin awards between 2050 & 2060.  As harsh as it sounds, this may be the plan for such leaders to reduce the global population down to a more sustainable level:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/climate-adaptation-is-key-to-managing-interconnected-global-risks/ (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/climate-adaptation-is-key-to-managing-interconnected-global-risks/)

Extract: "The Global Risks Report 2016, published by the World Economic Forum in collaboration with Zurich Insurance Group and other leading institutions, found that while geopolitical risk such as uncontrolled immigration and interstate conflicts were seen as the most likely threat, climate issues were the risk factors most likely to influence other risks and thus had the greatest potential impact.

Failure of national governance was seen as the highest risk to doing business by executives in 14 countries, half of them in Latin America, four in sub-Saharan Africa, two in Eastern Europe and one in Asia."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 25, 2016, 03:41:38 PM
The linked website presents maps indicating the fragility of major cities around the world.  With so many fragile cities in the Philippines, the Indian Sub-continent, the Middle East, Africa and Central America (see the attached image); it is easy to project which countries will become failed states with increasing stress from climate change.  Failed states mean more refugees and more terrorist.


http://fragilecities.igarape.org.br/ (http://fragilecities.igarape.org.br/)

It does not take a genius to realize that one penny's worth of effort to fight GHG emissions a few decades ago would have prevented many dollar's worth of damage from occurring over then next few decades.  Unfortunately, our world leaders did not (& still do not) even pass this threshold of intelligence (or more accurately this threshold of mental health).
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 25, 2016, 04:15:30 PM
The linked article indicates the U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is also disappointed in the behavior world leaders:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/185429a05838424fbd2c3b0c3925a62d/un-chief-disappointed-leaders-care-about-power-not-people (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/185429a05838424fbd2c3b0c3925a62d/un-chief-disappointed-leaders-care-about-power-not-people)

Extract: "U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says he's disappointed by many world leaders who care more about retaining power than improving the lives of their people "
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 30, 2016, 10:37:59 PM
The linked 30 September 2016SkS article by Andy Skuce is entitled: "Sensitivity training".  While this article acknowledges many sources of uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity, it clings (in my opinion, inappropriately) to the same uncertainty range provide in AR4.  Such estimates that err on the side of least drama (ESLD), leave the residual risk with the general public:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/sensitivity-training.html (https://www.skepticalscience.com/sensitivity-training.html)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 01, 2016, 11:35:14 PM
The ESLD-type of thinking presented by Andy Skuce & Gavin Schmidt in the SkS article addressed in Reply #154, over-rely on Popper’s demarcation between science (falsifiable) and non-science (not falsifiable), at any moment in time; and which is (in general terms) used by the IPCC process to present Frequentist probabilities that do not reflect the true risks associated with anthropogenic forcing of chaotic Earth Systems.  In reality, knowledge of such Earth Systems is a lot fuzzier than simply being falsifiable or not falsifiable at any given time due to uncertainty.  Furthermore, such reticent IPCC science tends to underutilize Bayesian logic to address uncertainty as has been made clear to the ACME (Accelerated Climate Modeling for Energy) program by risk management experts.  However, while AR6 and ACME-Phase 1 are making efforts to better incorporate Bayesian logic into their projections, in other posts, I have made it clear that we will likely need to wait until AR8 and ACME-Phase 4 are available circa 2032 before we get close to rigorously defensible projections that come close to addressing our true climate change risks.

Reticent science cited by Andy Skuce includes the first attached partial image, where the range of the dashed box (from 2C to about 4.75C) is supposed to represent the findings of paleo investigations of past climate sensitivities, which is supposed to serve as guidance to policy makers.  Then Andy Skuce concludes with the following extract; where he ties the paleo findings to some ECS assessments of modern observed data by Richardson, Marvel and Schmidt to state: "This consilience, which is to say, different approaches pointing to the same general result, explains why climate scientists are so confident …", together with a few last footnotes on "fat-tailed" uncertainties to avoid criticisms of bias.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/sensitivity-training.html (https://www.skepticalscience.com/sensitivity-training.html)

Extract: "Combining the Richardson and the Marvel results brings estimates of climate sensitivity back to, or even a little above Jule Charney’s estimates. To the non-specialist, all of this may seem like a rather pointless process where we end up where we started from, still stuck with a stubbornly wide range of a factor of 3 or so from minimum (1.5 degrees) to maximum (4.5 degrees). But as Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Scientific American last year: “We may be just as unsure as before, but we are unsure on a much more solid footing.”

Climate sensitivity estimates are not just estimated by climate models using modern data. Scientists also have observations of how the Earth behaved in periods of past climatic change. From the ice-age cycles that occurred over the past 800,000 years there are samples of past atmospheres trapped in gas bubbles in ice cores that reveal the chemical mix of the air and the temperatures at the time.

Scientists can look back much further in time, many millions of years ago, when the Earth was in a hot-house state. In those times there was little ice even at the poles and sea levels were several tens of metres higher than they are today.

These observations of the geological past have their own considerable ranges of uncertainty, but, taken together, they produce estimates of climate sensitivity that are broadly consistent with the range calculated by climate models of the modern era. This consilience, which is to say, different approaches pointing to the same general result, explains why climate scientists are so confident that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases lead to increased warming, even if nobody can yet be sure how much the human-induced warming will be over this century and beyond.
One thing we do know with great confidence is that if we continue to emit greenhouse gases at the current rate, then sometime in the second half of this century we will have doubled the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The last time concentrations were that high, 30 million years ago, there was no ice on Greenland and little on Antarctica."

To get a better handle of the "fat-tailed" risk discounted by Andy Skuce (& reticent science); the second linked reference discusses paleodata to indicate that climate sensitivity increased from 3.3 - 5.6 (mean of 4.45k) at the beginning of the PETM up to 3.7 - 6.5 K (mean of 5.1K) near the peak of the PETM.  The second attached image compare this to ECS values for the Last Glacial Maximum, LGM, Modern Day, MD, Late Pleistocene, LP, and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, PETM. The caption for the second attached image is: "Paleo climate sensitivity study reconstructs global warming 56 million years ago and suggests future global warming could be even worse than expected. This graphic shows climate sensitivity at different global temperatures in the atmosphere. The figure shows from the right estimates for the past warm period, the PETM 56 million years ago, the period before the PETM and for the present. On the left the figure shows estimates for the Last Glacial Maximum. Courtesy: Gary Shaffer and Roberto Rondanelli"

Gary Shaffer, Matthew Huber, Roberto Rondanelli & Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen (23 June 2016), "Deep-time evidence for climate sensitivity increase with warming", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2016GL069243


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL069243/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL069243/full)

Next, the third linked reference presents paleo evidence about the Eocene.  While the authors emphasize that their findings support the IPCC interpretation for climate sensitivity, when looking at the third attached image of Fig 4 panel f, it appears to me that this is only the case if one averages ECS over the entire Eocene; while if one focuses on the Early Eocene Climate Optimum (EECO) which CO₂ levels were higher than in current modern times, it appear that ECS was higher (around 4C) than the IPCC AR5 assumes (considering that we are increasing CO2 concentrations faster now that during the EECO this gives me concern rather than reassurance).

Eleni Anagnostou, Eleanor H. John, Kirsty M. Edgar, Gavin L. Foster, Andy Ridgwell, Gordon N. Inglis, Richard D. Pancost, Daniel J. Lunt & Paul N. Pearson (2016), "Changing atmospheric CO2 concentration was the primary driver of early Cenozoic climate", Nature, doi:10.1038/nature17423


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature17423.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature17423.html)

Next, the fourth linked reference indicates that corrected recent observations indicate that the most likely value of ECS may be as high as 4.6C (see fourth attached plot of the time dependent curve); which is much higher than Andy Skuce acknowledges for recent observations:

Kyle C. Armour  (27 June 2016), "Projection and prediction: Climate sensitivity on the rise", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate3079

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3079.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3079.html)


A pdf of Armour 2016 can be found at the following link:

http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3079.epdf?author_access_token=LNQKgwEONy5YVJSvlubB29RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PPTNF_sOIeFx9myJ_U10XLsj8_p1lqjx0RRDTJbTTc78eupvudlmNtEiNXnWHNhr4crt8ZuOmLA66TNpMu_PUg (http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3079.epdf?author_access_token=LNQKgwEONy5YVJSvlubB29RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PPTNF_sOIeFx9myJ_U10XLsj8_p1lqjx0RRDTJbTTc78eupvudlmNtEiNXnWHNhr4crt8ZuOmLA66TNpMu_PUg)

The caption for the fourth image is: "Climate sensitivity estimated from observations1 (black), and its revision following Richardson et al. (blue) then following Marvel et al. (green), and in red the revision for the time dependence (Armour). The grey histogram shows climate model values."

Finally, for this post, I believe that by the time reasonably accurate projections are available circa 2032 we will have passed a tipping point leading to global socio-economic collapse (in the 2045 to 2060 timeframe) driving substantially by non-linear climate change related impacts.  As published projections from a ACME-Phase 4 climate model will not be available for something like 16-years, and as reticent science hides risk in the "tall grass" of uncertainty, I recommend that risk managers use Scenario Based Hazard Assessment, SBHA (guided by both Bayesian methodology & information theory), to get a better handle on the poorly defined risks that are currently heavily discounted by reticent science.  Then the findings of such SBHA efforts could be used in Robust Decision Making, RDM, to better adapt to the coming consequences of the Anthropocene era.

Furthermore, as most of the area of concern is associated with "fat-tailed" risk, I further propose the SBHA be used to identify Maximum Credible Events, MCE, which we many need to adapt to (even if that adaptation includes presenting numerous Darwin Awards).  In my next post, I plan to present a scenario for a MCE illustrating how PETM-like conditions might be reached at early at 2100, rather than several centuries in the future as assumed by reticent science.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 02, 2016, 07:42:59 AM
I begin my Scenario Based Hazard Assessment, SBHA, of a Maximum Credible Event, MCE, by focusing on Arctic Amplification, and its implications for a bipolar seesaw feedback mechanism. In this regards, the first linked reference indicates that changes in extratropical clouds associated with a reduction in high latitude albedo can impact atmospheric heat transport via changes in the Hadley cell:

Nicole Feldl, Simona Bordoni & Timothy M. Merlis (September 28 2016), "Coupled high-latitude climate feedbacks and their impact on atmospheric heat transport", Journal of Climate, DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0324.1


http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0324.1 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0324.1)

Abstract: "The response of atmospheric heat transport to anthropogenic warming is determined by the anomalous meridional energy gradient. Feedback analysis offers a characterization of that gradient and hence reveals how uncertainty in physical processes may translate into uncertainty in the circulation response. However, individual feedbacks do not act in isolation. Anomalies associated with one feedback may be compensated by another, as is the case for the positive water vapor and negative lapse rate feedbacks in the tropics. Here we perform a set of idealized experiments in an aquaplanet model to evaluate the coupling between the surface albedo feedback and other feedbacks, including the impact on atmospheric heat transport. In the tropics, the dynamical response manifests as changes in the intensity and structure of the overturning Hadley circulation. Only half of the range of Hadley cell weakening exhibited in these experiments is found to be attributable to imposed, systematic variations in the surface albedo feedback. Changes in extratropical clouds that accompany the albedo changes explain the remaining spread. The feedback-driven circulation changes are compensated by eddy energy flux changes, which reduce the overall spread among experiments. These findings have implications for the efficiency with which the climate system, including tropical circulation and the hydrological cycle, adjusts to high latitude feedbacks, over climate states that range from perennial or seasonal ice to ice-free conditions in the Arctic."


Furthermore, Hansen et al (2016) indicates that abrupt ice sheet mass loss temporarily (until the ice discharge ends and the ocean returns to equilibrium) creates a planetary energy imbalance due to feedbacks that are not included in the AR5 projections (which do not introduce such abrupt ice meltwater, called hosing).  These feedbacks are somewhat complex, including that the freshened polar ocean surface water freezes more easily which creates more sea ice, which protects the warm ocean deep water from radiating heat to outer space, which decreases the density of the bottom water (e.g.: AABW), which slows the oceanic current conveyor belt (including the AMOC), which means that less warm water is carried away from the tropical ocean, which means that more evaporation occurs, which means that the Hadley Cell receives more energy and expands, which pushes the high altitude tropical clouds (which have a positive feedback) a few degrees poleward and which desiccates the tropical shallow clouds (which have negative feedback); which increases ECS.  Now this does not increase GMST because of the cooling of the polar ocean(s) (e.g. the Southern Ocean); which decreases the SSTA; however, the deep ocean water is warming more rapidly than AR5 projects.  Thus the planetary energy imbalance (including the rapid increase of ocean heat content and the increased energy absorbed by the surface of the tropical oceans due to the net increase in postive cloud cover feedback) increases according to Hansen et al by about 2 W/sq m by 2100 above the AR5 RCP 8.5 value (which I indicated we would follow even if CoP 21 results in 6 W/sq m of anthropogenic radiative forcing, because AR5 left out 400 Gt of natural carbon emissions that have subsequently been identified, resulting in a total anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing of 8.5 W/sq m plus the 2 W/sq m planetary energy imbalance value identified by Hansen et al).  However, Hansen et al's projections (and AR5's projections) include: (a) too much ocean surface mixing which means that they do not slow the oceanic current conveyor belt as much as they physically should so they underestimate the planetary energy imbalance), (b) they ignor the bipolar seesaw interaction between first the WAIS and the GIS and then the GIS and the EAIS; and (c) they ignore the probability that current ECS exceeds 3C.

In a very crude attempt to provide some rough scale to the possible additional bipolar seesaw forcing that I expect by 2100 [beyond that included in the Hansen et al (2016) paper], I provide the following possible values for some different (aggregated) forcing mechanisms:


(a) Due to natural carbon-cycle (including from permafrost degradation not included in AR5) input of about 400 GtC by 2100, assume that we stay on RCP 8.5 which would result in radiative forcing, RF, of 8.5 W/m² by 2100 (assuming ECS = 3C).

(b) The ice meltwater planetary energy imbalance identified by Hansen et al 2016 will add about 2 W/m² to this total RF by 2100.

(c) Anthropogenic aerosol forcing of between 1.5 W/m² and 2.37 W/m²   

(d) For the possible additional forcing due to the anthropogenically driven bipolar seesaw mechanism (beyond Hansen's 2 W/m²) by 2100, say about : 1 W/m²

Also, the attached image from Andrew in the Ringberg workshop 2015 indicates that when the Tropical Pacific heat energy increases [where due to: (i) Arctic Amplification's impact on atmospheric heat transport via changes in the Hadley cell per Feldl (2016); (ii) Hansen's ice-climate feedback slowing the great oceanic conveyor belt; and/or (iii) most positive PDO's], the ECS also increases into the 4.6 +/- 0.4C range cited by Armour (2016), cited in my immediate past post.


From a paleo point of view the following three references related to investigations of Lake El'gygytgyn, NE Arctic Russia; provide support for the importance of both Arctic Amplification and the associated bipolar seesaw:

Gregory A. De Wet, Isla S. Castañeda, Robert M. DeConto & Julie Brigham-Grette  (February 2016), “A high-resolution mid-Pleistocene temperature record from Arctic Lake El'gygytgyn: A 50 kyr super interglacial from MIS 33 to MIS 31?”Earth and Planetary Science Letters 436:56-63 DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2015.12.021 

http://blogs.umass.edu/biogeochem/files/2016/01/de-Wet-et-al.-2016.pdf (http://blogs.umass.edu/biogeochem/files/2016/01/de-Wet-et-al.-2016.pdf)

Abstract: “Previous periods of extreme warmth in Earth's history are of great interest in light of current and predicted anthropogenic warming. Numerous so called "super interglacial" intervals, with summer temperatures significantly warmer than today, have been identified in the 3.6 million year (Ma) sediment record from Lake El'gygytgyn, northeast Russia. To date, however, a high-resolution paleotemperature reconstruction from any of these super interglacials is lacking. Here we present a paleotemperature reconstruction based on branched glycerol dialkyl glycerol tetraethers (brGDGTs) from Marine Isotope Stages (MIS) 35 to MIS 29, including super interglacial MIS 31. To investigate this period in detail, samples were analyzed with an unprecedented average sample resolution of 500 yrs from MIS 33 to MIS 30. Our results suggest the entire period currently defined as MIS 33-31 (~1114-1062 kyr BP) was characterized by generally warm and highly variable conditions at the lake, at times out of phase with Northern Hemisphere summer insolation, and that cold "glacial" conditions during MIS 32 lasted only a few thousand years. Close similarities are seen with coeval records from high southern latitudes, supporting the suggestion that the interval from MIS 33 to MIS 31 was an exceptionally long interglacial (Teitler et al., 2015). Based on brGDGT temperatures from Lake El'gygytgyn (this study and unpublished results), warming in the western Arctic during MIS 31 was matched only by MIS 11 during the Pleistocene.



Coletti, A. J., DeConto, R. M., Brigham-Grette, J., and Melles, M.: A GCM comparison of Pleistocene super-interglacial periods in relation to Lake El'gygytgyn, NE Arctic Russia, Clim. Past, 11, 979-989, doi:10.5194/cp-11-979-2015, 2015.

http://www.clim-past.net/11/979/2015/cp-11-979-2015.pdf (http://www.clim-past.net/11/979/2015/cp-11-979-2015.pdf)
http://www.clim-past.net/11/979/2015/cp-11-979-2015.html (http://www.clim-past.net/11/979/2015/cp-11-979-2015.html)

Abstract: "Until now, the lack of time-continuous, terrestrial paleoenvironmental data from the Pleistocene Arctic has made model simulations of past interglacials difficult to assess. Here, we compare climate simulations of four warm interglacials at Marine Isotope Stages (MISs) 1 (9 ka), 5e (127 ka), 11c (409 ka) and 31 (1072 ka) with new proxy climate data recovered from Lake El'gygytgyn, NE Russia. Climate reconstructions of the mean temperature of the warmest month (MTWM) indicate conditions up to 0.4, 2.1, 0.5 and 3.1 °C warmer than today during MIS 1, 5e, 11c and 31, respectively. While the climate model captures much of the observed warming during each interglacial, largely in response to boreal summer (JJA) orbital forcing, the extraordinary warmth of MIS 11c compared to the other interglacials in the Lake El'gygytgyn temperature proxy reconstructions remains difficult to explain. To deconvolve the contribution of multiple influences on interglacial warming at Lake El'gygytgyn, we isolated the influence of vegetation, sea ice and circum-Arctic land ice feedbacks on the modeled climate of the Beringian interior. Simulations accounting for climate–vegetation–land-surface feedbacks during all four interglacials show expanding boreal forest cover with increasing summer insolation intensity. A deglaciated Greenland is shown to have a minimal effect on northeast Asian temperature during the warmth of stages 11c and 31 (Melles et al., 2012). A prescribed enhancement of oceanic heat transport into the Arctic Ocean does have some effect on Lake El'gygytgyn's regional climate, but the exceptional warmth of MIS 11c remains enigmatic compared to the modest orbital and greenhouse gas forcing during that interglacial."

Extract: "The timing of significant warming in the circum-Arctic can be linked to major deglaciation events in Antarctica, demonstrating possible interhemispheric linkages between the Arctic and Antarctic climate on glacial–interglacial timescales, which have yet to be explained."



Julie Brigham-Grette et. al. (2013), “Pliocene Warmth, Polar Amplification, and Stepped Pleistocene Cooling Recorded in NE Arctic Russia”,  Science, Page 1 / 10.1126/science.1233137

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75831381/Brigham-Grette.pdf (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75831381/Brigham-Grette.pdf)


Abstract: “Understanding the evolution of Arctic polar climate from the protracted warmth of the middle Pliocene into the earliest glacial cycles in the Northern Hemisphere has been hindered by the lack of continuous, highly resolved Arctic time series. Evidence from Lake El’gygytgyn, NE Arctic Russia, shows that 3.6-3.4 million years ago, summer temperatures were ~8°C warmer than today when pCO2 was ~400 ppm. Multiproxy evidence suggests extreme warmth and polar amplification during the middle Pliocene, sudden stepped cooling events during the Pliocene-Pleistocene transition, and warmer than present Arctic summers until ~2.2 Ma, after the onset of Northern Hemispheric glaciation. Our data are consistent with sea-level records and other proxies indicating that Arctic cooling was insufficient to support large-scale ice sheets until the early Pleistocene.”

I will extend this SBHA in my next post.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 02, 2016, 03:58:51 PM
In my last post I raised the positive reinforcement of various Earth Systems (Arctic Amplification, Bipolar Seesaw, Permafrost degradation, PDO/ENSO, Ice-Climate Feedback, Hadley Cell expansion, etc.); which is what Chaos Theory calls Strange (or Lorenz) Attractors.  I believe that such strange attractors can progressively/interactively ratchet-up different Earth System States (see the first attached image) so as to increase the effective climate sensitivity so that some "slow-response" feedbacks (see the figure in my last post from Andrew – Ringberg 2015, where the middle panel indicates an effective climate sensitivity of about 5C) occur within decades rather than millennia. This potential acceleration of the rate of activation of "slow-response" feedbacks close to what happened during the PETM, is supported by such considerations as:

(a) We are radiatively forcing the Earth at well over 10 times the rate experienced during the PETM;

(b) The Antarctic anthropogenically induced ozone hole accelerated the westerly winds over the Southern Ocean; which induced the conveyance of warm Circumpolar Deep Water, CDW, over portions of the Antarctic continental shelves where the CDW has been melting glacial ice at the grounding lines of key marine glaciers, thus initiating Hansen's ice-climate feedback.

(c) Anthropogenic aerosols have been temporarily masking the impacts of anthropogenic radiative forcing; much as dust in paleo times resulted in negative forcing that caused cooling.  However, reticent science has discounted the efficiency of both of these mechanisms leaving the modern world subject to unexpectedly high rates of GMST increases due to the GHGs that accumulated in the atmosphere during the recent faux hiatus.

(d) The ENSO cycle appears to be increasing the frequency of large El Ninos.

Indeed the first linked reference indicates that when analyzing modern day observations: "Severe testing is applied to observed global and regional surface and satellite temperatures and modelled surface temperatures to determine whether these interactions are independent, as in the traditional signal-to-noise model, or whether they interact, resulting in steplike warming."  The reference concludes that indeed steplike warming occurs due to "… a store-and-release mechanism from the ocean to the atmosphere…" like the classical Lorenzian attractor case of ENSO decadal cycles.  Such steplike behavior confirms the mechanism that I call "Ratcheting of Quasi-static Equilibrium States" (see the first attachment).  As the authors point-out reticent science likely missed this behavior because: "This may be due in part to science asking the wrong questions."; and they advise that such reticent AR5/CMIP5 researchers should change how they view the output from their models.  For example, the second attached image (see panel "e" of that Figure 6) from the reference shows global warming increasing much faster for a steplike response if ECS is 4.5 than for a the traditional AR5/CMIP5 interpretation; which means that ESLD researchers are exposing society to far more risk of the consequences of high ECS values than AR5/CMIP5 are leading us to believe:

Jones, R. N. and Ricketts, J. H.: Reconciling the signal and noise of atmospheric warming on decadal timescales, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., doi:10.5194/esd-2016-35, in review, 2016.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-35/ (http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-35/)
&
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-35/esd-2016-35.pdf (http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-35/esd-2016-35.pdf)


Extract: "This finding does not invalidate the huge literature that assesses long-term (>50 years) climate change as a relatively linear process, and the warming response as being broadly additive with respect to forcing (e.g., Lucarini et al., 2010; Marvel et al., 2015). However, on decadal scales, this is not the case – warming appears to be largely governed by a storage and release process, where heat is stored in the ocean and released in bursts projecting onto modes of climate variability as suggested by Corti et al. (1999). We discuss this further in another paper (Jones and Ricketts, 2016).

This has serious implications for how climate change is understood and applied in a whole range of decision-making contexts.  The characterisation of changing climate risk as a smooth process will leave climate risk as being seriously underdetermined, affecting how adaptation is perceived, planned and undertaken (Jones et al., 2013).

The interaction of change and variability is typical of a complex, rather than mechanistic, system. The possibility of Lorenzian attractors in the ocean-atmosphere acting on decadal time scales was raised by Palmer (1993) and, despite later discussions about the potential for nonlinear responses on those timescales (e.g., Lucarini and Ragone, 2011;Tsonis and Swanson, 2012), very little progress has been made in translating this into applied research that can portray a better understanding of changing climate risk. This may be due in part to science asking the wrong questions.

The signal to noise model of a gradually changing mean surrounded by random climate variability poorly represents warming on decadal timescales. The separation of signal and noise into ‘good’ and ‘bad, likewise, is poor framing for the purposes of understanding and managing risk in fundamentally nonlinear systems (Koutsoyiannis, 2010; Jones, 2015b). However, as we show, the presence of such changes within climate models shows their current potential for investigating nonlinearly changing climate risks. Investigating step changes in temperature and related variables does not indicate a need to fundamentally change how climate modelling is carried out. It does, however, indicate a need to change how the results are analysed."

Furthermore, the second linked (open access) research indicates that the traditional model approach consistently underestimates values of climate sensitivity based on experiments (& paleo data) with dynamic changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations:

Anna S. von der Heydt, Peter Ashwin (Submitted on 12 Apr 2016), "State-dependence of climate sensitivity: attractor constraints and palaeoclimate regimes",    arXiv:1604.03311


http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03311 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03311)
&
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03311v1.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03311v1.pdf)

Abstract: "Equilibrium climate sensitivity is a frequently used measure to predict long-term climate change. However, both climate models and observational data suggest a rather large uncertainty on climate sensitivity (CS). The reasons for this include: the climate has a strong internal variability on many time scales, it is subject to a non-stationary forcing and it is, on many timescales, out of equilibrium with the changes in the radiative forcing. Palaeo records of past climate variations give insight into how the climate system responds to various forcings although care must be taken of the slow feedback processes before comparing palaeo CS estimates with model estimates. In addition, the fast feedback processes can change their relative strength and time scales over time. Consequently, another reason for the large uncertainty on palaeo climate sensitivity may be the fact that it is strongly state-dependent. Using a conceptual climate model, we explore how CS can be estimated from unperturbed and perturbed model time series. Even in this rather simple model we find a wide range of estimates of the distribution of CS, depending on climate state and variability within the unperturbed attractor. For climate states perturbed by instantaneous doubling of CO2, the sensitivity estimates agree with those for the unperturbed model after transient decay back the attractor. In this sense, climate sensitivity can be seen as a distribution that is a local property of the climate attractor. We also follow the classical climate model approach to sensitivity, where CO2 is prescribed and non-dynamic, leading to CS values consistently smaller than those derived from the experiments with dynamic CO2. This suggests that climate sensitivity estimates from climate models may depend significantly on future dynamics, and not just the level of CO2."

Extract: “... the presence of variability on the attractor on a number of timescales means there are clear and non-trivial distributions of sensitivities, even for unperturbed climates. The distribution of sensitivities depends strongly on the background state as well as on the timescale considered. This suggests that it could be useful to think of the unperturbed climate sensitivity as a local property of the “climate attractor”. For a perturbed system (we have considered instantaneously doubled CO2) this is still useful once an initial transient has decayed. This transient will depend in particular on ocean heat uptake, though also on carbon cycle and biosphere processes that act on time scales roughly equivalent with the forcing time scale. If the climate system has more than one attractor, the perturbed system may clearly evolve to a completely different set of states than the original attractor – a situation that did not occur in the climate model used here. In less extreme cases, there may still be very long transients for some perturbations associated parts of the climate system that are associated with slow feedbacks.

Such perturbations (illustrated in Fig. 1b,d) are not normally applied in climate models used for climate predictions [IPCC, 2013], where climate sensitivity is derived from model simulations considering prescribed, non-dynamic atmospheric CO2. In our conceptual model, we have derived climate sensitivities from both types of perturbations and find that the classical climate model approach (section 2.2, Fig. 4f) leads to significantly lower values of the climate sensitivity than the perturbations away from the attractor with dynamic CO2 (section 2.3, Fig. 11a). This emphasises the importance of including dynamic carbon cycle processes into climate prediction models. Moreover, it supports the idea that the real observed climate response may indeed be larger than the model predicted one, because those models never will include all feedback processes in the climate system.“

Thus reticent science is likely missing the bump-up to climate sensitivity of 6C shown in the third attached image from Hansen & Sato (2012); which presents a major societal risk as our increase in radiative forcing up to about 3 to 3.5 W/sq m above Holocene conditions.  This also raises the risk that such transient "Ratcheting of Quasi-static Equilibrium States" could cause the Hadley cell in the NH to expand poleward into an equable pattern as discussed in the third attached reference by Langford (2011); which raises the risk that such a bifurcation may be irreversible (see the fourth attached image, leaving us near PETM conditions (see the third image).

HADLEY CELL EXPANSION IN TODAY’S CLIMATE AND PALEOCLIMATES Bill Langford; University Professor Emeritus Department of Mathematics and Statistics; University of Guelph, Canada; Presented to the BioM&S Symposium on Climate Change and Ecology; University of Guelph; April 28, 2011

http://www.fields.utoronto.ca/programs/scientific/10-11/biomathstat/Langford_W.pdf (http://www.fields.utoronto.ca/programs/scientific/10-11/biomathstat/Langford_W.pdf)

In my next post, I plan to present some key evidence that increases the credibility of such a MCE occurring circa 2100.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 02, 2016, 04:24:03 PM
I begin my substantiation of the credibility of an equable climate being initiate by about 2100 as a MCE by noting that things are already much worse than most authorities are prepared to state publically.  In this regards, the first attached image(from the NOAA ESRL Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI) website) indicates that: (a) the 2015 radiative forcing was 2.974 watts/sq m; (b) AGGI (2015) was 1.374; and (c) CO₂-e was 485ppm.However, per Reply #15 NOAA's conversion of methane into CO₂-equiv they use the old formula (see the IPCC 2007 curve in the image in Reply #14) for methane's GWP. If one assumes that the GWP100 for methane is 35 instead of 25 (per the plot in Reply #14), then NOAA's calculated value for the CO2-eq for 2015 would be 518ppm instead of 485ppm; which is a big difference.  Furthermore, GMSTA is currently 1.3C, and many not fluctuate below 1.25C without the unlikely occurrence of a La Nina this year, or next.

Next I provide a links to Jagniecki et al. (2015) (and an associated article); indicating that early Eocene climatic optimum (EECO) conditions (with an equable climate) may have occurred with atmospheric CO₂ concentrations between 680ppm (which is close to our current CO₂-equiv value) and 1260ppm (see the second attached image); and that under such conditions the effective climate sensitivity (ESS) may have been twice that previously assumed by Royer et al (2012) (see link to reference below) as indicates in the third attached image.

Jagniecki,Elliot A. et al. (2015), "Eocene atmospheric CO2from the nahcolite proxy", Geology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/G36886.1 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/G36886.1)


http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2015/10/23/G36886.1 (http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2015/10/23/G36886.1)

ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/reposit/2015/2015357.pdf (http://ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/reposit/2015/2015357.pdf)

Abstract: "Estimates of the atmospheric concentration of CO2, [CO2]atm, for the "hothouse" climate of the early Eocene climatic optimum (EECO) vary for different proxies. Extensive beds of the mineral nahcolite (NaHCO3) in evaporite deposits of the Green River Formation, Piceance Creek Basin, Colorado, USA, previously established [CO2]atm for the EECO to be >1125 ppm by volume (ppm). Here, we present experimental data that revise the sodium carbonate mineral equilibria as a function of [CO2] and temperature. Co-precipitation of nahcolite and halite (NaCl) now establishes a well-constrained lower [CO2]atm limit of 680 ppm for the EECO. Paleotemperature estimates from leaf fossils and fluid inclusions in halite suggest an upper limit for [CO2]atm in the EECO from the nahcolite proxy of ∼1260 ppm. These data support a causal connection between elevated [CO2]atm and early Eocene global warmth, but at significantly lower [CO2]atm than previously thought, which suggests that ancient climates on Earth may have been more sensitive to a doubling of [CO2]atm than is currently assumed."

Extract: "These results show that [CO₂]atm may not have been as high as previously thought during the warmest interval of the Cenozoic, implying a climate sensitivity for CO₂ that is roughly twice as high as is currently assumed (Royer et al., 2012)."

See also:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/eocene-temperature-spike-caused-half-much-co2-once-thought (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/eocene-temperature-spike-caused-half-much-co2-once-thought)

Extract: "During the Eocene around 50 million years ago, climbing CO2 levels heated the planet by more than 5 degrees Celsius. By examining crystals grown in this “hothouse” climate, researchers discovered that Eocene CO2 levels were as low as 680 parts per million. That’s nearly half the 1,125 ppm predicted by previous, less accurate crystal experiments, the researchers report online October 23 in Geology."

Royer, D. L., M. Pagani, and D. J. Beerling (2012), Geobiological constraints on Earth system sensitivity to CO2 during the Cretaceous and Cenozoic, Geobiology, 10, 298–310; DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-4669.2012.00320.x

http://people.earth.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Pagani/5_2012Royer_Geobiology.pdf (http://people.earth.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Pagani/5_2012Royer_Geobiology.pdf)


Next, while I have not proven that we are currently following the most likely modern day ECS value of 4.6C cited by Armour in my last posts (see also Replies #13 and 120); nevertheless, if this is correct then we may well be roughly following the curve marked RCP 8.5 (with ECS = 4.5C) in the fourth attached image.  This fourth image indicates a GMSTA of about 2C by about 2030 [due to heat coming out of the ocean during the 20 to 30-year duration of a typical positive PDO phase, the rapid reduction of aerosols (both anthropogenic & natural) and our current natural and anthropogenic methane emissions].  This would be sufficient to trigger Hansen et al (2016)'s ice-climate feedback per DeConto & Pollard (2016) projection of WAIS ice mass loss (which becomes unavoidable well before GMSTA reaches 2.7C, see Reply #49).  If so, this would increase the effective ECS to at least 6C through 2100 (see the image in my last post from Hansen, J.E., and Sato, M., 2012, "Climate Sensitivity Estimated From Earth's Climate History" & see Replay #99), and which would effective ensure that we follow the radiative forcing of RCP 8.5 through 2100 even if CoP21 pledges are strictly enforced. 

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes." 
Marcel Proust
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 13, 2016, 06:31:50 PM
My last several posts provide evidence supporting the credibility of an equable climate being initiated by 2100 as a Maximum Credible Event, MCE, and that such scenarios should be taken seriously by policy makers.  However, in this thread I have largely omitted the implications of such scenarios on the risk of significant methane emissions in this timeframe.  Therefore here, I summarize a recent series of posts that I made in the "Dialing back on the methane scare" thread in the "Permafrost" folder; that addressed such methane emission mechanisms as:

(1) That a collapse of the WAIS this century might not only cause methane hydrate gas emissions from submarine landsides (via the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis) but also from methane hydrate decomposition from beneath the collapsed marine portions of the WAIS. 

The linked Wikipedia article discusses the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis and references Obata & Shibata (2012), that indicates the consequences of such a "fat-tailed" risk (that is speculated to have occurred during the PETM):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis)


Atsushi Obata; Kiyotaka Shibata (June 20, 2012), "Damage of Land Biosphere due to Intense Warming by 1000-Fold Rapid Increase in Atmospheric Methane: Estimation with a Climate–Carbon Cycle Model", J Climate. 25: 8524–8541, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00533.1.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00533.1 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00533.1)

The linked Wu et al (2015) article indicates how the weak shear strength of small methane hydrate crystals in the seafloor could facilitate submarine landslides that increases the credibility of the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis.

Jianyang Wu, Fulong Ning, Thuat T. Trinh, Signe Kjelstrup, Thijs J.H. Vlugt, Jianying He, Bjørn H. Skallerud and Zhiliang Zhang (2015), "Mechanical instability of monocrystalline and polycrystalline methane hydrates", Nature Communications; DOI: 10.1038/NCOMMS9743

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151102/ncomms9743/full/ncomms9743.html (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151102/ncomms9743/full/ncomms9743.html)

See also:
http://phys.org/news/2015-11-key-properties-methane-hydrates-permafrost.html (http://phys.org/news/2015-11-key-properties-methane-hydrates-permafrost.html)

Extract: "The researchers reported that the dissociation of methane hydrates can be triggered by the ground deformation caused by "earthquakes, storms, sea-level fluctuations or man-made disturbances (including well drilling and gas production from hydrate reservoirs).""

Next, the following Wadham et al (2012) article quantifies the amount of methane that might be released from directly beneath the WAIS due to a collapse of marine glaciers in this area (see the first attached image).

J. L. Wadham, S. Arndt, S. Tulaczyk, M. Stibal, M. Tranter, J. Telling, G. P. Lis, E. Lawson, A. Ridgwell, A. Dubnick, M. J. Sharp, A. M. Anesio & C. E. H. Butler (30 August 2012), "Potential methane reservoirs beneath Antarctica", Nature, Volume: 488, Pages: 633–637, doi:10.1038/nature11374

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7413/full/nature11374.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7413/full/nature11374.html)

(2) The linked articles & references indicate that large amounts of methane were released during the PETM; however, the timing, triggers, sources and rates of emission are all uncertain, but that ocean warming could lead to global methane emissions from seafloor hydrate degradation for millennia to come:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11713254 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11713254)

Extract: "There are strong reasons to believe that what we are doing to the climate today could trigger a re-run of a climate catastrophe that occurred not many millions of years after the demise of the dinosaurs.

Fifty-six million years ago global temperatures rose several degrees over about 20,000 years (a geological instant).

The beginning of the PETM was marked by a massive injection of methane into the atmosphere."

Furthermore, the linked reference indicates that seafloor hydrates dissociated during the PETM, but the rate of dissociation is open to discussion:
 
T. A. Minshull, H. Marín-Moreno, D. I. Armstrong McKay, P. A. Wilson. Mechanistic insights into a hydrate contribution to the Paleocene-Eocene carbon cycle perturbation from coupled thermohydraulic simulations. Geophysical Research Letters, 2016; DOI: 10.1002/2016GL069676

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL069676/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL069676/abstract)

(3) Furthermore, per the following reference circa 2050 methane emissions from thermokarst activity could become important (assuming continued aggressive warming), see the second attached image:

Schneider von Deimling, T., Grosse, G., Strauss, J., Schirrmeister, L., Morgenstern, A., Schaphoff, S., Meinshausen, M., and Boike, J.: Observation-based modelling of permafrost carbon fluxes with accounting for deep carbon deposits and thermokarst activity, Biogeosciences, 12, 3469-3488, doi:10.5194/bg-12-3469-2015, 2015.

http://www.biogeosciences.net/12/3469/2015/bg-12-3469-2015.html (http://www.biogeosciences.net/12/3469/2015/bg-12-3469-2015.html)

(4) Lastly, I note that the projected intensification of the ENSO cycle with continued aggressive warming could lead to tropical rainforests dying-back during periods of drought associated with strong El Ninos followed by flooding during subsequent strong La Ninas; which would form temporarily lakes over the dead tropic vegetation, leading to a pulse of strong methane emissions from such temporarily tropic lakes.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 21, 2016, 09:58:54 PM
I previously post the following in the "Anthropogenic Existential Risk" thread, but the topic seems like such a good example of human stupidity that I am cross-posting it here:

The linked article is entitled: “Ecological recession”: Researchers say biodiversity loss has hit critical threshold across the globe".  The article references both Newbold et. al. 2016 and Steffen et. al. (2015); both of which indicate that we are already exceeding some planetary boundaries, and will soon exceed others.  Thus we are living on borrowed time (see images):

https://news.mongabay.com/2016/07/ecological-recession-researchers-ring-the-alarm-as-biodiversity-loss-hits-critical-threshold-across-the-globe/ (https://news.mongabay.com/2016/07/ecological-recession-researchers-ring-the-alarm-as-biodiversity-loss-hits-critical-threshold-across-the-globe/)

Extract: "An international team of researchers has concluded that biodiversity loss has become so severe and widespread that it could affect Earth’s ability to sustain human life.

- The researchers examined 2.38 million records of 39,123 terrestrial species collected at 18,659 sites around the world to model the impacts on biodiversity of land use and other pressures from human activities that cause habitat loss.

- They then estimated down to about the one-square-kilometer level the extent to which those pressures have caused changes in local biodiversity, as well as the spatial patterns of those changes.

- They found that, across nearly 60 percent of Earth’s land surface, biodiversity has declined beyond “safe” levels as defined by the planetary boundaries concept, which seeks to quantify the environmental limits within which human society can be considered sustainable.


See also:
Newbold, T., Hudson, L. N., Arnell, A. P., Contu, S., De Palma, A., Ferrier, S., … & Burton, V. J. (2016). Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment. Science, 353(6296), 288-291. doi:10.1126/science.aaf2201

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6296/288 (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6296/288)

Abstract
Land use and related pressures have reduced local terrestrial biodiversity, but it is unclear how the magnitude of change relates to the recently proposed planetary boundary (“safe limit”). We estimate that land use and related pressures have already reduced local biodiversity intactness—the average proportion of natural biodiversity remaining in local ecosystems—beyond its recently proposed planetary boundary across 58.1% of the world’s land surface, where 71.4% of the human population live. Biodiversity intactness within most biomes (especially grassland biomes), most biodiversity hotspots, and even some wilderness areas is inferred to be beyond the boundary. Such widespread transgression of safe limits suggests that biodiversity loss, if unchecked, will undermine efforts toward long-term sustainable development.

&

Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., … & Folke, C. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223). doi:10.1126/science.1259855

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855 (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855)

Structured Abstract
INTRODUCTION
There is an urgent need for a new paradigm that integrates the continued development of human societies and the maintenance of the Earth system (ES) in a resilient and accommodating state. The planetary boundary (PB) framework contributes to such a paradigm by providing a science-based analysis of the risk that human perturbations will destabilize the ES at the planetary scale. Here, the scientific underpinnings of the PB framework are updated and strengthened.

RATIONALE
The relatively stable, 11,700-year-long Holocene epoch is the only state of the ES that we know for certain can support contemporary human societies. There is increasing evidence that human activities are affecting ES functioning to a degree that threatens the resilience of the ES—its ability to persist in a Holocene-like state in the face of increasing human pressures and shocks. The PB framework is based on critical processes that regulate ES functioning. By combining improved scientific understanding of ES functioning with the precautionary principle, the PB framework identifies levels of anthropogenic perturbations below which the risk of destabilization of the ES is likely to remain low—a “safe operating space” for global societal development. A zone of uncertainty for each PB highlights the area of increasing risk. The current level of anthropogenic impact on the ES, and thus the risk to the stability of the ES, is assessed by comparison with the proposed PB (see the figure).

RESULTS
Three of the PBs (climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, and ocean acidification) remain essentially unchanged from the earlier analysis. Regional-level boundaries as well as globally aggregated PBs have now been developed for biosphere integrity (earlier “biodiversity loss”), biogeochemical flows, land-system change, and freshwater use. At present, only one regional boundary (south Asian monsoon) can be established for atmospheric aerosol loading. Although we cannot identify a single PB for novel entities (here defined as new substances, new forms of existing substances, and modified life forms that have the potential for unwanted geophysical and/or biological effects), they are included in the PB framework, given their potential to change the state of the ES. Two of the PBs—climate change and biosphere integrity—are recognized as “core” PBs based on their fundamental importance for the ES. The climate system is a manifestation of the amount, distribution, and net balance of energy at Earth’s surface; the biosphere regulates material and energy flows in the ES and increases its resilience to abrupt and gradual change. Anthropogenic perturbation levels of four of the ES processes/features (climate change, biosphere integrity, biogeochemical flows, and land-system change) exceed the proposed PB (see the figure).

CONCLUSIONS
PBs are scientifically based levels of human perturbation of the ES beyond which ES functioning may be substantially altered. Transgression of the PBs thus creates substantial risk of destabilizing the Holocene state of the ES in which modern societies have evolved. The PB framework does not dictate how societies should develop. These are political decisions that must include consideration of the human dimensions, including equity, not incorporated in the PB framework. Nevertheless, by identifying a safe operating space for humanity on Earth, the PB framework can make a valuable contribution to decision-makers in charting desirable courses for societal development.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 21, 2016, 11:58:04 PM
The linked articles about the rapid increase in the amount of trash in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, makes me wonder how much garage will float into the ocean if abrupt sea level rise were to begin to inundate coastal facilities within the few decades:

The first linked article is entitled: "The Great Pacific Garbage Patch contains even more trash than we thought".

http://www.sciencealert.com/the-great-pacific-garbage-patch-contains-more-trash-than-we-thought (http://www.sciencealert.com/the-great-pacific-garbage-patch-contains-more-trash-than-we-thought)

Extract: "Researchers say there's more plastic waste in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch than was previously estimated, meaning it's more urgent than ever that we do something about this massive trash flotilla.

The good news is that there's a clean-up operation scheduled for 2020. The bad news is that the cleaners have just flown a reconnaissance mission – and what they found isn't pretty.



As Annalee Newitz reports at io9, it's difficult to assess the extent to which the plastic is killing off birds and fish, but it's definitely adding extra toxins to their diet, and possibly passing those on to humans further up the food chain. Whichever way you look at it, it's bad news for everybody.

What's also certain is that the problem is getting worse. Recent research showed that the number of plastic particles and their levels of concentration have risen sharply in the North Pacific over the past 40 years.

And a report released by the World Economic Forum earlier in the year found that, the way things are headed, there'll be more plastic than fish in our oceans by 2050."


See also:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/1005/Great-Pacific-Garbage-Patch-is-denser-than-previously-thought (http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/1005/Great-Pacific-Garbage-Patch-is-denser-than-previously-thought)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 23, 2016, 06:05:35 PM
The linked article is entitled: "Two billion more people will live in cities by 2035. This could be good – or very bad".  Decision makers like to focus on the potential "good" in this situation; however, as these are the same decision makers that got us all into our current mess, it seems to me that ignoring the potentially "very bad" scenarios in our modeling efforts is actually counter productive:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/oct/19/two-billion-more-people-live-cities-alejandro-aravena-habitat-3 (https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/oct/19/two-billion-more-people-live-cities-alejandro-aravena-habitat-3)

Extract: "… cities are like magnets, with the potential to take care of everything from the most basic needs to the most intangible desires.

Now for the bad news, which we could call the “3S menace”. The scale and speed of this global urbanisation, and the scarcity of means with which we must respond to it, has no precedents in human history.

Of the three billion urban dwellers today, one billion live below the poverty line. In two decades’ time, five billion people will be in cities, with two billion of them below the poverty line.
To accommodate such growth humanely, we would need to build a city of one million people every week, spending no more than $10,000 per family. If we don’t solve this equation, it’s not that people will stop coming to cities; they will still come, but they will live in awful conditions.

To add one more level of complexity to the phenomenon of urbanisation, even if we do eventually find a way to build for that extra million people each week, we will go into environmental crisis, such is the carbon footprint of today’s construction process.
This would not only be a “green” problem, but a major security threat too. According to a report by the US defence department, the next conflicts, wars and terrorist threats will be triggered by climate change.

There is a one-to-one correlation between zones of military conflict and a global map of water drought. This not only creates problems in the afflicted countries but also migrations towards less-affected areas, adding to the social pressure in the countries of destination too."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 23, 2016, 07:00:37 PM
This is a re-post from the Science folder, because the following information (and attached image) supports the scenario presented in Reply #157 about the risks of a possible bifurcation into an equable climate if the WAIS collapses and the Arctic Sea Ice extent collapses well before the end of this century:

The linked open access reference provides recommendations on how to better use paleo data about fast and slow feedback mechanisms in order to better estimate future non-stationary climate sensitivity (see the attached image of Figure 2 from the reference):

von der Heydt, A.S., Dijkstra, H.A., van de Wal, R.S.W. et al. (2016), "Lessons on Climate Sensitivity From Past Climate Changes", Curr Clim Change Rep; doi:10.1007/s40641-016-0049-3


http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40641-016-0049-3?wt_mc=Affiliate.CommissionJunction.3.EPR1089.DeepLink&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=commission_junction&utm_campaign=3_nsn6445_deeplink&utm_content=deeplink (http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40641-016-0049-3?wt_mc=Affiliate.CommissionJunction.3.EPR1089.DeepLink&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=commission_junction&utm_campaign=3_nsn6445_deeplink&utm_content=deeplink)

Abstract: "Over the last decade, our understanding of climate sensitivity has improved considerably. The climate system shows variability on many timescales, is subject to non-stationary forcing and it is most likely out of equilibrium with the changes in the radiative forcing. Slow and fast feedbacks complicate the interpretation of geological records as feedback strengths vary over time. In the geological past, the forcing timescales were different than at present, suggesting that the response may have behaved differently. Do these insights constrain the climate sensitivity relevant for the present day? In this paper, we review the progress made in theoretical understanding of climate sensitivity and on the estimation of climate sensitivity from proxy records. Particular focus lies on the background state dependence of feedback processes and on the impact of tipping points on the climate system. We suggest how to further use palaeo data to advance our understanding of the currently ongoing climate change."

Caption for Figure 2: "Schematic of the phase diagram of a climate model with two stable coexisting climate states. The shape of the S curve follows closely that discussed in [62–64]; see also [65]. The climate sensitivity parameter S is defined on each of the stable branches as the local slope of the global mean surface temperature T versus the (logarithm of) atmospheric pCO2 (cf. Eq. 8 ). Type I state dependence: When starting at point A (e.g. the pre-industrial climate), the temperature increase after a doubling of pCO2 (point B) is smaller than when starting from a colder climate (point C) on the same branch. Type II state dependence: When the initial pCO2 is the same as in point A, but the climate is initially on the cold branch (point D), a doubling of pCO2 results in a smaller temperature increase (point E) than if starting from point A and ending in point B. S becomes undefined at the transition points (open squares) between the two branches. The conditional climate sensitivity is equal to S for small perturbations (going from points D to E), but largely increases if the perturbation in CO2 is large enough to move the system from point D beyond the bifurcation point (blue open square) and jumps to the warm branch. Note that S is generally defined as a local gradient, while the 2xCO2 definition in the ECS may involve a perturbation too large for the linear assumption along the branch to be applicable."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 27, 2016, 03:19:43 PM
The linked article by Peter Wadhams is entitled: "As Arctic Ocean Ice Disappears, The Global Climate Impacts Intensify".  While Wadhams concerns may seem alarmist to some, he presents a clear and rational scenario for a continuation of the Arctic sea ice "death spiral" and the impacts of Arctic Amplification on the rest of the globe:

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/as_arctic_ocean_ice_disappears_global_climate_impacts_intensify_wadhams/3037/ (http://e360.yale.edu/feature/as_arctic_ocean_ice_disappears_global_climate_impacts_intensify_wadhams/3037/)


Extract: "Few people understand that the Arctic sea ice “death spiral” represents more than just a major ecological upheaval in the world’s Far North. The decline of Arctic sea ice also has profound global climatic effects, or feedbacks, that are already intensifying global warming and have the potential to destabilize the climate system. Indeed, we are not far from the moment when the feedbacks themselves will be driving the change every bit as much as our continuing emission of billions of tons of carbon dioxide annually."

See also:

http://www.alternet.org/environment/how-disappearing-arctic-ice-could-lead-global-climate-catastrophe (http://www.alternet.org/environment/how-disappearing-arctic-ice-could-lead-global-climate-catastrophe)

Extract: "How Disappearing Arctic Ice Could Lead to Global Climate Catastrophe
The monumental loss of sea ice is triggering a cascade of effects that could destabilize the global climate system."

Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 27, 2016, 05:27:26 PM
The linked BBC article is entitled: "World wildlife 'falls by 58% in 40 years'".  Even if mankind is so callous as to only care about human life; this trend bodes poorly for our collective future.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37775622 (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37775622)

Extract: "Global wildlife populations have fallen by 58% since 1970, a report says.

The Living Planet assessment, by the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) and WWF, suggests that if the trend continues that decline could reach two-thirds among vertebrates by 2020."

See also:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/27/the_earth_has_lost_more_than_half_its_animals_since_1970.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/27/the_earth_has_lost_more_than_half_its_animals_since_1970.html)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 30, 2016, 06:06:21 PM
The linked Bloomberg article makes a convincing case that IPCC scientists are currently engaging in Magical Thinking (see image & following extract).  I submit that the Bloomberg article errs on the side of least drama:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-26/magical-thinking-won-t-stop-climate-change (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-26/magical-thinking-won-t-stop-climate-change)

Extract: "The gap is probably even bigger than the chart suggests. As climate scientists Kevin Anderson and Glen Peters argue, an element of magical thinking has crept into the IPCC projections. Specifically, they rely heavily on the assumption that new technologies will allow humans to start sucking carbon out of the atmosphere on a grand scale, resulting in large net negative emissions sometime in the second half of this century. This might happen, but we don’t know how to do it yet.

The assumptions about negative emissions amount to a bizarre step in what ought to be a cautious and conservative analysis. The IPCC scenarios essentially ignore the vast uncertainty surrounding a technology that does not yet exist, and about our ability to ramp it up to the required scale. To eliminate that much atmospheric carbon, as geophysicist Andrew Skuce estimates, we would need an industry roughly three times as big as the entire current fossil fuel industry -- and we would need to create it fast, building something like one new large plant to capture and store carbon every day for the next 70 years. Does that sound likely?"
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 02, 2016, 12:00:05 AM
The linked open access commentary is entitled: "The World's Biggest Gamble".  While the commentary is meant to motivate decision makers to take immediate and strenuous actions to fight climate change; nevertheless, I believe that the commentary errs on the side of least drama (especially with regard to the risk of high climate sensitivity):

Johan Rockström, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Brian Hoskins, Veerabhadran Ramanathan, Peter Schlosser, Guy Pierre Brasseur, Owen Gaffney, Carlos Nobre, Malte Meinshausen & Joeri Rogelj, (27 October 2016), "The world's biggest gamble", Earth's Future, DOI: 10.1002/2016EF000392

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000392/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000392/full)

Abstract: "The scale of the decarbonisation challenge to meet the Paris Agreement is underplayed in the public arena. It will require precipitous emissions reductions within 40 years and a new carbon sink on the scale of the ocean sink. Even then, the world is extremely likely to overshoot. A catastrophic failure of policy, for example, waiting another decade for transformative policy and full commitments to fossil-free economies, will have irreversible and deleterious repercussions for humanity's remaining time on Earth. Only a global zero carbon roadmap will put the world on a course to phase-out greenhouse gas emissions and create the essential carbon sinks for Earth-system stability, without which, world prosperity is not possible."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 02, 2016, 05:32:46 PM
The linked reference (and related articles) confirms that following a pathway close to the current Paris Pact (COP21) that peak GMSTA will reach about 3C, and that unless an unreasonable amount of negative emissions technology can be implemented, then a relatively large solar geoengineering effort will be needed for at least 160 years.  The last linked Yale Climate Connections article indicates that such a solar geoengineering program is crazy (if for no other reason but that it would likely lead to war and would also be disrupted by war).  The Paris Pact more or less authorizes world leaders to take such desperate measures:

S. Tilmes, B. M. Sanderson & B. C. O'Neill (13 August 2016), "Climate impacts of geoengineering in a delayed mitigation scenario", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2016GL070122

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL070122/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL070122/abstract)

Abstract: "Decarbonization in the immediate future is required to limit global mean temperature (GMT) increase to 2°C relative to preindustrial conditions, if geoengineering is not considered. Here we use the Community Earth System Model (CESM) to investigate climate outcomes if no mitigation is undertaken until GMT has reached 2°C. We find that late decarbonization in CESM without applying stratospheric sulfur injection (SSI) leads to a peak temperature increase of 3°C and GMT remains above 2° for 160 years. An additional gradual increase and then decrease of SSI over this period reaching about 1.5 times the aerosol burden resulting from the Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1992 would limit the increase in GMT to 2.0° for the specific pathway and model. SSI produces mean and extreme temperatures in CESM comparable to an early decarbonization pathway, but aridity is not mitigated to the same extent."

The linked NCAR article is entitled: "The 2-degree goal and the question of geoengineering".
http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/just-published/122687/2-degree-goal-and-question-geoengineering (http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/just-published/122687/2-degree-goal-and-question-geoengineering)

Extract: "With world leaders agreeing to try to limit the increase in global temperatures, scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) are taking a look at whether geoengineering the climate could counter enough warming to help meet that goal.
In a new study, the scientists found that if society doesn't make steep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in the next couple of decades, injections of planet-cooling sulfates into the atmosphere could theoretically limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels. But such geoengineeing would mean a sustained effort stretching over more than a century and a half, and it would fail to prevent certain aspects of climate change.
"One thing that surprised me about this study is how much geoengineering it would take to stay within 2 degrees if we don't start reducing greenhouse gases soon," said NCAR scientist Simone Tilmes, the lead author.
For the study, the research team focused on the potential impacts of geoengineering on temperatures, the drying of land surfaces, and Arctic sea ice. They did not examine possible adverse environmental consequences such as potential damage to the ozone layer. The sulfate injections also would not alleviate the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on ocean acidification."


Also see the linked article is entitled: "Geoengineering: Crazy for sure, but with a BIG but". 

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/11/geoengineering-crazy-for-sure-but-with-a-big-but/ (http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/11/geoengineering-crazy-for-sure-but-with-a-big-but/)

Extract: "Geoengineering the planet in the face of daunting challenges posed by a changing climate. It’s a crazy idea. Harvard researcher Gernot Wagner clearly acknowledges that and devoutly hopes things never get to that point.
But Wagner is just as emphatic in supporting our seriously researching the issue and learning all we can in case, just in case, it becomes the last best option.

In September, the National Center for Atmospheric Research released a study that found that geoengineering with sulfate particles will require a sustained effort of artificially pumping 18 megatons of sulfate particles into the stratosphere every year for 160 years – 160 years! – to slow the rate of warming.
And geoengineering alone won’t do it. The NCAR study assumes that the globe will also drastically cut carbon emissions beginning in 2040. But even in that best-case scenario, we’ll still see the consequences of elevated levels of CO2 already built into the climate system: more episodes of extreme heat in North America, more retreating sea ice in the Arctic, changing patterns of precipitation globally, and more. It just won’t be as severe as doing nothing.
Wagner says he is an optimist and also a realist. “Solar geoengineering is not a replacement for cutting emissions,” he says. “Whatever analogy you prefer — a Band-Aid, a fire extinguisher, chemotherapy for the planet, etc. – all point to the fact that we must treat the underlying condition. That means cutting CO2 and other greenhouse gases.”"
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 02, 2016, 05:41:45 PM
With regard to my last post that the Paris Pact has authorized world leaders to use solar geoengineering (which is dangerous) to attempt to stay below a 2C GMSTA, I would also like to note that the Paris Pact also:

1. Encourages the development of relatively low cost sustainable energy which will drive down the price of fossil fuel energy, which will likely promote global consumption by an increasing world population.
2. Encourages the use of a natural gas energy bridge until sustainable energy becomes cost competitive, which will likely increase atmospheric methane concentrations.
3.  Promotes the transfer of dirty industries from first world to third world countries, where monitoring is more difficult.
4.  Does not adequately acknowledge the increasing recognition that high ESS values are more likely than most current model projections assume.
5.  Ignores the risk that a WAIS collapse initiated in the next few decades would trigger a highly positive ice-climate feedback mechanism.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: sidd on November 02, 2016, 06:39:37 PM
" ... the Paris Pact has authorized world leaders to use solar geoengineering .

There are precisely zero instances of the term  "geoengineering" in Paris COP 15. One may argue that those preliminary fossil carbon exhaust limitations proposed today are inadequate to limit temperature rise to less than 2C, and that further drastic cuts will be necessary. In fact COP15 acknowledges as much, specifically points out that more is necessary, and in fact includes a ratchet to ramp cuts upward. However, COP 15 remains entirely silent on geoengineering, and stating that it "authorizes geoengineering" is not correct. The arguments for engineering assume that cuts in atmospheric fossil carbon loading will be insufficient and conclude that geoengineering will be necessary.  The necessity of geoengineering rests on the assumption that upward ratchet will fail. COP15 makes no such assumption.

" Promotes the transfer of dirty industries from first world to third world countries, where monitoring is more difficult."

I have read COP 15 carefully, and I see no support for the statement above.

sidd
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 02, 2016, 08:59:44 PM
"
I have read COP 15 carefully, and I see no support for the statement above.

sidd


sidd,


Bloomberg disagrees with you, and the Paris Pact projections are full of scenarios using negative emissions technology (which technically are geoengineering), as the linked article is entitled: "Geoengineering to Alter Climate Moves Closer to Reality".  The article indicates that: (a) the Paris Pact (COP21) essentially commits the signature nations to use geoengineering to remain below 2C as every other pathway is fantasy; (b) the UN is thus investigating means to re-engineers the Earth Systems; and (c) acknowledges that currently the impacts resulting from the use of geoengineering are unpredictable.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-31/geoengineering-to-alter-climate-change-moves-closer-to-reality (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-31/geoengineering-to-alter-climate-change-moves-closer-to-reality)

Extract: "A United Nations body is investigating controversial methods to avert runaway climate change by giving humans the go-ahead to re-engineer the Earth’s oceans and atmosphere.
So-called geoengineering is seen as necessary to achieve the COP21 Paris agreement clinched in December, when 197 countries pledged to keep global temperatures rises below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), according to researchers who produced a report for the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.
“Within the Paris agreement there’s an implicit assumption that there will need to be greenhouse gases removed,” said Phil Williamson, a scientist at the U.K.’s University of East Anglia, who worked on the report. “Climate geoengineering is what countries have agreed to do, although they haven’t really realized that they’ve agreed to do it.”
Large-scale geoengineering may include pouring nutrients into oceans to save coral habitats or spraying tiny particles into the Earth’s atmosphere to reflect sun rays back into space. Geoengineering proposals have been shunned because of their unpredictable consequences on global ecosystems."

Best regards,
ASLR
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: sidd on November 03, 2016, 05:22:37 AM
My statement :

"I have read COP 15 carefully, and I see no support for the statement above."

referred to your point 3)

"Promotes the transfer of dirty industries from first world to third world countries, where monitoring is more difficult."

COP15 makes no such promotion.

Nor does COP15 mention geoengineering.  Your quote of Bloomberg does not  address my first para stating that COP15 makes no mention of geoengineering. Many, including the author of the Bloomberg piece, maintain that geoengineering will be necessary, and I already agreed one may make that argument. But the text of COP15 says nothing of the kind.

Will, in fact, geoengineering be necessary ? Depends on how pessimistic one is about fossil carbon reduction. Clearly Bloomberg and others, perhaps including yourself, are quite pessimistic.

sidd
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 03, 2016, 05:32:31 AM
Your quote of Bloomberg does not  address my first para stating that COP15 makes no mention of geoengineering.

The term geoengineering is not sufficiently explicit to be included in the COP 21, but again the COP 21 implicitly indicates negative emission technology (which is geoengineering), and explicitly pledges the honor of the signatory nations to stay below 2C (which means that either the pledges are not worth the paper that they are written on, or that the nations will implement some form of geoengineering [whether effective or not]).

Edit: I note that the Paris Pact is a forward looking document, with the means as to how to stay below 2C to be determined after COP 21.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: be cause on November 03, 2016, 09:56:27 AM
hedera {ivy} is a wonderful 'negative emmissions technology' which enriches the environment in  many ways .. yet here in Ireland it has been killed on millions of trees at the behest of government agencies and the National Trust . Not stupidity but insanity ..
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 03, 2016, 09:16:24 PM
hedera {ivy} is a wonderful 'negative emmissions technology' which enriches the environment in  many ways .. yet here in Ireland it has been killed on millions of trees at the behest of government agencies and the National Trust . Not stupidity but insanity ..


b.c.,
Your suggestion of using Irish hedera is a sub-group of Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage, BECCS, which is a sub-group of Negative Emissions Technology, NET, which is the default form of geoengineering assumed by the Paris Pact related radiative forcing scenarios as discussed in the following link:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,363.0.html (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,363.0.html)

However, I note that GeoMIP is currently calibrating climate models for geoengineering (including more active forms of geoengineering) as discussed in the following link:

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/special_issue376.html (http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/special_issue376.html)

See also:
Oeste, F. D., de Richter, R., Ming, T., and Caillol, S.: Climate engineering by mimicking the natural dust climate control: the Iron Salt Aerosols method, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., doi:10.5194/esd-2016-32, in review, 2016.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-32/ (http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-32/)
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-32/esd-2016-32.pdf (http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-32/esd-2016-32.pdf)

Best,
ASLR

Edit, See also the following ESLD article entitled: "The world is racing to stop climate change. But the math still doesn’t add up":

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/03/the-world-is-racing-to-stop-climate-change-but-the-math-still-doesnt-add-up/?utm_term=.5cf04d186870 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/03/the-world-is-racing-to-stop-climate-change-but-the-math-still-doesnt-add-up/?utm_term=.5cf04d186870)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 04, 2016, 09:32:33 AM
Without major application of NET (negative emissions technology) achieving RCP 4.5 is impracticable.  Furthermore, the first & second attached images indicate that without future assumed ratcheting (which assume such large scale use of NET) the current CoP21 INDCs will result in about 3.7C increase using AR5 ELSD assumptions; which is close to the RCP 6.0 response.  The third image shows that the largest reason for our current continued BAU emissions is growth of per capita worldwide.  Thus even if we build more renewables it will likely me that we just consume more, rather than that we will cut GHG emissions.

The linked reference (with a free access pdf) reviews different NETs, and concluded that until 2050 afforestation is our best geoengineering option (see the fourth attached image of NET costs & readiness), but that all NET options will be insufficient to increase our carbon budget significantly; and that control of GHG emissions is the most important step in fighting climate change:


http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/research-programmes/stranded-assets/Stranded%20Carbon%20Assets%20and%20NETs%20-%2006.02.15.pdf (http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/research-programmes/stranded-assets/Stranded%20Carbon%20Assets%20and%20NETs%20-%2006.02.15.pdf)


Extract: "... characterising possible NET deployment scenarios up to 2050 and 2100 based
on the latest literature on technical potentials and limiting constraints on NET deployment. We find that between now and 2050, there may be the technical potential to attain negative emissions of the order of 120 GtCO2 cumulatively (~15 ppm reduction), with the vast majority of this potential coming from afforestation, soil carbon improvements, and some biochar deployed in the near term.

This potential represents an extension of the 2050 carbon budget by 11-13% for a 50-80% probability of meeting a 2-degree warming target. More industrial technologies (DAC, Ocean Liming, and BECCS) that rely on CCS are likely to have very limited potential by 2050, largely due to limits imposed by CCS development and more significant technical and policy challenges."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 05, 2016, 06:22:56 PM
The linked SciAm article is entitled: "Brazil Greenhouse Gas Emission Spike Blamed on Deforestation".  Such trends raise serious doubts as to whether countries like Brazil (e.g. Indonesia, Congo, etc.) with substantial rainforests will be able to meet their pledges to the CoP 21 Paris Pact. Such likely non-compliance increases the risk that geoengineering will be used in a desperate (& ill advised) manner once we exceed the 2C target (which will probably occur long before 2030 (see the second linked ESLD reference):

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brazil-greenhouse-gas-emission-spike-blamed-on-deforestation/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brazil-greenhouse-gas-emission-spike-blamed-on-deforestation/)

Extract: "Over 2,000 square miles of forest were cut last year, raising emissions 3.5 percent according to researchers

The jump in emissions—the country is now at the same emissions level that it had in 2010—has called into question whether the South American country can meet its international climate commitments. The country pledged to cut emissions 37 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 and 43 percent by 2030.

“If emissions rose during a recession, if deforestation increased while the economy was contracting, we wonder what could happen when Brazil resumes economic growth,” said Carlos Rittl, executive secretary of Observatório do Clima."


The second linked ESLD reference indicates that the remaining carbon budget from 2015 may be as low as 590 GtCO2; and as CO₂-e emissions are around 50GtCO2 (which exceeds RCP 8.5 50%CL), it is easy to see that assuming ECS is 3C we could readily exceed the 2C limit by around 2030, or if ECS is 4C then we could exceed 2.7C by around 2032 to 2035, if we continue on our current BAU pathway for another 16 to 19 years. 
 
Joeri Rogelj, Michiel Schaeffer, Pierre Friedlingstein, Nathan P. Gillett, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Keywan Riahi, Myles Allen & Reto Knutti (2016) "Differences between carbon budget estimates unravelled", Nature Climate Change, Volume: 6, Pages: 245–252, doi:10.1038/nclimate2868

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2868.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2868.html)

I note that the estimate of exceeding 2.7C by 2032 to 2035, does consider lag-time after the carbon budget has been exceeded, but does not consider the risk of accelerating Arctic Amplification due the potential early seasonal loss of Arctic Sea Ice Extent.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 05, 2016, 06:59:40 PM
The linked article is entitled: "The US keeps shutting down nuclear power plants and replacing them with coal or gas".  Such articles illustrate just some of the challenges associated with combating climate change, as Green BAU is still BAU as far as global warming is concerned:

http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2016/11/3/13499278/nuclear-retirements-coal-gas (http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2016/11/3/13499278/nuclear-retirements-coal-gas)

Extract: "America’s largest source of zero-carbon power is in serious trouble. And I’m not talking about wind or solar. They’re doing fine. The trouble is with nuclear power, which still provides about 19 percent of the nation’s electricity.

So what does that future look like? A new report by Whitney Herndon and John Larsen of the Rhodium Group notes that 24 gigawatts of nuclear power are at risk of being retired between now and 2030 without major policy changes. That includes seven reactors currently scheduled to be shut down, like the two large units at California’s Diablo Canyon, as well as others that could face financial woes in the coming years.

If all these plants close, the Rhodium Group estimates, about 75 percent of that lost power will likely be replaced by natural gas, and greenhouse-gas emissions will be higher than they otherwise would be. (In many regions, wind and solar haven’t been able to scale up fast enough to replace that much lost electricity at once, though California’s hoping to pull this difficult feat off after Diablo Canyon.)"

See also:
http://rhg.com/notes/nukes-in-the-crosshairs-revisited (http://rhg.com/notes/nukes-in-the-crosshairs-revisited)

Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 09, 2016, 04:52:37 PM
The linked Nature news article expresses concern about the apparent truth that Donald J. Trump will be America's first anti-science president:

Jeff Tollefson, Lauren Morello & Sara Reardon (2016), "Donald Trump's US election win stuns scientists", Nature, doi:10.1038/nature.2016.20952

http://www.nature.com/news/donald-trump-s-us-election-win-stuns-scientists-1.20952 (http://www.nature.com/news/donald-trump-s-us-election-win-stuns-scientists-1.20952)

Extract: "Republicans sweep White House and US Congress, with uncertain implications for research.
 …
“Trump will be the first anti-science president we have ever had,” says Michael Lubell, director of public affairs for the American Physical Society in Washington DC. “The consequences are going to be very, very severe.”

Trump has questioned the science underlying climate change — at one point suggesting that it was a Chinese hoax — and pledged to pull the United States out of the Paris climate agreement.

Republicans also swept Congress, retaining control of the House of Representatives and the Senate. That will make it easier for Trump to push through his policy priorities and nominees for key positions — including the leaders of science agencies such as NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and for a current vacancy on the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court vacancy could put the fate of one major plank of US President Barack Obama’s climate-change strategy in Trump’s hands. The court is reviewing a regulation to curb emissions from existing power plants. Republicans have blocked Obama’s attempt to nominate a justice to fill the court vacancy, but Trump should be able to quickly fill the position. His nominee, not yet named, could cast the deciding vote in the climate case.

Fulfilling his pledge to exit the Paris agreement could take longer; legally, he would not be able to do so for four years. But Trump's election could factor into climate negotiations currently under way in Marrakesh, Morocco, where countries are hashing out how they will implement the Paris agreement. "
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: budmantis on November 09, 2016, 04:57:25 PM
George W. Bush was also anti-science.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 09, 2016, 05:01:08 PM
George W. Bush was also anti-science.

Just because there are different shades of darkness is not an excuse for moving still further away from the light.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: budmantis on November 09, 2016, 05:05:44 PM
George W. Bush was also anti-science.

Just because there are different shades of darkness is not an excuse for moving still further away from the light.

True, but my point was that Trump is not the first anti-science president. I certainly hope he'll be the last!
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 09, 2016, 05:25:56 PM
The linked Wikipedia article discusses George W. Bush's climate change policy.  While he clearly worked to distort science he did approve significant funding to study this matter.  We will so see how much worse Trump will be:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 16, 2016, 10:02:48 AM
The linked article is entitled: “Climate change playing role in late-winter shift in polar vortex”.  This pattern should lead to the Arctic warming more rapidly than projected by AR5.


http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/climate-change-playing-role-in/61124223 (http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/climate-change-playing-role-in/61124223)

Extract: “New research published in the journal Nature Climate Change has found that the wintertime Arctic stratospheric polar vortex has weakened over the past three decades.
The result of this weakening is an increased probability of cold surface air from the high latitudes shifting southward into the middle latitudes.”

For the reference see:

Jiankai Zhang et. al. (2016), “Persistent shift of the Arctic polar vortex towards the Eurasian continent in recent decades”, Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate3136

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3136.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3136.html)


Abstract: “The wintertime Arctic stratospheric polar vortex has weakened over the past three decades, and consequently cold surface air from high latitudes is now more likely to move into the middle latitudes. However, it is not known if the location of the polar vortex has also experienced a persistent change in response to Arctic climate change and whether any changes in the vortex position have implications for the climate system. Here, through the analysis of various data sets and model simulations, we show that the Arctic polar vortex shifted persistently towards the Eurasian continent and away from North America in February over the past three decades. This shift is found to be closely related to the enhanced zonal wavenumber-1 waves in response to Arctic sea-ice loss, particularly over the Barents–Kara seas (BKS). Increased snow cover over the Eurasian continent may also have contributed to the shift. Our analysis reveals that the vortex shift induces cooling over some parts of the Eurasian continent and North America which partly offsets the tropospheric climate warming there in the past three decades. The potential vortex shift in response to persistent sea-ice loss in the future, and its associated climatic impact, deserve attention to better constrain future climate changes.”
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: Aporia_filia on November 17, 2016, 11:57:40 AM
Part of human stupidity is his belief of being unique. Done as an image of god, so not like the rest of the living things. These Science articles advance that soon even insects are going to have an accepted conscience with emotions.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 27, 2016, 06:04:02 PM
The linked article is entitled: "Idiocracy now: Donald Trump and the Dunning-Kruger effect — when stupid people don’t know they are stupid".  It looks like with Trump's victory, America has fought for the right to Tea Party and the second linked article shows how the mediascape helped him do it:


http://www.salon.com/2016/09/30/idiocracy-now-donald-trump-and-the-dunning-kruger-effect-when-stupid-people-dont-know-they-are-stupid/ (http://www.salon.com/2016/09/30/idiocracy-now-donald-trump-and-the-dunning-kruger-effect-when-stupid-people-dont-know-they-are-stupid/)

Extract: "Trump is not merely ignorant. He is also supremely confident and feels superior — the most dangerous kind of idiot.

… Trump is, in fact, supremely confident in his ignorance and sense of intellectual superiority over other people.
This is the psychological concept known as the “Dunning-Kruger” effect — put very simply, when stupid people don’t know that they are stupid — in action."

Also, the second linked article is entitled: "The Internet Isn’t Making Us Dumber — It’s Making Us More ‘Meta-Ignorant’"

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/07/the-internet-isnt-making-us-dumber-its-making-us-more-meta-ignorant.html (http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/07/the-internet-isnt-making-us-dumber-its-making-us-more-meta-ignorant.html)

Extract: "Actor John Cleese concisely explains the Dunning-Kruger effect in a much-shared YouTube video: “If you’re very, very stupid, how can you possibly realize that you’re very, very stupid? You’d have to be relatively intelligent to realize how stupid you are … And this explains not just Hollywood but almost the entirety of Fox News.”

There is now an active field of research into how the internet is changing what we learn and remember.

So facts are more often forgotten when people believe the facts will be archived. This phenomenon has earned a name — the Google effect — describing the automatic forgetting of information that can be found online.

Today’s mediascape does not provide much guidance. It encourages us to create personal, solipsistic filters over information, making it unprecedentedly easy to gorge on news of favorite celebrities, TV shows, teams, political ideologies, and tech toys. This leaves less time and attention for everything else. The great risk isn’t that the internet is making us less informed or even misinformed. It’s that it may be making us meta-ignorant — less cognizant of what we don’t know."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 01, 2016, 03:39:06 PM
The linked article is entitled: "Climate change will stir 'unimaginable' refugee crisis, says military".  This article only hints at the impacts of the road we are all foolishly heading down:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/01/climate-change-trigger-unimaginable-refugee-crisis-senior-military (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/01/climate-change-trigger-unimaginable-refugee-crisis-senior-military)

Extract: "Unchecked global warming is greatest threat to 21st-century security where mass migration could be ‘new normal’, say senior military.

“Countries are going to pay for climate change one way or another,” said Cheney. “The best way to pay for it is by tackling the root causes of climate change and cutting greenhouse gas emissions. If we do not, the national security impacts will be increasingly costly and challenging.”"
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 01, 2016, 03:52:07 PM
The linked article is entitled: "Frightened by Donald Trump? You don’t know the half of it".  People are fooling themselves if they think that the fossil fuel industry isn't mounting a major (and cloaked) campaign to resist climate change action.  Until people wake-up very limited progress will be made in the fight against climate change:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/30/donald-trump-george-monbiot-misinformation (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/30/donald-trump-george-monbiot-misinformation)

Extract: "Yes, Donald Trump’s politics are incoherent. But those who surround him know just what they want, and his lack of clarity enhances their power. To understand what is coming, we need to understand who they are.

… I have watched as tobacco, coal, oil, chemicals and biotech companies have poured billions of dollars into an international misinformation machine composed of thinktanks, bloggers and fake citizens’ groups. Its purpose is to portray the interests of billionaires as the interests of the common people, to wage war against trade unions and beat down attempts to regulate business and tax the very rich. Now the people who helped run this machine are shaping the government.
I first encountered the machine when writing about climate change. The fury and loathing directed at climate scientists and campaigners seemed incomprehensible until I realised they were fake: the hatred had been paid for. The bloggers and institutes whipping up this anger were funded by oil and coal companies.

Don’t imagine that other parts of the world are immune. Corporate-funded thinktanks and fake grassroots groups are now everywhere. The fake news we should be worried about is not stories invented by Macedonian teenagers about Hillary Clinton selling arms to Islamic State, but the constant feed of confected scares about unions, tax and regulation drummed up by groups that won’t reveal their interests.

As usual, the left and centre (myself included) are beating ourselves up about where we went wrong. There are plenty of answers, but one of them is that we have simply been outspent. Not by a little, but by orders of magnitude. A few billion dollars spent on persuasion buys you all the politics you want. Genuine campaigners, working in their free time, simply cannot match a professional network staffed by thousands of well-paid, unscrupulous people.

You cannot confront a power until you know what it is. Our first task in this struggle is to understand what we face. Only then can we work out what to do."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 01, 2016, 07:29:59 PM
The following articles discuss how the US Ex-Im bank loans have promoted carbon emissions overseas.  While these articles discuss short-coming with Obama's global climate change legacy, similar things could be said about other 1st World actions that have transferred carbon emissions from the developed world to the developing world.

The first linked article is entitled: "Obama's dirty secret: the fossil fuel projects the US littered around the world"

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/01/obama-fossil-fuels-us-export-import-bank-energy-projects (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/01/obama-fossil-fuels-us-export-import-bank-energy-projects)


Extract: "Through the Export-Import Bank, the Obama administration has spent nearly $34bn on dirty energy plants in countries from India to Australia to South Africa.

This unprecedented backing of oil, coal and gas projects is an unexpected footnote to Obama’s own climate change legacy. The president has called global warming “terrifying” and helped broker the world’s first proper agreement to tackle it, yet his administration has poured money into developments that will push the planet even closer to climate disaster.
For people living next to US-funded mines and power stations the impacts are even more starkly immediate."

Also, see the second linked associated article is entitled: "How Obama's climate change legacy is weakened by US investment in dirty fuel"

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/30/us-fossil-fuel-investment-obama-climate-change-legacy (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/30/us-fossil-fuel-investment-obama-climate-change-legacy)

Extract: "… an agency inside the Obama administration poured billions into fossil fuel projects that will lead to global carbon emissions on a damaging scale.

During Barack Obama's presidency Ex-Im Bank approved roughly three times more financing for fossil fuel projects than it provided during George W. Bush's eight-year term. The bank was blocked from making new investments in July 2015 and was only fully operational for 6.5 of Obama's eight years in office.

Barack Obama's Clean Power Plan is estimated to reduce carbon emissons by 2.5 billion tons over 15 years. But, if all 70 Ex-Im Bank projects approved under Obama were running at full capacity during a 15-year period, they would produce about the same carbon emissions as the CPP savings.

The bank – which a growing number of Republican members of Congress oppose , viewing it as a symbol of government largesse and corporate welfare – is almost universally supported by Democrats, who see it as a job maker and economic leveler for US exporters in the global market, who must compete against foreign companies financed by their own country’s export banks.

However, our findings show that not only does the bank violate Democrats’ environmental platform to reduce carbon emissions, but more than 28% of the bank’s long-term loan financing since 2009 has supported foreign-owned exporters that directly compete with US companies – including nearly $540m to Caterpillar’s biggest foreign competitor, the Japanese-owned Komatsu, to build a copper mine in Mongolia.

“At a time when we need to boldly transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and into energy efficiency and sustainable energies, the last thing we should be doing is providing corporate welfare to some of the biggest polluters on the planet,” said Senator Bernie Sanders, who opposes the bank."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 12, 2016, 05:32:57 PM
The linked BBC article is entitled: "Methane surge needs 'urgent attention'", and it indicates that scientists need to re-focus on identifying the various sources and sinks for atmospheric methane (see the attached images).  Personally, I like scientists and one my typically cite this research of scientific integrity and clear thinking.  Nevertheless, I am posting this in the "Human Stupidity" thread for reasons including:

(a) the authors state that the GWP100 for methane is about 30 whereas AR5 indicates that it is 34;

(b) the authors downplay the importance of likely future increases in methane emissions from high latitude soils and thermokarst lakes; as well as from the coming degradation of tropical rainforests; and

(c) the authors note the uncertainties associated changes (reductions) in the atmospheric hydroxyl reduction of methane; however, they treat this like a reduction in a methane sink; when in actuality this process increases the GWP of all of the current and future atmospheric methane so the effective GWP100 for methane through 2100 is likely well above 34 (see the following Wikilink to learn about GWP).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential)

Having scientists downplay the true risks that we are facing w.r.t. atmospheric methane is yet another example of human stupidity (a.k.a. human mental illness):

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38285300 (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38285300)

Extract: ""Methane has many sources, but the culprit behind the steep rise is probably agriculture," Prof Jackson told BBC News.

"We do see some increased fossil fuel emissions over the last decade, but we think biological sources, and tropical sources, are the most likely."

Agricultural sources would include cattle and other ruminants, as well as rice paddies.
Emissions from wetlands are almost certainly a significant part of this story as well. But so too could be the role played by the chemical reactions that normally remove methane from the atmosphere.

One of the most important of these is the destruction process involving the so-called hydroxyl radical.

The concentration of this chemical species in the atmosphere might also be changing in some way.

According to the ERL editorial, there needs to be a particular push on understanding such methane "sinks".

CH4 is about 30 times better than CO2, over a century timescale, at trapping heat in the atmosphere."


See also the linked Vox article is entitled: "Methane levels in the atmosphere are now rising at their fastest pace in decades".

http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2016/12/12/13915950/methane-atmosphere-rise-agriculture (http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2016/12/12/13915950/methane-atmosphere-rise-agriculture)

The following two references were cited in the articles cited previously in this post:

M Saunois, R B Jackson, P Bousquet, B Poulter and J G Canadell (12 December 2016), "The growing role of methane in anthropogenic climate change", Environmental Research Letters, Volume 11, Number 12,  doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/12/120207.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/12/120207 (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/12/120207)

Abstract: "Unlike CO2, atmospheric methane concentrations are rising faster than at any time in the past two decades and, since 2014, are now approaching the most greenhouse-gas-intensive scenarios. The reasons for this renewed growth are still unclear, primarily because of uncertainties in the global methane budget. New analysis suggests that the recent rapid rise in global methane concentrations is predominantly biogenic-most likely from agriculture-with smaller contributions from fossil fuel use and possibly wetlands. Additional attention is urgently needed to quantify and reduce methane emissions. Methane mitigation offers rapid climate benefits and economic, health and agricultural co-benefits that are highly complementary to CO2 mitigation."

Also see:
Saunois, M., Bousquet, P., Poulter, B., Peregon, A., Ciais, P., Canadell, J. G., Dlugokencky, E. J., Etiope, G., Bastviken, D., Houweling, S., Janssens-Maenhout, G., Tubiello, F. N., Castaldi, S., Jackson, R. B., Alexe, M., Arora, V. K., Beerling, D. J., Bergamaschi, P., Blake, D. R., Brailsford, G., Brovkin, V., Bruhwiler, L., Crevoisier, C., Crill, P., Covey, K., Curry, C., Frankenberg, C., Gedney, N., Höglund-Isaksson, L., Ishizawa, M., Ito, A., Joos, F., Kim, H.-S., Kleinen, T., Krummel, P., Lamarque, J.-F., Langenfelds, R., Locatelli, R., Machida, T., Maksyutov, S., McDonald, K. C., Marshall, J., Melton, J. R., Morino, I., Naik, V., O'Doherty, S., Parmentier, F.-J. W., Patra, P. K., Peng, C., Peng, S., Peters, G. P., Pison, I., Prigent, C., Prinn, R., Ramonet, M., Riley, W. J., Saito, M., Santini, M., Schroeder, R., Simpson, I. J., Spahni, R., Steele, P., Takizawa, A., Thornton, B. F., Tian, H., Tohjima, Y., Viovy, N., Voulgarakis, A., van Weele, M., van der Werf, G. R., Weiss, R., Wiedinmyer, C., Wilton, D. J., Wiltshire, A., Worthy, D., Wunch, D., Xu, X., Yoshida, Y., Zhang, B., Zhang, Z., and Zhu, Q.: The global methane budget 2000–2012, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 8, 697-751, doi:10.5194/essd-8-697-2016, 2016.


http://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/8/697/2016/ (http://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/8/697/2016/)

Abstract. The global methane (CH4) budget is becoming an increasingly important component for managing realistic pathways to mitigate climate change. This relevance, due to a shorter atmospheric lifetime and a stronger warming potential than carbon dioxide, is challenged by the still unexplained changes of atmospheric CH4 over the past decade. Emissions and concentrations of CH4 are continuing to increase, making CH4 the second most important human-induced greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide. Two major difficulties in reducing uncertainties come from the large variety of diffusive CH4 sources that overlap geographically, and from the destruction of CH4 by the very short-lived hydroxyl radical (OH). To address these difficulties, we have established a consortium of multi-disciplinary scientists under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project to synthesize and stimulate research on the methane cycle, and producing regular (∼ biennial) updates of the global methane budget. This consortium includes atmospheric physicists and chemists, biogeochemists of surface and marine emissions, and socio-economists who study anthropogenic emissions. Following Kirschke et al. (2013), we propose here the first version of a living review paper that integrates results of top-down studies (exploiting atmospheric observations within an atmospheric inverse-modelling framework) and bottom-up models, inventories and data-driven approaches (including process-based models for estimating land surface emissions and atmospheric chemistry, and inventories for anthropogenic emissions, data-driven extrapolations).

For the 2003–2012 decade, global methane emissions are estimated by top-down inversions at 558 Tg CH4 yr−1, range 540–568. About 60 % of global emissions are anthropogenic (range 50–65 %). Since 2010, the bottom-up global emission inventories have been closer to methane emissions in the most carbon-intensive Representative Concentrations Pathway (RCP8.5) and higher than all other RCP scenarios. Bottom-up approaches suggest larger global emissions (736 Tg CH4 yr−1, range 596–884) mostly because of larger natural emissions from individual sources such as inland waters, natural wetlands and geological sources. Considering the atmospheric constraints on the top-down budget, it is likely that some of the individual emissions reported by the bottom-up approaches are overestimated, leading to too large global emissions. Latitudinal data from top-down emissions indicate a predominance of tropical emissions (∼ 64 % of the global budget, < 30° N) as compared to mid (∼ 32 %, 30–60° N) and high northern latitudes (∼ 4 %, 60–90° N). Top-down inversions consistently infer lower emissions in China (∼ 58 Tg CH4 yr−1, range 51–72, −14 %) and higher emissions in Africa (86 Tg CH4 yr−1, range 73–108, +19 %) than bottom-up values used as prior estimates. Overall, uncertainties for anthropogenic emissions appear smaller than those from natural sources, and the uncertainties on source categories appear larger for top-down inversions than for bottom-up inventories and models.

The most important source of uncertainty on the methane budget is attributable to emissions from wetland and other inland waters. We show that the wetland extent could contribute 30–40 % on the estimated range for wetland emissions. Other priorities for improving the methane budget include the following: (i) the development of process-based models for inland-water emissions, (ii) the intensification of methane observations at local scale (flux measurements) to constrain bottom-up land surface models, and at regional scale (surface networks and satellites) to constrain top-down inversions, (iii) improvements in the estimation of atmospheric loss by OH, and (iv) improvements of the transport models integrated in top-down inversions. The data presented here can be downloaded from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (http://doi.org/10.3334/CDIAC/GLOBAL_METHANE_BUDGET_2016_V1.1 (http://doi.org/10.3334/CDIAC/GLOBAL_METHANE_BUDGET_2016_V1.1)) and the Global Carbon Project.

Edit: Estimates of combined natural and anthropogenic methane emission rates through 2100 justify the use of the findings from Isaksen et al's 7 x CH4 case for calculating a revised GWP for methane, as follows:
 
As the radiative forcing in a 50-year time horizon for 4 x CH4 additional emission of 0.80 GtCH4/yr is 2.2 Wm-2, and as the radiative forcing for the current methane emissions is 0.48 Wm-2, thus an updated GWP for methane, assuming the occurrence of Isaksen et al's 4 x CH4 case in 2040, would be: 33 (per Shindell et al 2009) times (2.2/[0.8 + 0.48]) divided by (0.54/0.48) = 50 by 2100.
 
If the GWP of methane increases to 50 by 2100 then the RCP 8.5 scenario will significantly under-estimate global warming by the end of this century.

Isaksen, I. S. A., Gauss M., Myhre, G., Walter Anthony, K. M.  and Ruppel, C.,  (2011), "Strong atmospheric chemistry feedback to climate warming from Arctic methane emissions", Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 25, GB2002, doi:10.1029/2010GB003845
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 18, 2016, 06:38:48 PM
It's all in how you look at it: human stupidity or just bad luck thinking.  It looks like we will just let Darwin decide.

Edit, see also the following linked article entitled: "Donald Trump's questionable intelligence:  All those false claims about his academic record and derision of others bespeak profound insecurity".

http://www.salon.com/2016/12/18/donald-trumps-questionable-intelligence-all-those-false-claims-about-his-academic-record-and-derision-of-others-bespeak-profound-insecurity/ (http://www.salon.com/2016/12/18/donald-trumps-questionable-intelligence-all-those-false-claims-about-his-academic-record-and-derision-of-others-bespeak-profound-insecurity/)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: Dundee on December 18, 2016, 11:20:36 PM
According to an old saying, the more you know the more you know you don't know.

I played the game long enough to be absolutely certain this is true in the world of national intelligence products; I also am of the opinion the reverse is true - the less you know, the less you think you need to know.

I suspect this is a factor in the confidence with which Trump can take or leave daily intelligence briefs.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 19, 2016, 01:52:00 AM
According to an old saying, the more you know the more you know you don't know.

I played them game long enough to be absolutely certain this is true in the world of national intelligence products; I also am of the opinion the reverse is true - the less you know, the less you think you need to know.

I suspect this is a factor in the confidence with which Trump can take or leave daily intelligence briefs.


As discussed in Reply #186, in the USA we call this the Dunning-Kruger effect, as discussed in the linked article entitled: "Idiocracy now: Donald Trump and the Dunning-Kruger effect — when stupid people don’t know they are stupid". 


http://www.salon.com/2016/09/30/idiocracy-now-donald-trump-and-the-dunning-kruger-effect-when-stupid-people-dont-know-they-are-stupid/ (http://www.salon.com/2016/09/30/idiocracy-now-donald-trump-and-the-dunning-kruger-effect-when-stupid-people-dont-know-they-are-stupid/)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: Dundee on December 19, 2016, 02:53:08 AM
The thought predates both Kruger and Dunning by many years - in my part of the U.S. we, by tradition, attribute it to Aristotle.

It is also distinct from Dunning-Kruger, which is specific to low ability rather than low awareness. The trap I refer to is at it's most brutal with folks who are otherwise very accomplished - it is this success that aids their absolute confidence in their knowledge. Intelligence is an invaluable but problematic resource - it is nearly always at least partially wrong (but more often than not, just right enough to be useful, with care). I can almost state it as an axiom that the more satisfied one who makes military plans is with their intelligence, the more likely it is for their plan to go horribly wrong. I have know need to personally test it scientifically, I've served under any number of superiors who went out of their way to provide a statistically viable number of relevant examples. Wisdom comes from experience, and it does not look like Trump's considerable experience was the right sort to foster wisdom.

The good news (for me personally) is that my "pointy end of the spear card" expired some years back, and my children are too old and my grandchildren too young to get conscripted into the profession. The bad news is, there are things that a president can fool with that will bring consequences that reach out and touch all of us (not the least of which is the clockwork that eventually connects to a flooded Mar-a-Lago).

Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 19, 2016, 07:08:36 PM
The thought predates both Kruger and Dunning by many years - in my part of the U.S. we, by tradition, attribute it to Aristotle.

It is also distinct from Dunning-Kruger, which is specific to low ability rather than low awareness. The trap I refer to is at it's most brutal with folks who are otherwise very accomplished - it is this success that aids their absolute confidence in their knowledge. Intelligence is an invaluable but problematic resource - it is nearly always at least partially wrong (but more often than not, just right enough to be useful, with care). I can almost state it as an axiom that the more satisfied one who makes military plans is with their intelligence, the more likely it is for their plan to go horribly wrong. I have know need to personally test it scientifically, I've served under any number of superiors who went out of their way to provide a statistically viable number of relevant examples. Wisdom comes from experience, and it does not look like Trump's considerable experience was the right sort to foster wisdom.

The good news (for me personally) is that my "pointy end of the spear card" expired some years back, and my children are too old and my grandchildren too young to get conscripted into the profession. The bad news is, there are things that a president can fool with that will bring consequences that reach out and touch all of us (not the least of which is the clockwork that eventually connects to a flooded Mar-a-Lago).

Dundee,

Thanks for the wisdom of your experience (including the "… statistically viable number of relevant examples …" of your superiors).  I couldn't agree more that intelligence "… is nearly always at least partially wrong (but more often than not, just right enough to be useful, with care) …"; which, in my view results in a Pollyannaish view of the world not only by the right (ala Trumpism), but also by the left (ala green BAU-ism).  Most examples of "leadership" that I read about to address world challenges include at best half-baked mitigation measures w.r.t. climate change. 

As you point-out wisdom comes from experience, but in a world characterized by accelerating change (ala the 4th Industrial Revolution, increasing nationalism/populism, increasing world population, and of course non-linearly accelerating climate change); it is paramount to adopt a Bayesian worldview that is constantly up-dated with new information to create new wisdom.

Modern leadership (as opposed to narcissistic Trump-like populism) requires constant Bayesian feedback and accountability as our past leaders new that no one would hold them accountable for their climate change short-comings (note that significant climate change damage is already baked into the Earth Systems based on these past short-comings and future leaders will need to address these impacts while addressing continuing anthropogenic radiative forcing).  In a capitalistic system money is intended to provide an "invisible hand" to result in a sustainable balance of supply and demand; however, in the crony capitalism of the world economic system money is the root of all evil as it disassociates cause from effect and isolates the powerful from accountability. 

Thus if we are going to reduce the impacts of the short-comings of our current leaders (TPTB); one needs to reduce our over dependence on money (with its corrupting influence) to pick winner and instead to focus on constantly updated/calibrated information as light to dispel the darkness of egotistical/arrogant ignorance.  Further, in light of climate change uncertainties we collectively (leadership) need to focus on risk management including consideration of Donald Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns, rather than on the application of simple Frequentist logic to a chaotic world.  This will not only require leadership accountability but also, media responsibility to maintain information integrity and scientific responsiveness to monitoring and acknowledging our rapidly changing Earth Systems (see also discussion in the "Systemic Isolation" thread.

Best regards,
ASLR

Edit, see also my replies in the "Empire - America and the future" thread.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 20, 2016, 10:27:09 AM
Further, in light of climate change uncertainties we collectively (leadership) need to focus on risk management including consideration of Donald Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns, rather than on the application of simple Frequentist logic to a chaotic world.

Maybe scientists could use a meme of Inspector Harry Callahan to help explain our climate risks to the policymakers (particularly to Trump) by 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?"

Edit: I note that the IPCC's AR5 does not even define an upper-bound scenario (RPC 8.5 is not an upper bound, e.g. it does not include Hansen's ice-climate interaction, and many other reasonably plausible positive feedback mechanisms) so that policymaker could appreciate that they are staring down the barrel of the "most powerful handgun in the world".
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 20, 2016, 09:34:36 PM
The linked article is entitled: "Climate Change Skepticism Fueled by Gut Reaction to Local Weather".  It looks like until the weather gets "bad" enough politician's feet will not be held to the climate change fire by the general US public.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-skepticism-fueled-by-gut-reaction-to-local-weather/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-skepticism-fueled-by-gut-reaction-to-local-weather/)

If it’s hot outside, you’re more likely to believe in climate change.

Extract: "The public’s perception of global warming is shaped by the weather that people experience".
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 28, 2016, 10:45:13 PM
The linked article is entitled: "This one weird trick will not convince conservatives to fight climate change", and it hints that only issues of money, power & material interests will convince denialists to change their tune.

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/28/14074214/climate-denialism-social (http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/28/14074214/climate-denialism-social)

Extract: "How can conservative elites be persuaded to think and communicate differently about climate change? That’s a subject for another post, but here’s a spoiler: The answer won’t be found in clever arguments or skillful persuasion, but in money, power, and material interests."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 30, 2016, 07:57:06 AM
Denialist thinking parallels that of naughty children who want to negotiate new boundaries with their parents.  In all such negotiations, the party that cares the least has the most power; which, is why all denialist actions are all about power and not necessarily about logic.  Thus to accelerate progress in the fight against climate change it is advisable to treat denialist like children, as discussed in the linked article:

The linked article is entitled: "Kids are Great Negotiators".

http://www.scotwork.com.au/insight/negotiation-tips/kids-are-great-negotiators/ (http://www.scotwork.com.au/insight/negotiation-tips/kids-are-great-negotiators/)

Extract: "It turns out that children are natural negotiators and that adults are too, but we have lost this skill during our everyday activities and the confrontations we have during our lives.

… The first is to get creative … Make sure you are consistent … When you are negotiating get used to the other side saying no and actually welcome it. It shows that you are pushing hard for the deal … Watch out for hollow threats. They destroy all your credibility … Ask lots of questions."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: Buddy on December 30, 2016, 01:19:13 PM
Speaking of stupidity......I see that the Kochheads are at it again in Wisconsin.   Of course...they have two of their favorite stooges in Paul Ryan and Scott Walker working for them.

https://thinkprogress.org/wisconsin-dnr-climate-change-information-purge-d9ac20755540#.tzzkm61bx

I guess the University Of Wisconsin doesn't have a science department anymore.  When are they going to change the laws of mathematics as well?

And lying comes so easily to Scott Walker and Paul Ryan.  It just FLOWSSSSSS off their tongues.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 05, 2017, 05:50:12 PM
In addition to physical masking factors, the current AR5 climate projections are underestimated due to masking of both observed and paleo data, and by model bias as discussed in the following recent references.  Thus is yet another example of human stupidity that our recent policies have not made sufficient provisions for such masking of relatively high climate sensitivity in the reported input data.

The first reference indicates that recent SST values have been systemically under-reported (see the attached image.

Zeke Hausfather, Kevin Cowtan, David C. Clarke, Peter Jacobs, Mark Richardson and Robert Rohde (04 Jan 2017), "Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records", Science Advances, Vol. 3, no. 1, e1601207, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1601207

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207 (http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207)

The second linked article is entitled: "Fossil leaves suggest global warming will be harder to fight than scientists thought", and it presents new evidence about paleo-atmospheric CO₂ concentrations (indicating lower values than previously assumed) that indicate that climate sensitivity is likely higher than most current climate scientists assume:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/fossil-leaves-suggest-global-warming-will-be-harder-fight-scientists-thought (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/fossil-leaves-suggest-global-warming-will-be-harder-fight-scientists-thought)


Extract: "Now, scientists have developed a new method for wringing CO2 estimates from fossilized leaves—one that can go deeper into the past, and with more certainty. “At the moment, it’s very promising and it’s probably the best tool that we’ve got,” says David Beerling, a biogeochemist at the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom who helped develop the so-called fossil leaf gas exchange technique. Already, it is solving ancient climate puzzles and delivering some unsettling news about the future.

… in applications of the method to times between 100 million and 400 million years ago, Franks finds hints of a foreboding message. During documented episodes of global warmth, he says, the method reveals relatively low CO2 values, nothing like the levels of 2000 ppm or more suggested by other proxies. If these downward revisions hold, Earth may be even more sensitive to injections of CO2 than current models predict. “Temperatures are going to climb further for less carbon and we better be mindful of that,” Franks says."

Lastly, the third linked reference and the associated fourth linked commentary by Rahmstorf entitled: "The underestimated danger of a breakdown of the Gulf Stream System", indicate that climate models over-estimate the stability of the AMOC; which increases the probability that Hansen's positive ice-climate feedback is reasonably accurate:

Wei Liu, Shang-Ping Xie, Zhengyu Liu and Jiang Zhu (04 Jan 2017), "Overlooked possibility of a collapsed Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation in warming climate", Science Advances, Vol. 3, no. 1, e1601666, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1601666

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601666 (http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601666)

&

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/01/the-underestimated-danger-of-a-breakdown-of-the-gulf-stream-system/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/01/the-underestimated-danger-of-a-breakdown-of-the-gulf-stream-system/)

Extract: "According to the observational data, the AMOC is exporting freshwater, which is why freshwater will accumulate in the Atlantic when the AMOC breaks down. That is precisely the instability described by Stommel 1961 and Broecker 1987. In the models, on the other hand, the AMOC in most cases imports freshwater, so the flow is fundamentally stable there. The differences in AMOC stability between different models cannot be understood without the fundamental criterion of whether the AMOC imports or exports freshwater, and by what amount. Liu et al. 2014 have identified a known common bias in all coupled climate GCMs without flux adjustments, the “tropical bias”, which makes them import freshwater in contrast to what observations show for the real ocean. A model bias towards stability is also consistent with the fact that most models underestimate the cooling trend observed in the subpolar Atlantic, which is indicative of an ongoing significant AMOC weakening, as we have argued (Rahmstorf et al. 2015).
...
There are, therefore, two reasons why thus far we could have underestimated the risk of a breakdown of the Gulf Stream System. First, climate models probably have a systematic bias towards stable flow. Secondly, most of them do not take into account the melting ice of Greenland. As the new studies show, each of these factors alone can lead to a much stronger weakening of the Gulf Stream system. We now need to study how these two factors work together. I hope these worrying new results will encourage as many other research groups as possible to pursue this question with their own models!"
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 06, 2017, 12:51:41 AM
W.R.T. my last post, especially the article indicating that fossilized plant leaves indicate that deep paleo values of atmospheric CO₂ concentrations were lower than previously assumes increases the possibility of an abrupt transition to an equable climate (see also Reply #158) by 2100 if we stay on a BAU pathway.  The possibility of an equable climate this century represents an extreme climate change impact.  However, the linked reference by Jones et. al. (2016) indicates that interventions by decision-makers to address consensus-levels of possible climate impacts are unlikely to succeed without significant improvements of climate risk communicated to such decision makers.

Lindsey Jones, Clara Champalle, Sabrina Chesterman, Laura Cramer & Todd & A. Crane (2016), "Constraining and enabling factors to using long-term climate information in decision-making", Climate Policy, DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2016.1191008

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2016.1191008 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2016.1191008)
or
https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource-documents/10681.pdf (https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource-documents/10681.pdf)

Abstract: "We carry out a structured review of the peer-reviewed literature to assess the factors that constrain and enable the uptake of long-term climate information in a wide range of sectoral investment and planning decisions. Common applications of long-term climate information are shown to relate to urban planning and infrastructure, as well as flood and coastal management. Analysis of the identified literature highlights five categories of constraints: disconnection between users and producers of climate information, limitations of climate information, financial and technical constraints, political economy and institutional constraints and finally psycho-social constraints. Five categories of enablers to the uptake of long-term climate information in decision making are also identified: collaboration and bridge work, increased accessibility of climate information, improvement in the underlying science, institutional reform and windows of opportunity for building trust.

Policy relevance

Our review suggests that stand-alone interventions aimed at promoting the uptake of climate information into decision-making are unlikely to succeed without genuine and sustained relationships between producers and users. We also highlight that not every decision requires consideration of long-term climate information for successful outcomes to be achieved. This is particularly the case in the context of developing countries, where the immediacy of development challenges means that decision makers often prioritize short-term interventions. Care should therefore be taken to ensure that information is targeted towards investments and planning decisions that are relevant to longer-term timescales."

Extract: "… decision makers often call for high levels of certainty in weighing the implications of future options and conveying the nature of the uncertainties is often difficult for scientists.  Decision makers’ desire for certainty also encourages misrepresentation and misunderstanding of uncertainty in climate outputs, masking the true levels of uncertainty associated with future projections."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: DrTskoul on January 06, 2017, 01:22:46 AM
Fun.... :o :o
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 06, 2017, 04:36:40 AM
Fun.... :o :o

Not to spoil your fun, but if the WAIS does collapse in the coming decades and if that trigger's Hansen's ice-climate feedback, then even if the thermohaline circulation were to collapse, the atmospheric transport of heat directly from the tropics to the polars (in an equable climate) should be sufficient to prevent the poles from refreezing even without significant heat from the ocean's thermohaline circulation.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: DrTskoul on January 06, 2017, 11:26:16 AM
Previous comment included a rather healthy dose of sarcasm...
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 06, 2017, 05:58:27 PM
The linked article is entitled: "Why Robots Must Learn to Tell Us “No”".  With the ramping-up of the 4th Industrial Revolution in the coming ten years, maybe we should worry less about disobedient machines and more about "devious human masters", as I am concerned that many decision-makers on climate change policy are merely playing dumb, when the actually have a fairly good idea of the true climate change risks.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-robots-must-learn-to-tell-us-ldquo-no-rdquo/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-robots-must-learn-to-tell-us-ldquo-no-rdquo/)

Extract: "Don’t worry about disobedient machines. Devious human masters and misunderstood commands are the real threat."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 07, 2017, 06:43:05 PM
In 2014 the UN projected a 50% CL world population of 11 billion by 2100 (see DOI: 10.1126/science.1257469), the following linked Worldometer is based on UN data released on July 29, 2015, and it projects a 50% CL world population level of 11.2 billion by 2100.  Today the world population is 7.5 billion people and rapidly rising, and I have little doubt that the next UN world population projection will be higher than its last in 2015.  My best guess is that world population will peak near 10 billion around 2050 and then decline due to human stupidity.

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ (http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/)

Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 07, 2017, 07:13:22 PM
My best guess is that world population will peak near 10 billion around 2050 and then decline due to human stupidity.


The linked January 4 2017 article is entitled: "Social instability lies ahead, researcher says", and it predicts a peak in social instability in the 2020's; which to my way of thinking promotes the idea of the coming of authoritarianism (ala Trump/Putin) and sustained dependence on fossil fuels through at least 2045-2050 after which Darwin Awards will be handed-out by the bushels.

http://phys.org/news/2017-01-social-instability-lies.html (http://phys.org/news/2017-01-social-instability-lies.html)

Extract: "Cliodynamics is a new "transdisciplinary discipline" that treats history as just another science. Ten years ago I started applying its tools to the society I live in: the United States. What I discovered alarmed me.

My research showed that about 40 seemingly disparate (but, according to cliodynamics, related) social indicators experienced turning points during the 1970s. Historically, such developments have served as leading indicators of political turmoil. My model indicated that social instability and political violence would peak in the 2020s


… I see no reason to revise the forecast I made three years ago: "We should expect many years of political turmoil, peaking in the 2020s."


So what's to be done? I find myself in the shoes of Hari Seldon, a fictional character in Isaac Asimov's Foundation, whose science of history (which he called psychohistory) predicted the decline and fall of his own society. Should we follow Seldon's lead and establish a Cliodynamic Foundation somewhere in the remote deserts of Australia?

This would be precisely the wrong thing to do. It didn't work even in Isaac Asimov's fictional universe. The problem with secretive cabals is that they quickly become self-serving, and then mire themselves in internecine conflict. Asimov came up with the Second Foundation to watch over the First. But who watches the watchers? In the end it all came down to a uniquely powerful and uniquely benevolent super-robot, R. Daneel Olivaw."

See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Daneel_Olivaw (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Daneel_Olivaw)

Edit: To be less subtle, Trump could readily suppress voter sufficiently to get re-elected in 2020 and then get Congress to declare endless war on ISIS (et. al.), which would allow the president to put those he distrusts into internment camps (ala the Japanese in WWII) by 2024.


See also the linked article is entitled: "A Dire Prediction for Trump's First 100 Days".  When Putin became Prime Minister of Russia he had little wealth, after 17-years in power he is now worth over USD $85 Billion;

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/trump-presidency-disaster (http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/trump-presidency-disaster)

Extract: "Why? Because it’s happened before.
In the fall of 1999, just months after then-unknown former FSB agent Vladimir Putin had been sworn in as prime minister of Russia, someone began bombing apartment buildings. Over the course of two terrible months, hundreds of people died in the series of explosions around the country and thousands were injured. As Masha Gessen tells it in her book The Man Without a Face, “panic set in all over the country.” The majority of the country assumed Chechen terrorists were responsible. Paranoia became the national mood and vigilante surveillance the national pastime. Into this chaos stepped Vladimir Putin.

“Putin made one of his first television appearances,” Gessen writes, “‘We will hunt them down,’ he said of the terrorists. ‘Wherever we find them, we will destroy them. Even if we find them in the toilet. We will rub them out in the outhouse.'...His popularity began to soar.”

Putin never looked back. Over the next 17 years, Putin ,  the uniquely unqualified newcomer to political office , became a global authoritarian. Russia was never the same.

Since those fateful days, experts around the world have come to agree that the Russian government was complicit in the terrorist bombings that swept Putin into power.

So, to summarize: In 1999 the FSB, the same organization now suspected of tampering in the U.S. election to tip it in favor of Donald Trump, was caught in the act of planting bombs in civilian apartment buildings in Russia in order to sow chaos and consolidate power for its disputed leader of choice."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 07, 2017, 08:03:55 PM
The linked article is entitled: "Why don’t people get it? Seven ways that communicating risk can fail"; and points out that people respond to risk based on emotions and instincts.  Team Trump clearly understands this concept and manipulates the public to their advantage; and it is time that climate hawks come to learn how to better communicate climate change risks.

https://theconversation.com/why-dont-people-get-it-seven-ways-that-communicating-risk-can-fail-68912

Extract: "Good risk communication points out where we are doing hazardous things. It helps us better navigate crises. It also allows us to pre-empt and avoid danger and destruction.

But poor risk communication does the opposite. It creates confusion, helplessness and, worst of all, pushes us to actively work against each other even when it’s against our best interests to do so.

If you’re science-informed – or at least science-positive – you might confuse being rational with using objective, science-based evidence.

To think rationally is to base your thinking in reason or logic. But a conclusion that’s logical doesn’t have to be true. You can link flawed, false or unsubstantiated premises to come up with a logical-but-scientifically-unsubstantiated answer.

If people are already nervous about – or actively against – a risky proposition, one reaction is to demand proof of safety. But safety is a relative term and risk calculation doesn’t work that way.
To demand proof of safety is to demand certainty, and such a demand is scientifically impossible. Uncertainty is at the heart of the scientific method. Or rather, qualifying and communicating degrees of uncertainty is.

In reality, we live in a world where we have to agree on what constitutes acceptable risk, because we simply can’t provide proof of safety.

You may have seen this basic risk calculation formula:

Risk (or hazard) = (the probability of something happening) × (the consequences of it happening)
This works brilliantly for insurance assessors and lab managers, but it quickly falls over when you use it to explain risk in the big bad world.

Everyday reactions to how bad a risk seems are more often ruled by the formula (hazard) × (outrage), where “outrage” is fuelled by non-technical, socially-driven matters.

Basically, the more outraged (horrified, frightened) we are by the idea of something happening, the more likely we are to consider it unacceptable, regardless of how statistically unlikely it might be.

If we humans, who rely on emotional reactions to assess risks, can be confused even by simple numbers, and are easily influenced by oddities of language, what hope is there for making serious progress when trying to talk about huge risky issues such as climate change?

First, don’t knock emotion-driven, instinct-based risk responses: they’re useful."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 08, 2017, 03:09:06 AM
The two linked article support the positon that we all accelerating into a growing period of crony capitalism and outright kleptocracy:

The first linked article is entitled: "Donald Trump blasts 'fools' who oppose good Russian ties"

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38542415 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38542415)

Extract: "Mr Trump vowed to work with Russia "to solve some of the many... pressing problems and issues of the WORLD!"

His comments came after an intelligence report said Russia's president had tried to aid a Trump election victory.

Mr Trump said Democrats were to blame for "gross negligence" in allowing their servers to be hacked."

The second linked article is entitled :Donald Trump’s glorious victory for anti-intellectualism: “Drain the swamp” just meant the eggheads".

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/07/donald-trumps-glorious-victory-for-anti-intellectualism-drain-the-swamp-just-meant-the-eggheads/ (http://www.salon.com/2017/01/07/donald-trumps-glorious-victory-for-anti-intellectualism-drain-the-swamp-just-meant-the-eggheads/)

Extract: "For many Trump supporters, the wealthiest cabinet ever is no problem — as long as he gets rid of the smart people

The anti-intellectual mentality values perceived practical qualities over theoretical ones, and tends to think of abstract thinking as close to useless. When Trump called out Washington technocrats as incompetent on the campaign trail, he was appealing to the anti-intellectual impulse that regards all highly educated people as impractical, incompetent eggheads. This naturally leads to the assumption that those who have achieved material success — i.e., wealthy businesspeople — are better equipped to run government with their practical, business-savvy skills and insights. Of course, history tells us the opposite: Businessmen have notoriously made very bad presidents, while most of the top-ranked presidents have been longtime public servants or lawyers with top-tier educations.

When Donald Trump is sworn in as the 45th president, less than two weeks from now, he will bring with him to Washington an administration full of economic elites and industry insiders, and D.C. cronyism will expand to a whole new level. But for many Americans, the fact that all those know-it-all intellectuals — especially the leading know-it-all, constitutional scholar President Barack Obama — will be thrown out is a victory worth celebrating."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 08, 2017, 03:30:28 AM
The linked Wikipedia article is entitled: "For Want of a Nail", and it discusses a chain of causality that can only be perceived in hindsight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Want_of_a_Nail

Extract:
"For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

Such chains of causality are perceived only in hindsight. No one ever lamented, upon seeing his unshod horse, that the kingdom would eventually fall because of it."

It seems to me that we are now on such a chain of causality where:

For want of staying below 2.6C the WAIS was lost.
For want of the WAIS to thermohaline was lost.
For want of the thermohaline the tropical negative cloud feedback was lost.
For want of the tropical negative cloud feedback the moderate ENSO was lost.
For want of the moderate ENSO carbon sinks were lost.
For want of the carbon sinks the polar ice caps were lost.
For want of polar ice caps the Hadley Cells were lost.
And all of the want of human willpower.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 08, 2017, 05:20:52 PM
The linked January 4 2017 article is entitled: "Social instability lies ahead, researcher says", and it predicts a peak in social instability in the 2020's; which to my way of thinking promotes the idea of the coming of authoritarianism (ala Trump/Putin) and sustained dependence on fossil fuels through at least 2045-2050 after which Darwin Awards will be handed-out by the bushels.

[url]http://phys.org/news/2017-01-social-instability-lies.html[/url] ([url]http://phys.org/news/2017-01-social-instability-lies.html[/url])



For those not familiar with US history the last trade protectionist president (before Trump) was Herbert Hoover from 1929 to 1933, who presided over the US collapse into the Great Depression.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover)

In the theme song for the sitcom "All in the Family" Archie Bunker pines for the Herbert Hoover days, while the following links and attached images make it clear how close Bunker's thinking is to Trump's, and just how close we are to sliding into another Great Depression circa 2025-2027.

Those Were The Days
Boy, the way Glenn Miller played
Songs that made the hit parade
Guys like us, we had it made
Those were the days!
And you knew who you were then
Girls were girls, and men were men
Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again
Didn't need no welfare state
Everybody pulled his weight
Gee, our old LaSalle ran great
Those were the days!

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/15/this_hilarious_video_proves_beyond_a_doubt_that_donald_trump_is_the_new_archie_bunker/ (http://www.salon.com/2015/12/15/this_hilarious_video_proves_beyond_a_doubt_that_donald_trump_is_the_new_archie_bunker/)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaSalle_(automobile) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaSalle_(automobile))

Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 09, 2017, 07:50:37 PM
The linked article is entitled: "World is ‘backsliding’ on gasoline subsidies, finds study", and it indicates that while taxes on gasoline is effective at reducing CO₂ emissions, such taxes are now lower than they were 13 years ago.  This indicates the effectiveness of the fossil fuel lobby and the ineffectiveness of rational human behavior:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/world-backsliding-gasoline-subsidies (https://www.carbonbrief.org/world-backsliding-gasoline-subsidies)

Taxes on gasoline effectively reduce CO2 emissions, yet they are lower now than they were 13 years ago, finds a new study.

The associated linked reference is entitled: "Global Progress and Backsliding on Gasoline Taxes and Subsidies".

http://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy2016201 (http://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy2016201)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 10, 2017, 01:01:22 AM
The linked article is entitled: "Short-lived greenhouse gases cause centuries of sea-level rise", indicates that we should be concerned about short-lived GHGs even if they are only in the atmosphere for a few decades:

http://phys.org/news/2017-01-short-lived-greenhouse-gases-centuries-sea-level.html (http://phys.org/news/2017-01-short-lived-greenhouse-gases-centuries-sea-level.html)

For the associated reference see:

Zickfeld et. al. (2016), "Centuries of thermal sea-level rise due to anthropogenic emissions of short-lived greenhouse gases", PNAS doi: 10.1073/pnas.1612066114
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/01/03/1612066114 (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/01/03/1612066114)

Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 11, 2017, 02:31:51 PM
The linked article is entitled: "White House Urges Research on Geoengineering to Combat Global Warming".  I suspect that by the 2040's, TPTB will implement some form of geoengineering, whether they understand the consequences (think about the thermohaline circulation) or not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/science/geoengineering-climate-change-global-warming.html?_r=0 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/science/geoengineering-climate-change-global-warming.html?_r=0)

Extract: "The document, an update of a report that lays out a plan for climate-related research at 13 federal agencies until 2021, calls for studies related to the two most-discussed approaches to geoengineering: distributing chemicals in the atmosphere to reflect more heat-producing sunlight away from the earth, and removing carbon dioxide from the air so the atmosphere traps less heat."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: DrTskoul on January 11, 2017, 04:45:38 PM
Can't wait for the little ice age of 2040 and mass starvation brought on by our valiant geoengineering efforts </sarc>....

F#@## morons....
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: magnamentis on January 11, 2017, 07:20:04 PM
F#@## morons....

this !!!!!

and they are criminals for sure because they can't make me believe that they're that stupid for not knowing better.

just never us that word together with a name if you're not US-Citizen, that will cost you the VISA waiver otherwise LOL ( I know first hand, in my case it was GWB in 2001 )
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 19, 2017, 04:57:19 PM
The linked article is entitled: "Climate science bedeviled by 'tipping points'".  This article partially illustrates how stupid humans are with regard to the risks of abrupt:

(1) Today we are increasing the atmospheric CO₂ concentrations at a faster rate than any time in the past 66 million years and that is not counting other GHGs that boost use to an even higher rate, and none of our climate models are adequately calibrated to reflect the influence of such high rates of radiative forcing.

(2) 'Tipping Points' (including climate attractors) are essentially invisible (i.e. within the thin right-tail of the projected PDFs)  to our current generation of climate models; so consensus scientists say that since they do not see the 'tipping points' in their model projections, we are probably safe from them (which is denialist thinking).

(3) Recent paleo-assessments indicate that when considering the influence of climate attractors, ESS is likely at least 50% higher than consensus science currently acknowledges as our current climate models do not consider climate attractors so they do not need to acknowledge their likely influence (which is denialist thinking).

(4) Denialist thinking essentially believes that as mankind has been fortunate enough to have experienced very mild climate change for the past 11,000 years, we are entitled to experience mild climate change in the future.

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-climate-science-bedeviled.html (https://phys.org/news/2017-01-climate-science-bedeviled.html)

Extract: "Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere today are higher than any time in the last three million years, and are increasing more rapidly than at any point in the last 66 million years

Of the many things that keep climate scientists awake at night, tipping points may be the scariest.

To start with, these thresholds for deep, sometimes catastrophic change in the complex web of Earth's natural forces, caused by man-made global warming, are largely invisible.

James Hansen, former head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has argued that West Antarctica could disintegrate rapidly, adding up to a couple of metres to ocean levels this century.
But most experts say humanity is still within a "safe operating space" for the ice sheets, even if the margin for error has become uncomfortably thin.

Other tipping points could trigger the natural release, on a massive scale, of the same greenhouse gases that humans have spewed into the atmosphere, further destabilising the delicate balance that has made our planet so liveable over the last 11,000 years."


See also:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/19/cat-in-hells-chance-why-losing-battle-keep-global-warming-2c-climate-change (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/19/cat-in-hells-chance-why-losing-battle-keep-global-warming-2c-climate-change)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 02, 2017, 11:39:08 PM
The linked article is entitled: "Overpopulation: What Policies Are Needed to Solve This Problem?".  It is looking more & more like large-scale Darwin Awards seems to be the only outcome of 'human stupidity'.

http://edmdigest.com/preparedness/overpopulation-policies-needed-problem/ (http://edmdigest.com/preparedness/overpopulation-policies-needed-problem/)


Extract: "Two-thirds of animal species could be extinct by 2020. Elephants, giraffes, tigers, orangutans, gorillas, and cheetahs are already endangered. This is the result of human activity, most notably habitat takeover for housing or farmland to grow our food.

Many of us think we are “doing our bit.” We recycle, use efficient appliances, reduce our meat consumption or avoid it altogether, and seek out alternative fuel sources. But all of these efforts combined do not address overpopulation.

Earth Overshoot Day, the day when we have theoretically used up the Earth’s natural resources for the year, came early in 2016. By August 8, 2016, humanity was in debt and living well beyond its means. With more consumers, Earth Overshoot Day 2017 is expected to come even sooner.

On January 14, Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of the British medical journal The Lancet, wrote about the “possible impossibility” of universal health coverage in the wake of unsustainable population growth.

People see reproduction as a basic human right and do not want it taken away from them."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 03, 2017, 06:07:53 PM
The linked article is entitled: "Greenland Ice Sheet Melting 600 Percent Faster Than Predicted by Current Models".  We should all remember that:  "What happens in the Arctic, doesn't stay in the Arctic."

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=18252 (http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=18252)

Extract: "The climate is very capable of changing to another stable state unfavorable to the human species, and this is a real danger of our global experiment with unmitigated greenhouse gas emissions, says Arctic ice specialist David Barber."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 04, 2017, 05:23:13 PM
The linked article is entitled: "Earthworm numbers dwindle, threatening soil health", and to me this is but one example of how humankind is shooting itself in the foot (particularly w.r.t. future food production).

http://www.dw.com/en/earthworm-numbers-dwindle-threatening-soil-health/a-37325923 (http://www.dw.com/en/earthworm-numbers-dwindle-threatening-soil-health/a-37325923)

Extract: "Earthworms, it seems, are the unsung heroes of our world. Labeled slimy and disgusting by many, these lowly invertebrates work unseen and underground where they till, fertilize and improve soil.

But environmentalists are concerned that industrial agricultural practices are making life difficult for this surprisingly important animal.

Intensive use of manure and acidic soil with a pH value below five harm the worm, although it remains unclear whether herbicides affect earthworm's ability to reproduce.

Still, one thing is for sure: the destruction of its habitat every few months with heavy machinery stresses the animal.

Still, the WWF warns of a "dangerous chain reaction for humanity," and has called for politics and society to encourage an agricultural sector more focused on soil and humus-friendly farming. The goal of the EU's farming policy should be the promotion and maintenance of natural soil fertility, said WWF's Wilhelm.

At a time when development is swallowing up more and more countryside, good soil is becoming increasingly important to ensure a secure food supply for the world's growing population. Long-term soil fertility and the ability of farmland to recuperate are under threat and protecting earthworms with their ability to improve soil should be an agricultural goal.

Research has shown there are solutions. "Using a soil cover with a catch crop such as grass during winter led to a sharp rise in earthworms," Fründ said. It's a glimmer of hope for these underground dwellers."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 05, 2017, 12:28:22 PM
The linked article is entitled: "Commentary: Forget the Anthropocene. Welcome to the Idiocene".  With the coming of the Trump Administration we have moved from BAU to the Beavis and Butthead era.

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2017/feb/commentary-forget-the-anthropocene.-welcome-to-the-idiocene (http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2017/feb/commentary-forget-the-anthropocene.-welcome-to-the-idiocene)

Extract: "Will the daily barrage of falsehoods, insults, and boneheaded moves give cover to the business of dismantling environmental protection?

The first glimpses of a Trump Administration in action have, to most citizens in America and abroad, been quite unnerving. Appalling. Unsettling. In other words, everything that his pre-election conduct promised us.

And chances are that someone who reads an environmental page like this one would already know these things. But beyond the small circle of us who follow this stuff closely, the rollbacks, science purges, and outright denial of scientific fact will continue, buried at the bottom of a broad heap of absurdity.

Don’t rely on the nation’s political press to give a rip, or have a clue."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 20, 2017, 07:24:14 PM
I agree with Carl that we need to better educate the common man throughout the world:

"We’ve arranged a society on science and technology in which nobody understands anything about science and technology, and this combustible mixture of ignorance and power sooner or later is going to blow up in our faces. I mean, who is running the science and technology in a democracy if the people don’t know anything about it?" – Carl Sagan to Charlie Rose, May 27, 1996
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: DrTskoul on February 20, 2017, 07:33:03 PM
Even worse,

We have arranged a society where the individual success is extolled, but having left the common human without the means ( educational,  social,  financial) to succeed. And then we display  other people's successes 24/7 through all the media leading to humiliation and anger.  The science can become an easy target for their anger because it is even more obscure...
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 20, 2017, 08:57:15 PM
Even worse,

We have arranged a society where the individual success is extolled, but having left the common human without the means ( educational,  social,  financial) to succeed. And then we display  other people's successes 24/7 through all the media leading to humiliation and anger.  The science can become an easy target for their anger because it is even more obscure...


Revenge of the nerds, or the 'globalists' strike back:

The first linked article is entitled: "Mark Zuckerberg: Progress ‘requires’ embrace of ‘global community’"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/17/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-founder-progress-requires/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/17/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-founder-progress-requires/)

Extract: " Facebook founder Marck Zuckerberg left no doubt Thursday where he stands on the issue of globalism: progress “requires” it, he said.

Mr. Zuckerberg said in a statement called “Building Global Community” on his social-media platform that globalism is “the next step” for humanity, even if advocates face tough questions whether they can “make a global community that works for everyone.”

“Our greatest opportunities are now global — like spreading prosperity and freedom, promoting peace and understanding, lifting people out of poverty, and accelerating science,” Mr. Zuckerberg wrote. “Our greatest challenges also need global responses — like ending terrorism, fighting climate change, and preventing pandemics. Progress now requires humanity coming together not just as cities or nations, but also as a global community.”"

See also:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2017/feb/17/facebook-manifesto-mark-zuckerberg-letter-world-politics (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2017/feb/17/facebook-manifesto-mark-zuckerberg-letter-world-politics)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: DrTskoul on February 20, 2017, 09:27:36 PM
The last time around, a united Europe and United Nations was the result of WWII. I hope the new globalism is not the result of something similar.  There no examples of peaceful transitions of such magnitude. And I don't think that the technocratic Elite puts themselves into the place of the common man in India or Africa when they envision the new future...
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 20, 2017, 10:56:44 PM
The last time around, a united Europe and United Nations was the result of WWII. I hope the new globalism is not the result of something similar.  There no examples of peaceful transitions of such magnitude. And I don't think that the technocratic Elite puts themselves into the place of the common man in India or Africa when they envision the new future...

I imagine that Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, etc., believe that they trying to help the common man in India and Africa (etc.); however, whether they actually end-up doing so is an entirely different matter.

https://www.philanthropyforum.org/ (https://www.philanthropyforum.org/)

&

https://www.philanthropyforum.org/issues/humanitarian-assistance-and-refugees/videos/day-3-highlights-gpf16 (https://www.philanthropyforum.org/issues/humanitarian-assistance-and-refugees/videos/day-3-highlights-gpf16)

Especially see the video entitled: "Feeding the Next 7 Billion"
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: TerryM on February 22, 2017, 02:09:12 PM
The last time around, a united Europe and United Nations was the result of WWII. I hope the new globalism is not the result of something similar.  There no examples of peaceful transitions of such magnitude. And I don't think that the technocratic Elite puts themselves into the place of the common man in India or Africa when they envision the new future...


I spoke to a former Belgian ambassador to Canada some months back.


According to him in the "old EU" the nations felt that they made progress by ceding portions of their sovereignty for the general good. Their motivation was the history of periodic wars that they had all suffered, wars that had become increasingly damaging.


The former Soviet states, having only recently won their sovereignty, consider it their most precious asset. Under the USSR's blanket their trade, defense, and borders were set by a larger entity. They tend to see progress in their individuality, giving up as little as possible to receive the economic benefits of the EU.


The "old EU" believes that they have discovered a better way forward and assumes that the rest of the world will catch up at some point. They never truly accepted Britain as a full member and aren't terribly hurt or surprised at Brexit. Greece or Italy however are seen as essential and he is sure that a way will be found to escape from the economic problems now facing them.


He had a rather un-American stance, feeling that a European army would soon be in place and that NATO could then be dispensed with by "old EU". He sees Britain and America as natural allies, but would like closer relations between Europe and Canada, seeing the recent trade deal in a positive light.


His positions weren't those I'd have expected of a lifetime diplomat from "old Europe". He sounded as though he considered the recent additions of former Soviet states to the EU as a parasitic drag. slowing acceptance of the enlightened philosophy that guides the rest. If he is asked, I doubt he'd willingly offer European lives should one of the Baltic states find itself fighting.
He skipped around questions regarding recent Muslim migration into Europe, seemingly resentful that America wasn't acting responsibly for a problem that he believed they had caused.
One of his anecdotes was that the immigrants that caused Brexit to secede were from Poland.
Uncomfortable for me as my companion was a Polish-Canadian. ::)


Terry
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: DrTskoul on February 22, 2017, 04:45:26 PM
Terry,

 They were indeed polish. Many years ago before the Greeks complained about the Syrian and Pakistani and Bangladeshi and African immigrants, they first complained about Albanian and Polish immigrants.

I don't think your contact has it quite right to blame US for the immigration wave. Even if US has not had their arms in the Middle East mess, the economic and climate facts of Middle East would have created their own mess. Droughts and food security would have created a similar results. I mean does the US have anything to do with the Bangladeshi and Pakistani immigrants ? Most of them are villagers and farmers that the weather and floods and drought and sea rise  have devastated. 
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 23, 2017, 09:46:55 PM
The linked article is entitled: "Climate-Friendlier Air Conditioning Chemicals Hard to Find, Study Shows".  It is easy for policy makers to break their arms patting themselves on the back when the cameras are rolling and then to under deliver once the media has moved on to other issues.  This is not good news for the wellbeing of the planet.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22022017/climate-change-refrigerants-montreal-protocol-hfc-global-warming-donald-trump (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22022017/climate-change-refrigerants-montreal-protocol-hfc-global-warming-donald-trump)

Extract: "Replacing HFCs as a coolant is the goal of a global accord, but so far, economical alternatives all show some flaws.

When nearly 200 countries agreed last October to dramatically reduce their reliance on climate change-polluting chemicals called hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in air conditioning and refrigeration, the hunt for alternatives was already underway. Now, a new study in the journal Nature Communications that comprehensively explored pure liquid options found only 27 candidates, and problems with all of them.

Under the Kigali Amendment, the United States and Europe are the first to start significantly cutting back their use of HFCs; these countries also agreed to help fund the research and commercialization of alternative technologies. The goal is that by the time developing countries start making big cuts, alternatives will have flooded the market and their prices will have dropped enough to be affordable. It remains an open question whether this will happen.

Moreover, the United States agreed to these commitments under the Obama administration and it's unknown whether President Donald Trump will change course. Although Trump has pledged to roll back domestic climate policies, and has spoken of pulling the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement, he has not yet indicated his plans for the HFCs agreement."


See also the associated open access reference:
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14476 (http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14476)

Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 10, 2017, 12:30:33 AM
The linked article is entitled: "Climate change is a white swan".  I think that this article is erring on the side of least drama

http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2988686/climate_change_is_a_white_swan.html (http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2988686/climate_change_is_a_white_swan.html)

Extract: "There is a spectre haunting our society, our world, our common future: the spectre of a ‘slow' anthropogenically-induced climatically-induced cataclysm. Why call it a ‘spectre'? Because it seems unreal to us. An air of unreality hangs pervasively over our situation. If climate change were really as bad as all that, then we'd really be doing something about it...right?

But there is also a basic way in which the case of climate is very different from the case of finance, or that of GM (or that of nuclear, or that of ‘the singularity'; and so on). It is this: it has been shown beyond reasonable doubt that anything remotely like a BAU path puts us on course for climate-nemesis.

The incipient climate chaos is a white swan. It would be the ultimate marker of sheer stupidity, as well as of shame and short-termist selfishness, if humanity succumbs to it."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 19, 2017, 05:55:35 PM
With the coming of the 4th Industrial Revolution together with climate change stress; the better that people and society learn to deal with change the less suffering will occur (and vice versa), therefore I provide the attached image related to human response to change from the following source:

Williams, D. (1999). Life Events and Career Change: Transition Psychology in Practice. British Psychological Society Occupational Psychology Conference. Leicester: British Psychological Society

As freedom is associated with change, the better we deal with change the more free we will be, both individually, and collectively.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 20, 2017, 01:55:44 AM
Due to the Peter Principle, I am not confident that the coming (circa 2045 to 2060) socioeconomic collapse can be avoided.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: magnamentis on March 20, 2017, 02:22:22 AM
Due to the Peter Principle, I am not confident that the coming (circa 2045 to 2060) socioeconomic can be avoided.

assuming you mean "collapse" as the missing word i agree with the principle but think you are quite optimistic with the time frame, i have been eyeballing the years between 2025-2030 ;)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 20, 2017, 06:29:39 PM
Due to the Peter Principle, I am not confident that the coming (circa 2045 to 2060) socioeconomic can be avoided.

assuming you mean "collapse" as the missing word i agree with the principle but think you are quite optimistic with the time frame, i have been eyeballing the years between 2025-2030 ;)

Thanks.  I added the word 'collapse', and only time will tell when and how bad the collapse will be/occur.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: magnamentis on March 20, 2017, 08:35:06 PM

Thanks.  I added the word 'collapse', and only time will tell when and how bad the collapse will be/occur.

absolutely, can happen any time, only thing i'm sure about is that it will happen, we're already a lucky generation to enjoy 70 years without major disruption on home soils, this side and that side of the big pond :-)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 10, 2017, 09:25:41 PM
The linked report is entitled: "Globalization and Infectious Diseases: A Review of the Linkages".  The attached image from this reference indicates that with continuing global warming, infectious diseases become a more impactful problem.  I believe that the public and particularly the alt-right populist decision makers are not giving such considerations full weight.

http://www.who.int/tdr/publications/documents/seb_topic3.pdf (http://www.who.int/tdr/publications/documents/seb_topic3.pdf)

Extract: "Globalization is a complex and multi-faceted set of processes having diverse and widespread impacts on human societies worldwide."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 11, 2017, 07:18:32 PM
Most decision makers assume that they are entitled to use Transient Climate Response, TCR, values in their policy making decisions; however, as indicated in the first attached image ECS is about 50% higher than TCR; while the linked 2015 PennState article entitled: "Earth System Sensitivity"; indicates that ESS is about 50% higher than ECS (see the second attached image).  Thus if TCR is at the high end of its estimated range, and as climate sensitivity is logarithmic with time, we could well see a lot higher effective climate response this century than most decision makers are expecting:

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/219 (https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/219)

Extract: "Studies using climate models that incorporate these slow feedbacks find that the Earth System sensitivity is indeed substantially greater than the nominal Charney sensitivity, roughly 50% higher."

Caption for the second image: "Figure 8.12: Equilibrium warming as a function of CO2 concentration assuming a Charney sensitivity range of 3°C +/-1.5°C (lower curve=1.5°C, middle curve=3.0°C, upper curve=4.5°C), compared with actual estimates of CO2 concentration and global mean temperature for past geological periods where CO2 levels appear to have been higher than today (black circles)."

Edit: I note that at the end of 2015 the equivalent carbon dioxide concentration value was 485ppm which is what counts when estimating temperature impacts; & I guess that this value was no less than 489ppm at the end of 2016.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 15, 2017, 05:45:21 PM
The linked article is entitled: "The New World Order: Failing States and Collapsing Systems", and it indicates that our systemic global inability to face the various truths of our rapidly changing world condition is accelerating the formation of failed states (e. g.: Syria, Nigeria, etc.) and collapsing global socio-economic systems (e. g.: the spread of alt-right populism with a focus on intensifying conflicts).  This inability to face hard truths is an example of human mental illness (e. g.: addictions and aversions).

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2017/04/14/Failing-States-Collapsing-Systems/

Extract: "When oil prices were low, human economies gobbled oil and expanded like clownish balloons, but whenever prices rose and oil demand slackened, the economy shrank.
But the see-saw has ended and the economy is now having trouble digesting a new diet: unconventional fuels and in some cases, renewables, all delivering diminished returns and funded by easy credit and wild debt.

As Ahmed notes, global oil and gas production once offered God-like energy returns of 100 to one. For every barrel spent finding and extracting oil, society secured a hefty surplus or what the ecologist Charles Hall famously described as “EROI”: energy return on investment. Unprecedented net returns fueled the unnatural scale of economic growth for 100 years.
But those bountiful energy returns are now falling off a cliff. Today, net energy returns average around 15 to one. Once returns drops below 10 per barrel of energy expended, fossil fuels can’t generate enough surpluses to pay for the arts, government and society as we know it, let alone a transition to renewable energy.

As the quality of fuels decline, the global economy, a highly engineered tree fertilized by cheap oil, has registered the change as “economic stagnation” and stopped growing. 

This energy descent is taking place just as the globe’s fossil fuel economy has transgressed several biophysical limits to growth, including climate change, the decimation of wild creatures and the alteration of the world’s nitrogen cycles from fertilizer abuse.
Climate change is now undoing economies and shifting populations. Heat waves and drought propelled by disruptive carbon emissions could put a third of the world’s population at risk of starving by 2050. The more we disrupt earth systems, warns Ahmed, the more we destabilize human systems.

So Trump and anti-Muslim rhetoric is what happens when you ignore a qualitative change in energy resources and a decline in the Earth’s resources.
Meanwhile the mainstream media prefers to focus on chaos and terrorism, and ignore the many-headed hydra quietly engineering these spectacles.
“Human systems — social, political, geopolitical, cultural, and so on — are becoming destabilized in the context of escalating Earth System Disruption driven by dependence on fossil fuels,” writes Ahmed."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: gerontocrat on April 15, 2017, 07:10:03 PM
Is it not a surprise that a thread on Human Stupidity has only got to Page 5 ?
Title: Re: Human Stupidity
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 15, 2017, 09:02:48 PM
Is it not a surprise that a thread on Human Stupidity has only got to Page 5 ?

What some consider to be a cup half empty, is a cup half full to others.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: prokaryotes on April 15, 2017, 11:02:40 PM
When it is human stupidity that has caused climate change, why do so many think that humans will be able to avoid exceeding the 2C target?
Humans have not caused climate change per se, more like unknowingly - at least to some degree. Something every evolving species on a habitable planet in the Universe encounters, burning fossil fuels at one point.

Then the fact that our Society is primarily driven by decisions made at the top, via elected officials, or people who influence power over them. We are well aware of climate change and that it means problems since at least the 80s, theoretically enough time to act. But it seems that we as individuals for the most part are too busy with everyday life, our work, with newly obtained technologies in the information age, to understand the gravity of what future temperature rise entails.

So on the one side you have the concerned educated guy who understands the science, or at least is cautious enough about the looming fundamental changes, and on the other side the influencers who make the rules. And in some progressive countries this seems to work actually, for example Denmark or Scotland with their 100% renewable energy generation targets. Germany also has a great commitment to solar and wind power, but most cars on the street are still spewing fossil fuel exhaust, and coal power plants are still running.

To better understand our actions we can go back into the past and see many civilizations failed before us, even today as we speak many nations have collapsed or are on the bring to it, because of war, or economic mismanagement, sometimes enhanced by climatic factors, a trend very likely to become more pronounced, hence more strain for weaker nations in the years ahead.

Recently, i came across the theory that our overly optimistic attitude toward the future, the idea that everything will be better, is partially responsible for the situation today, or the lack of actions taken today. While i long regarded myself as an optimist, i think to be more of a pessimist now, or maybe just a pragmatic realist.

If we can draw any conclusion from the past, at large, simplified, then it almost seems as if our species unknowingly only learns from collapse.
 
Joseph Tainter talks Energy, Collapse, and Society (2015)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KeY1dIPi8k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KeY1dIPi8k)

Walter Scheidel on Society, Collapse and Equality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ0_oj_V64Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ0_oj_V64Q)

However, if you want big change, sometimes it is good if you have exactly the opposite direction taken, which apparently will make more and more people uncomfortable. And then the overly optimistic attitude that human imagination, research and inventions will somehow come up at a later time with a fix. Happened quite often actually, but first all other options were exhausted. But those problems are very small in comparison to altering the chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans. The question is, will it be too late by then to avert more serious harm, harm on an extinction level, for our and the other species on the planet.

Basically large scale catastrophes are required to change the behavior of our species at large, but the catastrophes which come with a much warmer world have the power to destroy our civilization. And then factor into that equation the nuclear power capabilities of many nations. A 2 degree and beyond world, disrupted by climate chaos makes people even more trigger happy.  This means that there will likely be an exponential rise of various sorts of catastrophes (Flooded coastlines, flooded agricultural land, flooded power plants, flooded dumb sites, heatwaves overwhelming the energy grid, food shortages, plagues, diseases,  financial loses because beach property becomes worthless, contamination of the water and food chain related to flooding, precipitation events damaging infrastructure, properties, the toll on the psyche of individuals affected, warmer temperatures result in more violent tendencies, and so on)

No, i do not think that we will avoid 2 degree temperature rise, because i have yet to see an emission chart and the required actions to make this miracle happen.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: prokaryotes on April 15, 2017, 11:15:27 PM
Since the topic title includes Human Mental Illness, which seems a bit off-topic, you might find this read interesting.

Neanderthal genes' effects on gene expression likely contribute to traits such as height and susceptibility to schizophrenia or lupus, the researchers found.
"Even 50,000 years after the last human-Neanderthal mating, we can still see measurable impacts on gene expression," says geneticist and study co-author Joshua Akey of the University of Washington School of Medicine. "And those variations in gene expression contribute to human phenotypic variation and disease susceptibility."


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-02-neanderthal-dna-contributes-human-gene.html#jCp
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 16, 2017, 12:04:01 AM
Since the topic title includes Human Mental Illness, which seems a bit off-topic, you might find this read interesting.

The main point of adjusting the topic title is that aside from a very small amount of uncertainty, decision makers are fully aware that our combined societal behavior will likely lead to climate catastrophe; which is an example of our stupid collective  behavior due to the mental illness of the decision makers (you can decide for yourself whether you are a decision maker or not) which make them unable to control such stupid behavior.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: prokaryotes on April 16, 2017, 12:15:12 AM
..decision makers are fully aware that our combined societal behavior will likely lead to climate catastrophe; which is an example of our stupid collective  behavior due to the mental illness of the decision makers

“One does not play games, or take chances, when essentially the whole of civilization and humanity MAY be in peril.”
http://climatestate.com/2013/05/03/false-climate-change-data-a-crime-against-humanity-ecocide/ (http://climatestate.com/2013/05/03/false-climate-change-data-a-crime-against-humanity-ecocide/)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 16, 2017, 12:57:20 AM
I provide the following quote from the linked Wikipedia article entitled: "Prisoner's dilemma" (see also the attached quotes from the movie The Matrix), that indicates that in 'wicked problems' like climate change, uncertainty makes it much less likely that we will avoid climate catastrophe than for cases follow clear rules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

Extract: "In environmental studies, the PD is evident in crises such as global climate-change. It is argued all countries will benefit from a stable climate, but any single country is often hesitant to curb CO2 emissions. The immediate benefit to any one country from maintaining current behavior is wrongly perceived to be greater than the purported eventual benefit to that country if all countries' behavior was changed, therefore explaining the impasse concerning climate-change in 2007.

An important difference between climate-change politics and the prisoner's dilemma is uncertainty; the extent and pace at which pollution can change climate is not known. The dilemma faced by government is therefore different from the prisoner's dilemma in that the payoffs of cooperation are unknown. This difference suggests that states will cooperate much less than in a real iterated prisoner's dilemma, so that the probability of avoiding a possible climate catastrophe is much smaller than that suggested by a game-theoretical analysis of the situation using a real iterated prisoner's dilemma.

Osang and Nandy provide a theoretical explanation with proofs for a regulation-driven win-win situation along the lines of Michael Porter's hypothesis, in which government regulation of competing firms is substantial."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 16, 2017, 01:01:22 AM
One line of deductive logic that we are all headed for climate catastrophe, sooner rather than later, is as follows:

- I believe that as soon as Hansen's ice-climate positive feedback mechanism kicks in for real (i.e. when the Byrd Subglacial Basin, in West Antarctica collapses), the associated multi-decadal surge in planetary energy imbalance will push the Arctic Sea Ice over a tipping point.

- DeConto & Polland 2016 have indicated that the WAIS will begin to rapidly collapse before GMSTA reaches 2.7C (due to hydrofracturing & cliff failures of the marine glaciers), and the first image shows the timeframe assuming ECS = 3C.

- However, I believe that ECS = 4.5C which corresponds to the upper curve in the second attached image showing final GMSTA vs the equivalent atmospheric CO2 concentrations & by the end of 2017 I expect us to reach a CO2 eq. level of about 500 ppm which corresponds to a final (circa 2100) GMSTA of about 4C.

- However, as ECS responds logarithmically about two thirds of the final GMSTA will occur within 10-years.  This indicates that GMSTA may likely reach 2.7C by about 2028 (if ECS =4.5), and assuming that it takes about 15 years for Hansen's ice-climate mechanism to kick in give an approximate date of 2043 for the Last September above 1 million sq km of Arctic Sea Ice extent.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 16, 2017, 01:14:56 AM
The linked article is entitled: "Climate Catastrophe Is Here: 2016 Hottest Year on Record", and it (& the associated video) indicates that Michael Mann believes that we will first see a minimum Arctic Sea Ice Extent of less than 1 million sq km sometime in the next one to two decades:

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=18751 (http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=18751)

Extract: "… we are on a trajectory where we will probably see an ice--free Arctic Ocean within a decade or two."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 16, 2017, 01:27:17 AM
For those who do not believe that the WAIS can collapse abruptly in conditions comparable to today's climatic conditions I note that during the Eemian Peak the global mean surface temperatures were similar to today and:

The first figure is from Muhs et al 2012, & shows that for California sea-level rapidly increased to just over 6m above today's sea level at the Eemian Peak (MIS 5.5, circa 120 kya) and then was flat for a long prior.

The second attached figure is from O'Leary et al (2013) and shows an abrupt contributions to SLR (circa 119kya)

During this +/- 120 kya period the WAIS was the only existing marine ice sheet that could have possibly collapsed (as demonstrated by Pollard & DeConto).
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 16, 2017, 01:31:14 AM
I selected the following 28 references [not including either von der Heydt et. al. 2016 nor Friedrich et al (2016)] that either directly, or indirectly, indicate that climate sensitivity is most likely significantly higher than the range summarized by AR5:

1. The linked reference analyses the CMIP3&5 results to conclude the ECS is likely 3.9C +/- 0.45C:

Chengxing Zhai, Jonathan H. Jiang & Hui Su (2015), "Long-term cloud change imprinted in seasonal cloud variation: More evidence of high climate sensitivity", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2015GL065911


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065911/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065911/full)

2. The linked reference provides findings from CMIP5 of the continued poleward expansion of the Hadley Cell with continued global warming; which in-turn supports the idea that ECS is greater than 3C:

Lijun Tao, Yongyun Hu & Jiping Liu (May 2016), "Anthropogenic forcing on the Hadley circulation in CMIP5 simulations", Climate Dynamics, Volume 46, Issue 9, pp 3337-3350 DOI: 10.1007/s00382-015-2772-1

http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-015-2772-1 (http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-015-2772-1)

3. The linked reference presents new paleo evidence about the Eocene.  While the authors emphasize that their findings support the IPCC interpretation for climate sensitivity, when looking at the attached Fig 4 panel f, it appears to me that this is only the case if one averages ECS over the entire Eocene; while if one focuses on the Early Eocene Climate Optimum (EECO) which CO₂ levels were higher than in current modern times, it appear that ECS was higher (around 4C) than the IPCC AR5 assumes (considering that we are increasing CO2 concentrations faster now that during the EECO this gives me concern rather than reassurance).

Eleni Anagnostou, Eleanor H. John, Kirsty M. Edgar, Gavin L. Foster, Andy Ridgwell, Gordon N. Inglis, Richard D. Pancost, Daniel J. Lunt & Paul N. Pearson (2016), "Changing atmospheric CO2 concentration was the primary driver of early Cenozoic climate", Nature, doi:10.1038/nature17423


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature17423.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature17423.html)

4. Tan et al (2016) indicates that ECS may well be between 5.0 and 5.3C.

Ivy Tan, Trude Storelvmo & Mark D. Zelinka (08 Apr 2016), "Observational constraints on mixed-phase clouds imply higher climate sensitivity", Science, Vol. 352, Issue 6282, pp. 224-227, DOI: 10.1126/science.aad5300


http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6282/224 (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6282/224)

5. According to the IPCC AR5 report: "The transient climate response is likely in the range of 1.0°C to 2.5°C (high confidence) and extremely unlikely greater than 3°C"; however, the linked reference uses only observed data to indicate that TCR is 2.0 +/- 0.8C.  Thus AR5 has once again erred on the side of least drama.


T. Storelvmo, T. Leirvik, U. Lohmann, P. C. B. Phillips & M. Wild (2016), "Disentangling greenhouse warming and aerosol cooling to reveal Earth’s climate sensitivity", Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo2670


http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2670.html (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2670.html)

6. The linked reference reassesses ECS from CMIP3 &5 and find an ensemble-mean of 3.9C, and I note that CMIP3&5 likely err on the side of least drama as they ignore several important non-linear slow feedbacks that could be accelerated by global warming:

Chengxing Zhai, Jonathan H. Jiang, Hui Su (2015), "Long-term cloud change imprinted in seasonal cloud variation: More evidence of high climate sensitivity", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2015GL065911

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065911/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065911/full)

7. The linked reference could not make it more clear that paleo-evidence from inter-glacial periods indicates that ECS is meaningfully higher than 3C and that climate models are commonly under predicting the magnitude of coming climate change.

Dana L. Royer (2016), "Climate Sensitivity in the Geologic Past", Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Vol. 44


http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-earth-100815-024150?src=recsys (http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-earth-100815-024150?src=recsys)

8. Thompson indicates that ECS has a 95%CL range of from 3C to 6.3C, with a best estimate of 4C, and Sherwood (2014) has a higher value still:

Climate sensitivity by Roy Thompson published by Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, DOI: 10.1017/S1755691015000213

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=10061758&fileId=S1755691015000213 (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=10061758&fileId=S1755691015000213)


9. Tian (2015) indicates that the double-ITCZ bias constrains ECS to its high end (around 4.0C):

Tian, B. (2015), "Spread of model climate sensitivity linked to double-Intertropical Convergence Zone bias", Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, doi:10.1002/2015GL064119.


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064119/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064119/abstract)

10. Sherwood et al (2014), which found that ECS cannot be less than 3C, and is likely currently in the 4.1C range.  Also, everyone should remember that the effective ECS is not a constant, and models project that following a BAU pathway will result in the effective ECS increasing this century:


Sherwood, S.C., Bony, S. and Dufresne, J.-L., (2014) "Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing", Nature; Volume: 505, pp 37–42, doi:10.1038/nature12829

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html)

11. The linked reference studies numerous climate models and finds that: "… those that simulate the present-day climate best even point to a best estimate of ECS in the range of 3–4.5°C."
Reto Knutti, Maria A. A. Rugenstein (2015), "Feedbacks, climate sensitivity and the limits of linear models", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2015.0146

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2054/20150146 (http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2054/20150146)

12.  The linked reference indicates that the cloud feedback from tropical land is robustly positive.  As AR5 did not know whether this contribution to climate sensitivity was positive or negative, this clearly indicates that AR5 errs on the side of least drama with regard to both TCR & ECS:

Youichi Kamae, Tomoo Ogura, Masahiro Watanabe, Shang-Ping Xie and Hiroaki Ueda (8 March 2016), "Robust cloud feedback over tropical land in a warming climate", Atmospheres, DOI: 10.1002/2015JD024525

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JD024525/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JD024525/abstract)

13.  Graeme L. Stephens, Brian H. Kahn and Mark Richardson (5 May, 2016), "The Super Greenhouse effect in a changing climate", Journal of Climate, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0234.1 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0234.1)


http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0234.1 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0234.1)

14. The linked reference assumes different degrees of nonlinearity for climate feedback mechanisms and concludes that such nonlinearity for positive feedback represents a Black Swan risk that linear climate models cannot recognize:

Jonah Bloch-Johnson, Raymond T. Pierrehumbert & Dorian S. Abbot (24 June 2015), "Feedback temperature dependence determines the risk of high warming", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2015GL064240

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064240/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064240/full)


15.  While the linked (open access) reference has many appropriate qualifying statements and disclaimers, it notes that the AR5 paleo estimates of ECS were linear approximations that change when non-linear issues are considered.  In particular the find for the specific ECS, S[CO2,LI], during the Pleistocence (ie the most recent 2 million years) that:
"During Pleistocene intermediate glaciated climates and interglacial periods, S[CO2,LI] is on average ~ 45 % larger than during Pleistocene full glacial conditions."

Therefore, researchers such as James Hansen who relied on paleo findings that during recent full glacial periods ECS was about 3.0C, did not know that during interglacial periods this value would be 45% larger, or 4.35C.

Köhler, P., de Boer, B., von der Heydt, A. S., Stap, L. B., and van de Wal, R. S. W. (2015), "On the state dependency of the equilibrium climate sensitivity during the last 5 million years", Clim. Past, 11, 1801-1823, doi:10.5194/cp-11-1801-2015.


http://www.clim-past.net/11/1801/2015/cp-11-1801-2015.html (http://www.clim-past.net/11/1801/2015/cp-11-1801-2015.html)
http://www.clim-past.net/11/1801/2015/cp-11-1801-2015.pdf (http://www.clim-past.net/11/1801/2015/cp-11-1801-2015.pdf)

16.  The linked reference implies that climate sensitivity (ESS) could be much higher than previously assumed:

Jagniecki,Elliot A. et al. (2015), "Eocene atmospheric CO2from the nahcolite proxy", Geology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/G36886.1 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/G36886.1)


http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2015/10/23/G36886.1 (http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2015/10/23/G36886.1)

17.  The linked open access reference identifies three constraints on low cloud formation that suggest that cloud feedback is more positive than previously thought.  If verified this would mean that both TCR and ECS (and ESS) are larger than previously thought:

Stephen A. Klein and Alex Hall (26 October 2015), "Emergent Constraints for Cloud Feedbacks", Climate Feedbacks (M Zelinka, Section Editor), Current Climate Change Reports, pp 1-12, DOI 10.1007/s40641-015-0027-1

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40641-015-0027-1 (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40641-015-0027-1)

18.  The linked article indicates that values of TCR based on observed climate change are likely underestimated:

J. M. Gregory, T. Andrews and P. Good (5 October 2015), "The inconstancy of the transient climate response parameter under increasing CO₂", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2014.0417


http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2054/20140417 (http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2054/20140417)

19.  The linked reference indicates that most current climate models underestimate climate sensitivity:

J. T. Fasullo, B. M. Sanderson & K. E. Trenberth (2015), "Recent Progress in Constraining Climate Sensitivity With Model Ensembles", Current Climate Change Reports, Volume 1, Issue 4, pp 268-275, DOI 10.1007/s40641-015-0021-7

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40641-015-0021-7?wt_mc=email.event.1.SEM.ArticleAuthorOnlineFirst (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40641-015-0021-7?wt_mc=email.event.1.SEM.ArticleAuthorOnlineFirst)

20.  The linked reference indicates that studies that assuming linearity of climate sensitivity likely underestimate the risk of high warming.

Jonah Bloch-Johnson, Raymond T. Pierrehumbert and Dorian S. Abbot (June 2015), "Feedback temperature dependence determines the risk of high warming", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2015GL064240

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064240/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064240/abstract)

21. The linked reference indicates that new research (from PlioMIP2) demonstrates that the climate sensitivity for the Pliocene was higher than previously believed (from PlioMIP1):

Kamae, Y., Yoshida, K., and Ueda, H.: Sensitivity of Pliocene climate simulations in MRI-CGCM2.3 to respective boundary conditions, Clim. Past, 12, 1619-1634, doi:10.5194/cp-12-1619-2016, 2016.

http://www.clim-past.net/12/1619/2016/ (http://www.clim-past.net/12/1619/2016/)

http://www.clim-past.net/12/1619/2016/cp-12-1619-2016.pdf (http://www.clim-past.net/12/1619/2016/cp-12-1619-2016.pdf)


22. The linked reference indicates that corrected recent observations indicate that the most likely value of ECS may be as high as 4.6C (see attached plot of the time dependent curve):

Kyle C. Armour  (27 June 2016), "Projection and prediction: Climate sensitivity on the rise", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate3079

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3079.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3079.html)

23. The linked reference indicates that the climate responses (climate sensitivities) projected by advanced climate models generally match observations when apple to apple comparisons are made.  This is a useful finding as advanced climate models generally indicate that climate sensitivity values are towards the high end of the IPCC climate sensitivity range:

Mark Richardson, Kevin Cowtan, Ed Hawkins & Martin B. Stolpe (2016), "Reconciled climate response estimates from climate models and the energy budget of Earth", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate3066

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3066.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3066.html)

24. The linked reference discusses paleodata to indicate that climate sensitivity increased from 3.3 - 5.6 (mean of 4.45k) at the beginning of the PETM up to 3.7 - 6.5 K (mean of 5.1K) near the peak of the PETM; and that if we burn only the easily accessible carbon reserves then GMST could increase by about 10C.  I note these climate sensitivity values are much higher than those inherent in the CMIP5 projections:

Gary Shaffer, Matthew Huber, Roberto Rondanelli & Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen (23 June 2016), "Deep-time evidence for climate sensitivity increase with warming", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2016GL069243

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL069243/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL069243/full)


25. The linked Reuters article notes that NASA reported that a new satellite-based method have located 39 unreported sources of anthropogenic emissions that, when accounted for, increase our previously estimated amount of sulfur dioxide by about 12 percent of all such anthropogenic emissions from 2005 to 2014.  This indicates that the CMIP5 projections also underestimated the impact of this negative forcing source; which raises the prospect that climate sensitivity (ECS) is likely higher than the CMIP5 models indicate, and the linked Zhai et al (2015) reference analyses of the CMIP3&5 results conclude that the ECS is likely 3.9C +/- 0.45C:

Chengxing Zhai, Jonathan H. Jiang & Hui Su (2015), "Long-term cloud change imprinted in seasonal cloud variation: More evidence of high climate sensitivity", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2015GL065911

http://in.reuters.com/article/us-nasa-pollution-idINKCN0YO1PW (http://in.reuters.com/article/us-nasa-pollution-idINKCN0YO1PW)

26. The linked reference uses an information-theoretic weighting of climate models by how well they reproduce the satellite measured deseasonlized covariance of shortwave cloud reflection, indicates a most likely value of ECS of 4.0C; which indicates that AR5 errs on the side of least drama:

Florent Brient & Tapio Schneider (2016), "Constraints on climate sensitivity from space-based measurements of low-cloud reflection", Journal of Climate, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0897.1 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0897.1)


http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0897.1 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0897.1)


27. The linked article indicates that the contribution of sea-ice loss to Arctic Amplification is regulated by the PDO and that in positive PDO phases (like we are in now) there should be less Arctic Amplification.  Thus the fact that we are currently experiencing high Arctic Amplification during a period of highly positive PDO values gives cause for concern that climate sensitivity may be higher than considered by AR5:

James A. Screen & Jennifer A. Francis (2016), "Contribution of sea-ice loss to Arctic amplification is regulated by Pacific Ocean decadal variability", Nature Climate Change, DOI: 10.1038/nclimate3011


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3011.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3011.html)


28. The linked reference uses an information-theoretic weighting of climate models by how well they reproduce the satellite measured deseasonlized covariance of shortwave cloud reflection, indicates a most likely value of ECS of 4.0C.  As this satellite data is certainly biased by the recent acceleration of natural aerosol emissions associated with the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration, the actually ECS is likely higher than 4.0C, as will become apparent if climate change reduces future plant activity.  Unfortunately, the envisioned upgrades to the Paris Pact do not have any contingency for addressing such high values (4 to 4.5C) of ECS (including accelerting NET):

Florent Brient & Tapio Schneider (2016), "Constraints on climate sensitivity from space-based measurements of low-cloud reflection", Journal of Climate, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0897.1 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0897.1)


http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0897.1 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0897.1)

And for those who do not like to read, I provide the two attached images of high equilibrium climate sensitivity, with the first based on paleo data, and the second based on modern observations.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 16, 2017, 11:52:14 AM
While I am on-a-roll:
First, the linked reference (with an open access pdf) presents a 2015 observation-based model findings of permafrost carbon fluxes when accounting for deep carbon deposits and thermokarst activity.  What I find to be particularly disturbing is the pulse of CH4 emissions circa 2050 from thermokarst lakes (TKLs) under RCP8.5, as indicated in the first attached image.  I find this thermokarst lake CH4 emissions disturbing because the researchers' 2015 RCP 8.5 run did not consider the increase in Arctic rainfall that will occur as the sea ice extent retreats; thus the 2050 date likely errs (considerably) on the side of least drama:

Schneider von Deimling, T., Grosse, G., Strauss, J., Schirrmeister, L., Morgenstern, A., Schaphoff, S., Meinshausen, M., and Boike, J.: Observation-based modelling of permafrost carbon fluxes with accounting for deep carbon deposits and thermokarst activity, Biogeosciences, 12, 3469-3488, doi:10.5194/bg-12-3469-2015, 2015.

http://www.biogeosciences.net/12/3469/2015/bg-12-3469-2015.html (http://www.biogeosciences.net/12/3469/2015/bg-12-3469-2015.html)

Second, the second attached image focuses on the observed Arctic Amplification thru 2012; however, the figure also shows warming at both 30N and 30S particularly; which is a clear indication of the deep atmospheric convective mixing the in the Equatorial Pacific as discussed by Sherwood et al (2014), which found that ECS cannot be less than 3C, and is likely currently in the 4.1C range.  Also, everyone should remember that the effective ECS is not a constant, and models project that following a BAU pathway will result in the effective ECS increasing this century:

Sherwood, S.C., Bony, S. and Dufresne, J.-L., (2014) "Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing", Nature; Volume: 505, pp 37–42, doi:10.1038/nature12829

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html)

Lastly, the third attached image is from Andrew's 2015 Ringberg presentation that indicates that if the Eastern Tropical Pacific SSTA increases due to a global warming driven increase in El Nino-like behavior, then ECS could be as high a 5C (see the middle panel in the third image) by the end of this century.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 17, 2017, 07:58:02 PM
The linked reference indicates that the remaining carbon budget from 2015 may be as low as 590 GtCO2; and as CO₂-e emissions are around 50GtCO2 (which exceeds RCP 8.5 50%CL), it is easy to see that assuming ECS is 3C we could readily exceed the 2C limit by around 2030, or if ECS is 4C then we could exceed 2.7C by around 2032 to 2035, if we continue on our current BAU pathway for another 16 to 19 years. 
 
Joeri Rogelj, Michiel Schaeffer, Pierre Friedlingstein, Nathan P. Gillett, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Keywan Riahi, Myles Allen & Reto Knutti (2016) "Differences between carbon budget estimates unravelled", Nature Climate Change, Volume: 6, Pages: 245–252, doi:10.1038/nclimate2868

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2868.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2868.html)

However, I note that the estimate of exceeding 2.7C by 2032 to 2035, does consider lag-time after the carbon budget has been exceeded, but does not consider the risk of accelerating Arctic Amplification due the potential early seasonal loss of Arctic Sea Ice Extent, nor the fact that the GWP of methane is higher (see the attached image) than the authors of the reference assumed; so even considering aerosol impacts, it may be possible that GMSTA could reach 2.7C around 2028.

According to NOAA the CO₂ -equiv at the end of 2015 was 485 ppm; however, if one assumes that the GWP100 for methane is 35 instead of 25 (as assumed by NOAA), then NOAA's calculated value for the CO2-eq for 2015 would be 518ppm.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 19, 2017, 12:36:20 AM
The linked reference demonstrates for systems that can change abruptly, like Earth's climate (see the first attached image), why it is a bad idea for denialists to point at the large-noise in Earth's climate record to feel comfortable in the Holocene saddle-node that we have been resting in, as the second attached image shows that these large-noise fluctuations can kick us out of our comfortable saddle-node sooner, rather than later.

Corentin Herbert, and Freddy Bouchet (2017), "Predictability of escape for a stochastic saddle-node bifurcation: when rare events are typical", arXiv:1703.01450v1

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.01450.pdf

Abstract: "Transitions between multiple stable states of nonlinear systems are ubiquitous in physics, chemistry, and beyond. Two types of behaviors are usually seen as mutually exclusive: unpredictable noise-induced transitions and predictable bifurcations of the underlying vector field. Here, we report a new situation, corresponding to a fluctuating system approaching a bifurcation, where both effects collaborate. We show that the problem can be reduced to a single control parameter governing the competition between deterministic and stochastic effects. Two asymptotic regimes are identified: when the control parameter is small (e.g. small noise), deviations from the deterministic case are well described by the Freidlin-Wentzell theory. In particular, escapes over the potential barrier are very rare events. When the parameter is large (e.g. large noise), such events become typical. Unlike pure noise-induced transitions, the distribution of the escape time is peaked around a value which is asymptotically predicted by an adiabatic approximation. We show that the two regimes are characterized by qualitatively different reacting trajectories, with algebraic and exponential divergence, respectively."

Extract: "These results open new prospects for the analysis of time series exhibiting abrupt transitions such as those encountered in climate dynamics."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 19, 2017, 11:39:52 PM
The linked article is entitled: "SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills", and it (& the associated image) indicate that anthropogenic radiative forcing is occurring at a higher rate of change than the natural systems can adapt to; and as man is dependent on these natural systems, we are not behaving stupidly:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/SkS_Analogy_01_Speed_Kills.html (https://www.skepticalscience.com/SkS_Analogy_01_Speed_Kills.html)

Extract: "It is not only the CO2 concentration that is important, but the annual rate of increase of CO2 concentration, because the rate of increase determines the rate at which natural systems must adapt … or go extinct."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 19, 2017, 11:49:17 PM
The first linked article is entitled: "3M-year-old sediment tells the story of today's climate", and it discusses research about Lake El'gygytgyn, in Siberia, that began in 2009.  Even through the findings of this research has been available for years (see the last two linked references and the associated attached image), ESMs have not been able to replicate that amount of Arctic Amplification documented by the Lake El'gygytgyn physical evidence.  This implies that the climate sensitivity of current ESMs need to be increased to appropriate capture the climate change risks (including Hansen's ice-climate feedback mechanism due to 'freshwater hosing' that we are collectively exposing ourselves to.

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060053182 (https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060053182)

Extract: "One of the "most astounding things" in the sediment, she said, was evidence that ancient summer temperatures in the region had spiked by as much as 14 degrees Fahrenheit higher than today, not just once, but several times in the past.

There is no direct way to measure the atmosphere of this ancient time, but repeated estimates from leaf stomata, ocean fossil studies and other remnants now put its carbon dioxide content at around 400 parts per million — about where it is today, largely due to the sharp rise of CO2 and other greenhouse gases since the Industrial Revolution began, literally gaining steam in the 1850s.

According to Brigham-Grette, that means the Earth is much more sensitive to climate change now, and it is speeding up as the planet tries to reach equilibrium from the new injection of heat.

The findings of the science team at Lake El'gygytgyn were also very hard for experts who use computer-driven climate models to understand. They pride themselves on being able to predict the speed of climate change in the future and also in the past by use of a technique called "hindcasting."

In the case of the late Pliocene, though, the models missed the ice melting. Yet the data collected from drilling in the Arctic and more recently from the Antarctic suggest it happened not just once, but repeatedly at both poles.

James White, a paleoclimatologist and climate modeler at the University of Colorado, Boulder, said Brigham-Grette's study is "one of the more important paleoclimate studies of the last 10 years."

"The fact that we don't get the Pliocene is a concern," he explained, because over the years, the modelers and the data gatherers have helped each other perfect their understanding of climate change and how to improve the models.

"We're not in equilibrium now, not even close," he asserted, as the planet's oceans struggle to distribute the new influx of heat.

A new Japanese study, published in February written by scientists from a team exploring ice cores drilled in Antarctica, found that ocean warming currents carrying heat from the tropics have become more unstable in the North Atlantic because of colder fresh water dripping from the melting ice of glaciers in Greenland. The phenomenon is called "freshwater hosing," which also appears to have happened in the ancient past.

"There's this attitude of 'Well, we're Americans, and we're going to tough it out and help people rebuild along our coastlines,'" she said. "Well, that's sort of stupid, because we're putting people and infrastructure back in harm's way.""



Gregory A. De Wet, Isla S. Castañeda, Robert M. DeConto & Julie Brigham-Grette  (February 2016), “A high-resolution mid-Pleistocene temperature record from Arctic Lake El'gygytgyn: A 50 kyr super interglacial from MIS 33 to MIS 31?”Earth and Planetary Science Letters 436:56-63 DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2015.12.021 

http://blogs.umass.edu/biogeochem/files/2016/01/de-Wet-et-al.-2016.pdf (http://blogs.umass.edu/biogeochem/files/2016/01/de-Wet-et-al.-2016.pdf)

&

Coletti, A. J., DeConto, R. M., Brigham-Grette, J., and Melles, M.: A GCM comparison of Pleistocene super-interglacial periods in relation to Lake El'gygytgyn, NE Arctic Russia, Clim. Past, 11, 979-989, doi:10.5194/cp-11-979-2015, 2015.

http://www.clim-past.net/11/979/2015/cp-11-979-2015.pdf (http://www.clim-past.net/11/979/2015/cp-11-979-2015.pdf)
http://www.clim-past.net/11/979/2015/cp-11-979-2015.html (http://www.clim-past.net/11/979/2015/cp-11-979-2015.html)


Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 20, 2017, 12:15:04 AM
The linked reference demonstrates for systems that can change abruptly, like Earth's climate (see the first attached image), why it is a bad idea for denialists to point at the large-noise in Earth's climate record to feel comfortable in the Holocene saddle-node that we have been resting in, as the second attached image shows that these large-noise fluctuations can kick us out of our comfortable saddle-node sooner, rather than later.

Corentin Herbert, and Freddy Bouchet (2017), "Predictability of escape for a stochastic saddle-node bifurcation: when rare events are typical", arXiv:1703.01450v1

[url]https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.01450.pdf[/url] ([url]https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.01450.pdf[/url])



I note that the first attached image shows how the atmosphere can abruptly bifurcate from our current saddle-node into an equable atmospheric pattern; while the following reference (and the associated second attached image) indicate that such a bifurcation could occur as soon as the CO2-equiv concentration reaches about 680ppm.  I note that our current CO2-equiv well exceeds 520ppm.  Furthermore, if Hansen's ice-climate feedback due to the possible collapse of the WAIS were to occur in the next few decades then we might bifurcate into an equable climate pattern sooner rather than later (which would be stupid for us to allow to happen).

Jagniecki,Elliot A. et al. (2015), "Eocene atmospheric CO2from the nahcolite proxy", Geology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/G36886.1 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/G36886.1)


http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2015/10/23/G36886.1 (http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2015/10/23/G36886.1)

ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/reposit/2015/2015357.pdf (http://ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/reposit/2015/2015357.pdf)

Edit: For those who do not know, it is easier to flip the northern hemisphere into an equable pattern (than the southern hemisphere), which is exactly what a collapse of the WAIS would do, due to the bipolar seesaw effect.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: mati on April 20, 2017, 10:55:01 PM
@AbruptSLR

wow
the world in in for a shit load of hurt...
you have echoed all my concerns.

there is unfort only one solution to humanities blight on our planet
major pandemics.

i predict, in my humble way, pandemics that will drop the world population by
over 50%.  maybe even more.  it is starting now with the old diseases:  tubuculosis, syphillis, ghonorreah, cholera,

followed by failing states with massive over population creating massive wars (syria e.g.)

sigh
oh well
we must all keep on trying to build a better world
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 20, 2017, 11:10:42 PM
@AbruptSLR

wow
the world in in for a shit load of hurt...
you have echoed all my concerns.


To learn more about  large-noise events such as ice-climate feedback due to the collapse of a marine ice sheet (like the WAIS) please review my posts in:

1. The "Hansen et al paper: 3+ meters SLR by 2100" thread at:
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1327.0.html (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1327.0.html)

2. The "Potential Collapse Scenario for the WAIS" thread at:
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,31.0.html (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,31.0.html)

3. The "Conservative Scientists & its Consequences" thread at:
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1053.0.html (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1053.0.html)

While to see other discussions about existential risks see the "Anthropogenic Existential Risk" thread at:
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1307.0.html (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1307.0.html)



Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: prokaryotes on April 21, 2017, 01:57:48 PM
To learn more about  large-noise events such as ice-climate feedback due to the collapse of a marine ice sheet (like the WAIS) please review my posts
AbruptSLR, i currently plan a new video production where i want to summarize some of the most worrying research. Is it possible, can you summarize maybe what you think are the top 5 or top 10 findings in those regards? Or what you think should be communicated to a larger audience of laymen?
 Thank you.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 21, 2017, 07:53:33 PM
To learn more about  large-noise events such as ice-climate feedback due to the collapse of a marine ice sheet (like the WAIS) please review my posts

AbruptSLR, i currently plan a new video production where i want to summarize some of the most worrying research. Is it possible, can you summarize maybe what you think are the top 5 or top 10 findings in those regards? Or what you think should be communicated to a larger audience of laymen?
 Thank you.


prokaryotes,

As I am relatively busy, I will try to provide responses to your question in a series of posts; and I begin here by providing information related to the DeConto & Pollard's collective 2016 findings related to the implications of cliff failures and hydrofracting on marine glaciers.

The first linked refer indicates that to ensure that cliff failures and hydrofracturing (calving) of marine glaciers do not occur that the GMST departure above pre-industrial could be as low as 1C, but is not higher than 3C (and at the EGU conference DeConto said that the most likely range was between 2 and 2.7C, assuming the current consensus climate sensitivity).

Robert DeConto and David Pollard (2016), "Commitments to future retreat of Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets",  EGU General Assembly, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 18, EGU2016-10930


http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2016/EGU2016-10930.pdf (http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2016/EGU2016-10930.pdf)

Abstract: "The agreement reached at the COP21 United Nations Conference on Climate Change is aimed at limiting future increases in global mean temperature below 2ºC. Here, we use a continental ice sheet/shelf model with new treatments of meltwater-enhanced calving (hydrofracturing) and marine terminating ice-cliffs, to explore future commitments to sea-level rise given limits of global mean warming between 1 and 3ºC. In this case, ice-sheet model physics are calibrated against past ice-sheet response to temperatures warmer than today. The ice-sheet model is coupled to highly resolved atmosphere and ocean-model components, with imposed limits on future warming designed to mimic the idealized limits discussed at COP21. Both the short and long-term potential rise in global mean sea level are discussed in light of the range of allowances agreed in Paris. We also explore the sensitivity of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to plausible ranges of atmospheric versus ocean warming consistent with global mean temperatures between 1 and 3ºC; and the resulting long-term commitments to sea-level rise over the coming centuries and millennia."

Also see:

"At an EGU press conference DeConto said this work implied tipping points for major sea level rise occur between 2 and 2.7C above pre-industrial.

http://client.cntv.at/egu2016/press-conference-8 (http://client.cntv.at/egu2016/press-conference-8) (DeConto starts about 22:10) "

While the entire video is worth watching I provide the four attached screenshots from the video.  The first two images are from the second (MIT EGU) speaker with:
(a) The first image showing the impact of the faux hiatus on both effective ECS (top panel) and effective oceanic diffusion (bottom panel), and the blue lines showing PDF values using observations until 2000 and the black lines showing PDF values using observations until 2010 (including part of the faux hiatus).  Further the lower panel clearly indicates that the faux hiatus (in GMST departures) was due to more heat content temporarily being sequestered into the oceans during the faux hiatus (some of which heat is now being released from the oceans).  Thus I believe that the blue line climate parameter distributions (with observations to 2000) is more "Realistic" (and indicates a mean ECS value of about 4C) and the black line climate parameter distributions is more "Pollyannaish" (and is best ignored).
(b) The second image shows the implications of both MIT's more "Realistic" climate parameters (left panel, which is good to consider) and "Pollyannaish" climate parameters (right panel, which is best ignored) for different carbon emission scenarios described in the video but with the current Paris pledges indicated by the red lines for which the more "Realistic" climate parameters indicate that we will reach 2C by about 2050 and 2.7C by about 2060.
The last two images are from the DeConto & Pollard EGU presentation with:
(c) The third image showing different carbon concentration pathways with the upper left panel showing the RCP scenarios used by DeConto & Pollard (2016) for their SLR projections; and the bottom left panel showing three new pathways postulated by DeConto where we follow the RCP 8.5 50%CL scenario until we reach 2C (by about 2040), 2.7C (by about 2065) and 3.6C (by about 2090), respectively for the blue, green and red lines.
(d) The fourth image shows DeConto & Pollard's (2016 EGU) projections of Antarctic contributions to changes in global mean sea level, GMSL, by the 2C (blue line), 2.7C (green line) and 3.6C (red line) forcing scenarios.  I believe that DeConto & Pollard's 2C scenario is not achievable in the real world (as confirmed by the second attached MIT analysis), and that by 2100 the 2.7C and the 3.6C forcing scenario produce essentially the same amount of increase in GMSL.  Taken together with the more "Realistic" MIT analysis the DeConto & Pollard (2016 EGU) findings indicate it likely that the WAIS collapse will begin about 2050 following the current Paris Pact pledges (and also ignoring the increase in carbon emissions associated with increasing agricultural growth).

Also I note that the indicated DeConto & Pollard (2016) findings do not include considerations that I plan to address in subsequent posts such as Hansen et al (2016)'s ice-climate feedback, nor the current positive PDO phase, nor higher ECS values, nor the activation/acceleration of non-linear positive feedback mechanisms and thus errs on the side of least drama.

Also see:
Robert M. DeConto & David Pollard (31 March 2016), "Contribution of Antarctica to past and future sea-level rise", Nature, Volume: 531, Pages: 591–597, doi:10.1038/nature17145

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature17145.epdf?referrer_access_token=px-zRubs4M6aBBPl42_1GdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M-pvJMg7VLINRa2mnTNsvXfjbAFNU4M9sSVFBNmnefzinIWT5DIW6fVmmjzqPkWPG0EWAexculA_Dh1H0gVAzIYAUjdsj8uznmBvFk8_blNOM5-opyiSaKMyaJis4af48A0kgec2kZ8QcJLEQ0CKHzo1BxzQZ7aHlC6ggm5qLKPX8C4yz0OZ4SKpsmFZlbgUA%3D&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com (http://www.nature.com/articles/nature17145.epdf?referrer_access_token=px-zRubs4M6aBBPl42_1GdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M-pvJMg7VLINRa2mnTNsvXfjbAFNU4M9sSVFBNmnefzinIWT5DIW6fVmmjzqPkWPG0EWAexculA_Dh1H0gVAzIYAUjdsj8uznmBvFk8_blNOM5-opyiSaKMyaJis4af48A0kgec2kZ8QcJLEQ0CKHzo1BxzQZ7aHlC6ggm5qLKPX8C4yz0OZ4SKpsmFZlbgUA%3D&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 21, 2017, 08:31:14 PM
prokaryotes,

In my last post I cited Hansen et. al. (2016)'s ice-climate feedback mechanism, and with my first two attached images both from Robert M. DeConto & David Pollard (Nature 31 March 2016), I note that the extended versions of the DeConto –Pollard (2016) analysis of the WAIS indicates that the ice-climate feedback (associated with freshwater hosing) will accelerate the collapse of the WAIS.

James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Paul Hearty, Reto Ruedy, Maxwell Kelley, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Gary Russell, George Tselioudis, Junji Cao, Eric Rignot, Isabella Velicogna, Blair Tormey, Bailey Donovan, Evgeniya Kandiano, Karina von Schuckmann, Pushker Kharecha, Allegra N. Legrande, Michael Bauer, and Kwok-Wai Lo (2016), "Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming could be dangerous", Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 3761-3812, doi:10.5194/acp-16-3761-2016

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.html (http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.html)

The green curve in panel (b) of the third attached image from Hansen et. al. (2016) shows that a collapse of the WAIS would contribute to a temporary planetary energy imbalance; which the fourth images (from Hansen & Sato 2012) indicates results in a temporary bump in the effective equilibrium climate sensitivity over the period of the ice-climate feedback mechanism.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 21, 2017, 08:41:44 PM
prokaryotes,

Next, with Hansen et al (2016)'s observation that ice sheet melting can temporarily reduce SSTA in the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic, it is important to consider parameters such a dynamical sensitivity and Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI).  The linked reference discusses the relationship of ECS and dynamical sensitivity of climate models.:

Kevin M. Grise & Lorenzo M. Polvani (28 April 2016), "Is climate sensitivity related to dynamical sensitivity?", Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, DOI: 10.1002/2015JD024687


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JD024687/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JD024687/abstract)

Abstract: "The atmospheric response to increasing CO2 concentrations is often described in terms of the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). Yet, the response to CO2 forcing in global climate models is not limited to an increase in global-mean surface temperature: for example, the mid-latitude jets shift poleward, the Hadley circulation expands, and the subtropical dry zones are altered. These changes, which are referred to here as “dynamical sensitivity,” may be more important in practice than the global-mean surface temperature.

This study examines to what degree the inter-model spread in the dynamical sensitivity of 23 CMIP5 models is captured by ECS. In the Southern Hemisphere, inter-model differences in the value of ECS explain ~60% of the inter-model variance in the annual-mean Hadley cell expansion, but just ~20% of the variance in the annual-mean mid-latitude jet response. In the Northern Hemisphere (NH), models with larger values of ECS significantly expand the Hadley circulation more during winter months, but contract the Hadley circulation more during summer months. Inter-model differences in ECS provide little significant information about the behavior of the Northern Hemisphere subtropical dry zones or mid-latitude jets.

The components of dynamical sensitivity correlated with ECS appear to be driven largely by increasing sea surface temperatures, whereas the components of dynamical sensitivity independent of ECS are related in part to changes in surface temperature gradients. These results suggest that efforts to narrow the spread in dynamical sensitivity across global climate models must also consider factors that are independent of global-mean surface temperature."

For anyone not aware of how the Hadley cell expansion effects the jet streams I attached an illustrative image.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 21, 2017, 08:54:22 PM
prokaryotes,

As my last post mentioned the dynamical sensitivity of climate models, I provide the following four references related to the calibration of such dynamical sensitivity of climate models using paleodata.

The first following linked reference (der Heydt et. al. 2016) concludes: "Such perturbations (illustrated in Fig. 1b,d) are not normally applied in climate models used for climate predictions [IPCC, 2013], where climate sensitivity is derived from model simulations considering prescribed, non-dynamic atmospheric CO2. In our conceptual model, we have derived climate sensitivities from both types of perturbations and find that the classical climate model approach (section 2.2, Fig. 4f) leads to significantly lower values of the climate sensitivity than the perturbations away from the attractor with dynamic CO2 (section 2.3, Fig. 11a). This emphasises the importance of including dynamic carbon cycle processes into climate prediction models. Moreover, it supports the idea that the real observed climate response may indeed be larger than the model predicted one, because those models never will include all feedback processes in the climate system.“

Anna S. von der Heydt, Peter Ashwin (Submitted on 12 Apr 2016), "State-dependence of climate sensitivity: attractor constraints and palaeoclimate regimes",    arXiv:1604.03311


http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03311 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03311)
&
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03311v1.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03311v1.pdf)

The second linked reference on the application of "dynamical systems theory" supports the position that the current effective ECS may be as high as 4.35C (but is masked both by lag times and by aerosol impacts):

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

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n5/full/nclimate2568.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n5/full/nclimate2568.html)


The third linked reference examines the state dependency of ECS using paledata from the past 5 millions years and similarly finds that the effective ECS is higher than more CMIP5 models assume.

Köhler, P., de Boer, B., von der Heydt, A. S., Stap, L. B., and van de Wal, R. S. W. (2015), "On the state dependency of the equilibrium climate sensitivity during the last 5 million years", Clim. Past, 11, 1801-1823, doi:10.5194/cp-11-1801-2015.


http://www.clim-past.net/11/1801/2015/cp-11-1801-2015.html (http://www.clim-past.net/11/1801/2015/cp-11-1801-2015.html)
http://www.clim-past.net/11/1801/2015/cp-11-1801-2015.pdf (http://www.clim-past.net/11/1801/2015/cp-11-1801-2015.pdf)


The fourth linked reference could not make it more clear that paleo-evidence from inter-glacial periods indicates that ECS is meaningfully higher than 3C and that climate models are commonly under predicting the magnitude of coming climate change.  Furthermore, these finding concur with those of Köhler et al (2015) which indicates that inter-glacial values for specific ECS was about 45% higher than during glacial periods.

Dana L. Royer (2016), "Climate Sensitivity in the Geologic Past", Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Vol. 44


http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-earth-100815-024150?src=recsys (http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-earth-100815-024150?src=recsys)


For those who do not understand dynamical sensitivity, I note that it is related to the influence of climate attractors (from chaos theory), which can capture energy from radiative forcing and progressively ratchet-up climate states (see the two attached images).
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 21, 2017, 11:36:48 PM
prokaryotes,

This brings us to the topic of how soon might we expect to reach the 2 to 3C GMSTA range cited by DeConto & Pollard (2016) for the WAIS to begin its main stage collapse.  In this regards, the first linked reference, Rogelj et.al. (2016), indicates that the remaining carbon budget from 2015 may be as low as 590 GtCO2; and as CO₂-e emissions are around 50GtCO2, it is easy to see that we could locked in to exceeding the 2C limit (sometime before 2100) if we continue BAU emissions thru 2030, assuming that ECS is close to 3C.  However, both my immediate prior post and the second linked reference, Sherwood et. al. (2014), find that ECS cannot be less than 3C, and is likely currently in the 4C to 4.5C range.  Per the third linked reference (and attached image), if we were to conservatively assume that the effective ECS is currently 4.0C then we passed the threshold to reach 3C GMSTA (circa 2100) when the CO₂-e was about 500ppm around the year 2010 [the current CO₂-e atmospheric concentration (with the GWP100 for methane assumed to be 35) is well over 520ppm, and climbing rapidly].

Joeri Rogelj, Michiel Schaeffer, Pierre Friedlingstein, Nathan P. Gillett, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Keywan Riahi, Myles Allen & Reto Knutti (2016) "Differences between carbon budget estimates unravelled", Nature Climate Change, Volume: 6, Pages: 245–252, doi:10.1038/nclimate2868

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2868.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2868.html)

Abstract: "Several methods exist to estimate the cumulative carbon emissions that would keep global warming to below a given temperature limit. Here we review estimates reported by the IPCC and the recent literature, and discuss the reasons underlying their differences. The most scientifically robust number — the carbon budget for CO2-induced warming only — is also the least relevant for real-world policy. Including all greenhouse gases and using methods based on scenarios that avoid instead of exceed a given temperature limit results in lower carbon budgets. For a >66% chance of limiting warming below the internationally agreed temperature limit of 2 °C relative to pre-industrial levels, the most appropriate carbon budget estimate is 590–1,240 GtCO2 from 2015 onwards. Variations within this range depend on the probability of staying below 2 °C and on end-of-century non-CO2 warming. Current CO2 emissions are about 40 GtCO2 yr−1, and global CO2 emissions thus have to be reduced urgently to keep within a 2 °C-compatible budget."


Sherwood, S.C., Bony, S. and Dufresne, J.-L., (2014) "Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing", Nature; Volume: 505, pp 37–42, doi:10.1038/nature12829

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html)


Zhou Tianjun, Xiaolong Chen, 2015: Uncertainty in the 2C Warming Threshold Related to Climate Sensitivity and Climate Feedback. J. Meteor. Res., 29(6), 884-895, doi: 10.1007/s13351- 015-5036-4

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13351-015-5036-4 (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13351-015-5036-4)
http://www.lasg.ac.cn/staff/ztj/group/files/201612292920438.pdf (http://www.lasg.ac.cn/staff/ztj/group/files/201612292920438.pdf)

Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: wili on April 21, 2017, 11:41:57 PM
ASLR and prok,

As a fly on the wall, I just wanted to say that I consider both of you to be giants in the field of collection and dissemination of info on CC, perhaps the most important activity any human can do at this point in the history of life on the planet.

Thanks for all your work, and nice to see you kinda collaborating here.

Best,
wili
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 21, 2017, 11:44:16 PM
prokaryotes,

For my 10th reference I provide Elliot A. et al. (2015), which I discussed in Reply #256, indicating that if we are not careful we might be locked into a Northern Hemisphere equable atmospheric pattern before the year 2100.


Jagniecki,Elliot A. et al. (2015), "Eocene atmospheric CO2from the nahcolite proxy", Geology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/G36886.1 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/G36886.1)


http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2015/10/23/G36886.1 (http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2015/10/23/G36886.1)

ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/reposit/2015/2015357.pdf (http://ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/reposit/2015/2015357.pdf)

Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 23, 2017, 12:51:55 AM
As I previously noted (see also Melles et. al. 2012) currently the best ESMs cannot match the climate response during MIS 11c (the Holsteinian Peak), where MIS 11 extents from 424,000 to 374,000 years ago (see the first two attached images).  This likely means that feedback mechanisms treated by current ESMs as noise may actual be important from a dynamical sensitivity point-of-view of such considerations as climatic state, climate attractors (such as PDO/AMO/ENSO interactions), and 'short-term' feedback mechanisms (such as the collapse of marine ice sheets and/or GHG emissions from permafrost, and/or methane hydrate, degradation).  In this regards, I note that the first image indicates that the annual precipitation (PANN) in NE Siberia was much higher during MIS 11c than during MIS 5e (Eemian Peak) or MIS 1 (Holocene).  This higher annual precipitation likely fell as rainfall during MIS 11c; which may have contributed to a pulse of methane emissions from thermokarst lakes as indicated by the third attached image (of projections of such possible emissions this century).  Thus, it would be stupid to ignore the potential impacts of such un-correctly modeled dynamical factors; and hopefully ACME will continue to be improved beyond 2017, when its approved budget runs out (i.e. hopefully the Trump Administration is not so stupid as to kill future funding for ACME).


Martin Melles, Julie Brigham-Grette, Pavel S. Minyuk, Norbert R. Nowaczyk, Volker Wennrich, Robert M. DeConto, Patricia M. Anderson, Andrei A. Andreev, Anthony Coletti, Timothy L. Cook, Eeva Haltia-Hovi, Maaret Kukkonen, Anatoli V. Lozhkin, Peter Rosén, Pavel Tarasov, Hendrik Vogel & Bernd Wagner (20 July 2012), "2.8 Million Years of Arctic Climate Change from Lake El’gygytgyn, NE Russia", Science, Vol. 337 no. 6092 pp. 315-320, DOI: 10.1126/science.1222135

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/337/6092/315 (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/337/6092/315)
&
https://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/papers2/Melles_Science2012.pdf (https://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/papers2/Melles_Science2012.pdf)


ABSTRACT: "The reliability of Arctic climate predictions is currently hampered by insufficient knowledge of natural climate variability in the past. A sediment core from Lake El’gygytgyn in northeastern (NE) Russia provides a continuous, high-resolution record from the Arctic, spanning the past 2.8 million years. This core reveals numerous “super interglacials” during the Quaternary; for marine benthic isotope stages (MIS) 11c and 31, maximum summer temperatures and annual precipitation values are ~4° to 5°C and ~300 millimeters higher than those of MIS 1 and 5e. Climate simulations show that these extreme warm conditions are difficult to explain with greenhouse gas and astronomical forcing alone, implying the importance of amplifying feedbacks and far field influences. The timing of Arctic warming relative to West Antarctic Ice Sheet retreats implies strong interhemispheric climate connectivity."


Captions for the first image: "Fig. 3. (A to H) (A) LR04 global marine isotope stack (12) and (B) mean July insolation for 67.5°N (13) for the past 2.8 My compared with (C) magnetostratigraphy, (D) facies, (E) magnetic susceptibility, (F) TOC contents, (G) Mn/Fe ratios, and (H) Si/Ti ratios in the sediment record from Lake El’gygytgyn (magnetic susceptibility and x-ray fluorescence data are smoothed using a 500-year weighted running mean to improve the signal-to-noise ratio). Super interglacials at Lake El’gygytgyn are highlighted with red bars. (I to L) Expanded views into the interglacials MIS 1, 5e, 11c, and 31 and adjoining glacials/ stadials. (I) Reconstructed MTWM and (J) PANN based on the pollen spectra and best modern analog approach [modern values from (56)]. (K) Mean July insolation for 67.5°N (13) compared with El’gygytgyn Si/Ti ratios, smoothed by five-point weighted running mean. (L) Tree and shrub pollen percentages compared with spruce pollen content. Simulated July surface air temperatures (red and green dots) at the location of the lake are shown for comparison. The location of the dots relative to the x axis corresponds with the GHG and orbital forcing used in each interglacial simulation (see supplementarymaterials). Simulated modern and preindustrial temperatures are close to observed values, so model temperatures are not corrected for bias. The green dot indicates the results derived with a deglaciated Greenland and increased heat flux under Arctic Ocean sea ice by 8Wm−2."  Where: PANN = annual precipitation and MTWM = the warmest month of the year (i.e. July).
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 23, 2017, 03:00:21 AM
My previous post in this thread, focused on possible previously unrecognized/unappreciated possible natural feedback pathways that could have amplified natural radiative forcing in order to better account for some of the large past high sea level events (focused on MIS 11c, the Holsteinian Peak). I concluded that post with a suggestion that methane emission feedback mechanisms (like thermokarst lakes and/or methane hydrates) may have played an important role.  In this regards, the first two images come from Isaksen et al. (2011) who used computer models to estimate methane's atmospheric burden.  Isaksen et al (2011) found (see the first image) that as the assumed emission rate increased the chemistry of the atmosphere would change, resulting in increased lifetime for methane, thus increasing the associated radiative forcing (see the second image).  The last two images show how during periods slightly warmer than current conditions, relatively warm seawater can enter the Arctic Ocean from the Atlantic, which, might result in methane emissions from marine methane hydrates in the seafloors of Arctic Ocean continental shelves.

Edit: Isaksen, I. S. A., Gauss M., Myhre, G., Walter Anthony, K. M.  and Ruppel, C.,  (2011), "Strong atmospheric chemistry feedback to climate warming from Arctic methane emissions", Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 25, GB2002, doi:10.1029/2010GB003845.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GB003845/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GB003845/abstract)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: prokaryotes on April 23, 2017, 02:23:27 PM
My previous post in this thread..

Thanks Abrupt, it will take some time to make a video with the suggested science. Will post it here when ready, cheers.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 23, 2017, 05:27:43 PM
My previous post in this thread..


Thanks Abrupt, it will take some time to make a video with the suggested science. Will post it here when ready, cheers.


Thanks prokaryotes, in the meantime I will continue consolidating some evidence here that ESMs need to be updated to include such dynamical sensitivity considerations as 'freshwater hosing' and warming induced rainfall on permafrost:

The first linked reference studies ice-climate feedback calibrated to 'freshwater hosing' events in the North Atlantic over the past 720,000 years, in order to study state dependence of climatic instabilities within a CMIP class of climate model.  Such research can help to calibrate models for such 'freshwater hosing' events such as the possible collapse of the WAIS this century:

Ayako Abe-Ouchi, et. al. (2017), "State dependence of climatic instability over the past 720,000 years from Antarctic ice cores and climate modeling", Science Advances, Vol. 3, no. 2, e1600446, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1600446

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/2/e1600446 (http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/2/e1600446)
&
http://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/218067/1/sciadv.1600446.pdf (http://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/218067/1/sciadv.1600446.pdf)

Abstract: "Climatic variabilities on millennial and longer time scales with a bipolar seesaw pattern have been documented in paleoclimatic records, but their frequencies, relationships with mean climatic state, and mechanisms remain unclear.  Understanding the processes and sensitivities that underlie these changes will underpin better understanding of the climate system and projections of its future change. We investigate the long-term characteristics of climatic variability using a new ice-core record from Dome Fuji, East Antarctica, combined with an existing long record from the Dome C ice core. Antarctic warming events over the past 720,000 years are most frequent when the Antarctic temperature is slightly below average on orbital time scales, equivalent to an intermediate climate during glacial periods, whereas interglacial and fully glaciated climates are unfavourable for a millennial-scale bipolar seesaw. Numerical experiments using a fully coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model with freshwater hosing in the northern North Atlantic showed that climate becomes most unstable in intermediate glacial conditions associated with large changes in sea ice and the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Model sensitivity experiments suggest that the prerequisite for the most frequent climate instability with bipolar seesaw pattern during the late Pleistocene era is associated with reduced atmospheric CO2 concentration via global cooling and sea ice formation in the North Atlantic, in addition to extended Northern Hemisphere ice sheets."


The Last Glacial Termination, LGT, occurred from 18,000 to 11,650 kya, and the following reference, reconstructs the dynamic response of the Antarctic ice sheets to warming in this period in order to better evaluate Hansen's ice-climate feedback mechanisms.  The abstract from the second linked reference concludes: "Given the anti-phase relationship between inter-hemispheric climate trends across the LGT our findings demonstrate that Southern Ocean-AIS feedbacks were controlled by global atmospheric teleconnections.  With increasing stratification of the Southern Ocean and intensification of mid-latitude westerly winds today, such teleconnections could amplify AIS mass loss and accelerate global sea-level rise."

Fogwill, et. al. (2017), "Antarctic ice sheet discharge driven by atmosphere-ocean feedbacks at the last Glacial Termination", Scientific Reports 7, Article number 39979, doi:10.1038/srep39979

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep39979 (https://www.nature.com/articles/srep39979)


Finally (for this post), can you imagine how the timing of a rain-dominated Arctic will be affected by Hansen's ice-climate feedback mechanism driven by a WAIS collapse circa 2040-2060 (which almost all ESM projections currently ignore), and or pulses of methane emission from thermokarst lakes?  I also note that the third linked reference assumes that ECS is only around 3C.

Richard Bintanja and Olivier Andry (2017), “Towards a rain-dominated Arctic”, Geophysical Research Abstracts Vol. 19, EGU2017-4402

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/EGU2017-4402.pdf (http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/EGU2017-4402.pdf)

Abstract: “Current climate models project a strong increase in Arctic precipitation over the coming century, which has been attributed primarily to enhanced surface evaporation associated with sea-ice retreat. Since the Arctic is still quite cold, especially in winter, it is often (implicitly) assumed that the additional precipitation will fall mostly as snow. However, very little is known about future changes in rain/snow distribution in the Arctic, notwithstanding the importance for hydrology and biology. Here we use 37 state-of-the-art climate models in standardised twenty-first century (2006–2100) simulations to show that 70◦ – 90◦N average annual Arctic snowfall will actually decrease, despite the strong increase in precipitation, and that most of the additional precipitation in the future (2091– 2100) will fall as rain. In fact, rain is even projected to become the dominant form of precipitation in the Arctic region. This is because Arctic atmospheric warming causes a greater fraction of snowfall to melt before it reaches the surface, in particular over the North Atlantic and the Barents Sea. The reduction in Arctic snowfall is most pronounced during summer and autumn when temperatures are close to the melting point, but also winter rainfall is found to intensify considerably. Projected (seasonal) trends in rain/snowfall will heavily impact Arctic hydrology (e.g. river discharge, permafrost melt), climatology (e.g. snow, sea ice albedo and melt) and ecology (e.g. water and food availability).”

See also the fourth linked reference:

R. Bintanja et al. Towards a rain-dominated Arctic, Nature Climate Change (2017). DOI: 10.1038/nclimate3240

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n4/full/nclimate3240.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n4/full/nclimate3240.html)

Extract: "Rain causes more (extensive) permafrost melt [Refs. 7,26], which most likely leads to enhanced emissions of terrestrial methane [Ref. 27] (a powerful greenhouse gas), more direct runoff (a smaller seasonal delay) and concurrent freshening of the Arctic Ocean [Ref 18]. Rainfall also diminishes snow cover extent and considerably lowers the surface albedo of seasonal snow, ice sheets and sea ice [Ref. 9] , reinforcing surface warming and amplifying the retreat of ice and snow; in fact, enhanced rainfall will most likely accelerate sea-ice retreat by lowering its albedo (compared with that of fresh snowfall) "
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 24, 2017, 09:24:42 AM
The first attached image (that I previously posted in Reply 264), indicates a flattening of the influence of increasing values of ECS on GMSTA; thus implying that increases in atmospheric GHG concentrations may be more impactful on future global warming.  However, the oceans and land vegetation currently sequester about one half of all current anthropogenic emissions; thus if these carbon sinks are compromised with future global warming then mankind's ability to limit future increases in atmospheric GHG concentrations would also be compromised.  In this frame of mind, the first linked reference is entitled "Doubling Down on Our Faustian Bargain" and it indicates that temporary radiative forcing masking factors (such as: both anthropogenic & natural aerosols, and temporary increases in CO₂ absorption by plants) have allowed mankind to accumulate large accumulations of carbon in the atmosphere, land and ocean; that could actively contribute to future radiative forcing once the temporary masking factors have been eliminated. 

The second, third & fourth linked references cite research on forests, as an illustration of how sensitive such carbon sinks can be to future climate disruption (such as :wet-dry cycles, pests, fires, etc) especially as our current rate of increase of radiative forcing is much higher than at any time since the PETM; and thus vegetation (both on land & in the ocean) will not have adequate time to adapt to such rapidly changing climate conditions:


James Hansen, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato (2013), "Doubling Down on Our Faustian Bargain", Environmental Research Letters.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/011006/meta (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/011006/meta)
&
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130329_FaustianBargain.pdf (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130329_FaustianBargain.pdf)

Abstract: "Rahmstorf et al 's (2012) conclusion that observed climate change is comparable to projections, and in some cases exceeds projections, allows further inferences if we can quantify changing climate forcings and compare those with projections. The largest climate forcing is caused by well-mixed long-lived greenhouse gases. Here we illustrate trends of these gases and their climate forcings, and we discuss implications. We focus on quantities that are accurately measured, and we include comparison with fixed scenarios, which helps reduce common misimpressions about how climate forcings are changing.
Annual fossil fuel CO2 emissions have shot up in the past decade at about 3% yr-1, double the rate of the prior three decades (figure 1). The growth rate falls above the range of the IPCC (2001) 'Marker' scenarios, although emissions are still within the entire range considered by the IPCC SRES (2000). The surge in emissions is due to increased coal use (blue curve in figure 1), which now accounts for more than 40% of fossil fuel CO2 emissions."

The second linked article is entitled: "Forests 'held their breath' during global warming hiatus, research shows".  This illustrates Hansen's Faustian Bargain.

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-forests-held-global-hiatus.html (https://phys.org/news/2017-01-forests-held-global-hiatus.html)

Extract: "The study shows that, during extended period of slower warming, worldwide forests 'breathe in' carbon dioxide through photosynthesis, but reduced the rate at which they 'breathe out'—or release the gas back to the atmosphere."


The third linked reference indicates that forests play a more important role in keeping the planet cool than was previously appreciated.  Thus if one assumes that they are entitled to make self-serving assumptions one could assume that decision makers will not only preserve forests but will expand them in the future.  However, the reality is that we are currently losing forests at a rate appropriate for a BAU scenario; and which could accelerate in the future.  Thus if we keep losing forest, our AR5 projections may err on the side of least drama:

Ryan M. Bright et al. Local temperature response to land cover and management change driven by non-radiative processes, Nature Climate Change (2017). DOI: 10.1038/nclimate3250

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3250.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3250.html)

Abstract: "Following a land cover and land management change (LCMC), local surface temperature responds to both a change in available energy and a change in the way energy is redistributed by various non-radiative mechanisms. However, the extent to which non-radiative mechanisms contribute to the local direct temperature response for different types of LCMC across the world remains uncertain. Here, we combine extensive records of remote sensing and in situ observation to show that non-radiative mechanisms dominate the local response in most regions for eight of nine common LCMC perturbations. We find that forest cover gains lead to an annual cooling in all regions south of the upper conterminous United States, northern Europe, and Siberia—reinforcing the attractiveness of re-/afforestation as a local mitigation and adaptation measure in these regions. Our results affirm the importance of accounting for non-radiative mechanisms when evaluating local land-based mitigation or adaptation policies."

The fourth reference (see also the second attached image) indicates a two-fold increase of carbon cycle sensitivity to tropical temperature variations:

Wang, X., Piao, S., Ciais, P., Friedlingstein, P., Myneni, R.B., Cox, P., Heimann, M., Miller, J., Peng, S.P., Wang, T., Yang, H. and Chen, A., (2014), "A two-fold increase of carbon cycle sensitivity to tropical temperature variations", Nature, 2014; DOI: 10.1038/nature12915.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7487/full/nature12915.html#extended-data (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7487/full/nature12915.html#extended-data)

http://sites.bu.edu/cliveg/files/2014/01/wang-nature-2014.pdf (http://sites.bu.edu/cliveg/files/2014/01/wang-nature-2014.pdf)

Abstract: "Earth system models project that the tropical land carbon sink will decrease in size in response to an increase in warming and drought during this century, probably causing a positive climate feedback. But available data are too limited at present to test the predicted changes in the tropical carbon balance in response to climate change. Long-term atmospheric carbon dioxide data provide a global record that integrates the interannual variability of the global carbon balance. Multiple lines of evidence demonstrate that most of this variability originates in the terrestrial biosphere. In particular, the year-to-year variations in the atmospheric carbon dioxide growth rate (CGR) are thought to be the result of fluctuations in the carbon fluxes of tropical land areas. Recently, the response of CGR to tropical climate interannual variability was used to put a constraint on the sensitivity of tropical land carbon to climate change. Here we use the long-term CGR record from Mauna Loa and the South Pole to show that the sensitivity of CGR to tropical temperature interannual variability has increased by a factor of 1.9 ± 0.3 in the past five decades. We find that this sensitivity was greater when tropical land regions experienced drier conditions. This suggests that the sensitivity of CGR to interannual temperature variations is regulated by moisture conditions, even though the direct correlation between CGR and tropical precipitation is weak. We also find that present terrestrial carbon cycle models do not capture the observed enhancement in CGR sensitivity in the past five decades. More realistic model predictions of future carbon cycle and climate feedbacks require a better understanding of the processes driving the response of tropical ecosystems to drought and warming."

Caption for the second attached image: " Figure 1 | Change in detrended anomalies in CGR and tropical MAT, in dCGR/dMAT and in ªintCGR over the past five decades. a, Change in detrended CGR anomalies at Mauna Loa Observatory (black) and in detrended tropical MAT anomalies (red) derived from the CRU data set16. Tropical MAT is calculated as the spatial average over vegetated tropical lands (23uN to 23u S).  The highest correlations between detrended CGR and detrended tropicalMAT are obtained when no time lags are applied (R50.53, P,0.01). b, Change in dCGR/dMAT during the past five decades. c, Change in cintCGR during the past five decades. In b and c, different colours showdCGR/dMATor cint CGR estimated with moving time windows of different lengths (20 yr and 25 yr). Years on the horizontal axis indicate the central year of the moving time window used to derive dCGR/dMAT or cintCGR (for example, 1970 represents period 1960–1979 in the 20-yr time window). The shaded areas show the confidence interval of dCGR/dMATand cintCGR, as appropriate, derived using 20-yr or 25-yr moving windows in 500 bootstrap estimates."

Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 26, 2017, 09:56:55 PM
To learn more about  large-noise events such as ice-climate feedback due to the collapse of a marine ice sheet (like the WAIS) please review my posts

AbruptSLR, i currently plan a new video production where i want to summarize some of the most worrying research. Is it possible, can you summarize maybe what you think are the top 5 or top 10 findings in those regards? Or what you think should be communicated to a larger audience of laymen?
 Thank you.


prokaryotes,

As I am relatively busy, I will try to provide responses to your question in a series of posts; and I begin here by providing information related to the DeConto & Pollard's collective 2016 findings related to the implications of cliff failures and hydrofracting on marine glaciers.

The first linked refer indicates that to ensure that cliff failures and hydrofracturing (calving) of marine glaciers do not occur that the GMST departure above pre-industrial could be as low as 1C, but is not higher than 3C (and at the EGU conference DeConto said that the most likely range was between 2 and 2.7C, assuming the current consensus climate sensitivity).

Robert DeConto and David Pollard (2016), "Commitments to future retreat of Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets",  EGU General Assembly, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 18, EGU2016-10930


The following reference confirms the findings of DeConto & Pollard (2016) that the WAIS could collapse this century if we continue a BAU pathway for a no more that a few more decades:

Dewi Le Bars, Sybren Drijfhout and Hylke de Vries (2017), "A high-end sea level rise probabilistic projection including rapid Antarctic ice sheet mass loss", Environmental Research Letters; doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa6512


http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6512 (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6512)

Abstract: "The potential for break-up of Antarctic ice shelves by hydrofracturing and following ice cliff instability might be important for future ice dynamics. One recent study suggests that the Antarctic ice sheet could lose a lot more mass during the 21st century than previously thought. This increased mass-loss is found to strongly depend on the emission scenario and thereby on global temperature change. We investigate the impact of this new information on high-end global sea level rise projections by developing a probabilistic process-based method. It is shown that uncertainties in the projections increase when including the temperature dependence of Antarctic mass loss and the uncertainty in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) model ensemble. Including these new uncertainties we provide probability density functions for the high-end distribution of total global mean sea level in 2100 conditional on emission scenario. These projections provide a probabilistic context to previous extreme sea level scenarios developed for adaptation purposes."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: prokaryotes on April 28, 2017, 04:35:01 PM
This brings us to the topic of how soon might we expect to reach the 2 to 3C GMSTA range cited by DeConto & Pollard (2016) for the WAIS to begin its main stage collapse.


DeConto at EGU17 http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/sessionprogramme (http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/sessionprogramme) type DeConto into the search, no video available :(
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 28, 2017, 08:38:03 PM
This brings us to the topic of how soon might we expect to reach the 2 to 3C GMSTA range cited by DeConto & Pollard (2016) for the WAIS to begin its main stage collapse.


DeConto at EGU17 [url]http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/sessionprogramme[/url] ([url]http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/sessionprogramme[/url]) type DeConto into the search, no video available :(


The following linked 2017 EGU abstracts, that prokaryotes cited; indicate a significant risk of abrupt sea level rise this century:

Rob DeConto, David Pollard, and Ed Gasson (2017), "Potential for future sea-level contributions from the Antarctic ice sheet", Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 19, EGU2017-15929,

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/EGU2017-15929.pdf (http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/EGU2017-15929.pdf)


Abstract: "Recent Antarctic ice-sheet modeling that includes the effects of surface meltwater on ice-sheet dynamics (through hydrofracturing and ice-cliff collapse) has demonstrated the previously underappreciated sensitivity of the ice sheet to atmospheric warming in addition to sub-ice oceanic warming. Here, we improve on our modeling of future icesheet retreat by using time-evolving atmospheric climatologies from a high-resolution regional climate model, synchronized with SSTs, subsurface ocean temperatures, and sub-ice melt rates from the NCAR CCSM4 GCM. Ongoing improvements in ice-sheet model physics are tested and calibrated relative to observations of recent and ancient (Pliocene, Last InterGlacial, and Last Deglaciation) ice-sheet responses to warming. The model is applied to a range of future greenhouse-gas emissions scenarios, including modified RCP scenarios corresponding to the 1.5º and 2.0º targets of the Paris Agreement and higher emissions scenarios including RCP8.5. The results imply that a threshold in the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and outlet glaciers in East Antarctica might be exceeded in the absence of aggressive mitigation policies like those discussed in Paris. We also explore the maximum potential for Antarctica to contribute to future sea-level rise in high greenhouse gas emissions scenarios, by testing a range of model physical parameters within the bounds of observations."

&

Andra Garner, Michael Mann, Kerry Emanuel, Robert Kopp, Ning Lin, Richard Alley,
Benjamin Horton, Robert DeConto, Jeffrey Donnelly, and David Pollard (2017), "The Changing Risk of Coastal Flooding in New York City from 850 CE to 2300 CE", Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 19, EGU2017-2138,

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/EGU2017-2138.pdf (http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/EGU2017-2138.pdf)

Abstract: "In a changing climate, the risk of future coastal flooding depends on both storm surges and rising sea levels. We combine probabilistic sea-level rise projections and large sets of synthetic tropical cyclones downscaled from RCP 8.5 runs of three CMIP5 models to assess the impact of changing tropical storm characteristics and sea-level rise on future coastal inundation in New York City in 2100 and 2300 CE. We compare these future results to a historical analysis of flood risk in New York City based upon synthetic tropical cyclone data sets downscaled from Last Millennium runs of CMIP5 models and proxy sea-level records. Modeling results indicate that there will be minimal change in modeled storm surge heights from 2010 to 2100 or 2300, because the predicted strengthening of the strongest storms will be compensated by storm tracks moving offshore at the latitude of New York City. However, projected sea-level rise causes overall flood heights associated with tropical cyclones in New York City in coming centuries to increase greatly compared to historical or present flood heights. Our projected sea-level rise includes an ensemble of Antarctic projections generated for RCP 8.5 climate scenarios. We find that the 1 in 500- year flood event has increased from ~2.25 m above mean tide level (MTL) during the period 850-1800 to ~3.4 m MTL during 1970-2005 to ~3.9 – 4.8 m MTL by 2080-2100, and to 13.1 m MTL by 2280-2300. Results from this study provide a framework for future risk assessments of coastal flooding in New York City and surrounding communities."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 04, 2017, 04:39:51 AM
The pdfs of PowerPoint presentations at these two links are interesting, and confirm that dynamical considerations make a truly mathematical definition of climate sensitivity much more complicated (and to me much more worrisome) than AR5 indicates.

Ghil, Michael. 2017. “The Mathematics of Climate Change and of its Impacts.” Workshop on "Mathematical Approaches to Climate Change Impacts - MAC2I" at the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica "Francesco Severi" (INdAM), Italy.


https://dept.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/publications/mathematical-approaches-climate-change-impacts (https://dept.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/publications/mathematical-approaches-climate-change-impacts)

&

Ghil, Michael. 2016. “A Mathematical Theory of Climate Sensitivity: A Tale of Deterministic & Stochastic Dynamical Systems.” 11th AIMS Conf. on Dynamical Systems, Differential Equations & Applications, Honoring Peter Lax’s 90th Birthday, Orlando, FL, July 2016.

https://dept.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/publications/mathematical-theory-climate-sensitivity-tale-deterministic-stochastic-dynamical (https://dept.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/publications/mathematical-theory-climate-sensitivity-tale-deterministic-stochastic-dynamical)

See also:

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/publications/2017-presentations/ (https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/publications/2017-presentations/)

&

https://ams.confex.com/ams/97Annual/webprogram/Paper315189.html (https://ams.confex.com/ams/97Annual/webprogram/Paper315189.html)

Edit: The attached images come from the first linked document on mathematically modeling dynamical climate response, with the first image indicating that the intermediate climate response (think ENSO and/or Arctic Amplification) is most difficult to model; the second image shows alternate graphical representations for short-term climate sensitivity; the third image illustrates random attractors (think ENSO & Arctic Amplification) and the fourth image shows that dynamical climate sensitivity is deterministic (in a Chaos theory sense) & stochastic as well as highly nonlinear and exhibits change/sensitivity to both anthropogenic radiative forcing and systemic internal variability.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 05, 2017, 01:18:37 AM
While I certainly approve of the recommendations made in the linked Science reference; nevertheless, it seems disingenuous to believe that policy makers are making bad decisions because they are focusing too much on GWP100 values; as current advanced Earth System climate model projections already account for such differences in GWP.  Thus, it is not too likely that this referenced work will significantly improve the performance of policy makers:

Ilissa B. Ocko, Steven P. Hamburg, Daniel J. Jacob, David W. Keith, Nathaniel O. Keohane, Michael Oppenheimer, Joseph D. Roy-Mayhew, Daniel P. Schrag & Stephen W. Pacala (05 May 2017), "Unmask temporal trade-offs in climate policy debates", Science , Vol. 356, Issue 6337, pp. 492-493, DOI: 10.1126/science.aaj2350

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6337/492 (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6337/492)

Summary: "Global warming potentials (GWPs) have become an essential element of climate policy and are built into legal structures that regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This is in spite of a well-known shortcoming: GWP hides trade-offs between short- and long-term policy objectives inside a single time scale of 100 or 20 years. The most common form, GWP100, focuses on the climate impact of a pulse emission over 100 years, diluting near-term effects and misleadingly implying that short-lived climate pollutants exert forcings in the long-term, long after they are removed from the atmosphere. Meanwhile, GWP20 ignores climate effects after 20 years. We propose that these time scales be ubiquitously reported as an inseparable pair, much like systolic-diastolic blood pressure and city-highway vehicle fuel economy, to make the climate effect of using one or the other time scale explicit. Policy-makers often treat a GWP as a value-neutral measure, but the time-scale choice is central to achieving specific objectives."

See also the associate article at:

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-current-climate-mask-trade-offs-policy.html (https://phys.org/news/2017-05-current-climate-mask-trade-offs-policy.html)

Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 05, 2017, 05:13:27 PM
The linked article is entitled: "10 incredible things climate change will do".  I believe that the article errs on the side of least drama; nevertheless, it is a good list, and I did not previously know that climate change is already making the ocean darker/murkier; which will decrease albedo.

http://www.dw.com/en/10-incredible-things-climate-change-will-do/a-38416411 (http://www.dw.com/en/10-incredible-things-climate-change-will-do/a-38416411)

Extract: "We can expect our oceans to gradually become murkier as the effects of climate change become more apparent over time.
While climate change is often associated with higher temperatures and drought, it is also expected to increase annual rainfall in some areas of the world. This will create faster-flowing rivers, which in turn churns up more silt and debris before this water meets the ocean.
This phenomenon has already been observed along the coast of Norway, where the ocean water has become increasingly darker due to an increase in precipitation and melting snow."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 05, 2017, 05:26:50 PM
The linked reference indicates that freshwater hosing events in the North Atlantic can result in warming of the Nordic Seas (see the attached image); which can accelerate Arctic Amplification & which is another example of dynamical climate sensitivity:

Mélanie Wary et. al. (2017), "Regional seesaw between North Atlantic and Nordic Seas
during the last glacial abrupt climate events", Clim. Past Discuss., doi:10.5194/cp-2017-14

http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/cp-2017-14/cp-2017-14.pdf (http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/cp-2017-14/cp-2017-14.pdf)

Abstract. Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations constitute one of the most enigmatic features of the last glacial cycle.  Their cold atmospheric phases have been commonly associated with cold sea-surface temperatures and expansion of sea ice in the North Atlantic and adjacent seas. Here, based on dinocyst analyses from the 48-30 ka BP interval of four sediment cores from the northern Northeast Atlantic and southern Norwegian Sea, we provide direct and quantitative evidence of a regional paradoxical seesaw pattern: cold Greenland and North Atlantic phases coincide with warmer sea-surface conditions and shorter seasonal sea-ice cover durations in the Norwegian Sea as compared to warm phases. Combined with additional paleorecords and multi-model hosing simulations, our results suggest that during cold Greenland phases, reduced Atlantic meridional overturning circulation and cold North Atlantic sea-surface conditions were accompanied by the subsurface propagation of warm Atlantic waters that re-emerged in the Nordic Seas and provided moisture towards Greenland summit.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 05, 2017, 06:13:16 PM
Many denialists (including the Trump Administration) claim that climate models are too uncertain to base policy decisions on, but as the two attached images indicate the Hansen et al 1988 BAU projections are very close of both the observed GISTEMP through 2016 and to the Hadcrut4 projection for 2017 (with a hat-tip to Wipneus), respectively. This support the position that our communal inability to effectively address climate change challenges is not based on uncertainty, but rather on human mental illness.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 05, 2017, 06:31:17 PM
As a follow-on to my Reply #278, the linked reference discusses the positive feedback mechanism between Arctic Sea Ice extent loss and ice mass loss from the GIS; which per Wary et. al (2017) causes warming of the Nordic Seas which cause a reduction in Arctic Sea Ice extent; which completes the loop on this dynamical positive feedback mechanism (that is not yet included in AR5 projections)

Stroeve, J. C., Mioduszewski, J. R., Rennermalm, A., Boisvert, L. N., Tedesco, M., and Robinson, D.: Investigating the Local Scale Influence of Sea Ice on Greenland Surface Melt, The Cryosphere Discuss., doi:10.5194/tc-2017-65, in review, 2017.

http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/tc-2017-65/ (http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/tc-2017-65/)

Abstract. Rapid decline in Arctic sea ice cover in the 21st century may have wide-reaching effects on the Arctic climate system, including the Greenland ice sheet mass balance. Here, we investigate whether local changes in sea ice around the Greenland ice sheet have had an impact on Greenland surface melt. Specifically, we investigate the relationship between sea ice concentration, the timing of melt onset and open water fraction surrounding Greenland with ice sheet surface melt using a combination of remote sensing observations, and outputs from a reanalysis model and a regional climate model for the period 1979–2015. Statistical analysis points to covariability between Greenland ice sheet surface melt and sea ice within Baffin Bay and Davis Strait. While some of this covariance can be explained by simultaneous influence of atmospheric circulation anomalies on both the sea ice cover and Greenland melt, within Baffin Bay we find a modest correlation between detrended melt onset over sea ice and the adjacent ice sheet melt onset. This correlation appears to be related to increased transfer of sensible and latent heat fluxes from the ocean to the atmosphere in early sea ice melt years, increasing temperatures and humidity over the ice sheet that in turn initiate ice sheet melt.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 05, 2017, 07:00:25 PM
The linked article indicates that the widely stated estimate of a 97% consensus on the reality of climate change is too low; and encourages the public to take climate change seriously.

Andrew G. Skuce, John Cook, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Ken Rice, Sarah A. Green, Peter Jacobs & Dana Nuccitelli (May 2, 2017), "Does It Matter if the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Is 97% or 99.99%?", Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0270467617702781 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0270467617702781)

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467617702781?journalCode=bsta (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467617702781?journalCode=bsta)

Abstract: "Cook et al. reported a 97% scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), based on a study of 11,944 abstracts in peer-reviewed science journals. Powell claims that the Cook et al. methodology was flawed and that the true consensus is virtually unanimous at 99.99%. Powell’s method underestimates the level of disagreement because it relies on finding explicit rejection statements as well as the assumption that abstracts without a stated position endorse the consensus. Cook et al.’s survey of the papers’ authors revealed that papers may express disagreement with AGW despite the absence of a rejection statement in the abstract. Surveys reveal a large gap between the public perception of the degree of scientific consensus on AGW and reality. We argue that it is the size of this gap, rather than the small difference between 97% and 99.99%, that matters in communicating the true state of scientific opinion to the public."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 06, 2017, 07:07:04 PM
It can be frustrating (to me at least) that the current generation of Earth System Models, ESMs (e. g. CMIP5), do not adequately address dynamical climate sensitivity.  Hopefully, CMIP6 and future phase of the Accelerated Climate Modelling for Energy (ACME), will improve upon the accuracy of our current project; nevertheless, as time is of the essence w.r.t. fighting climate change, I will take another try at better conveying the upper end risks that our models (e.g. CMIP5) are likely missing.

The linked reference calibrated an effective/specific equilibrium climate sensitivity (S) based on warming cycles during the past 784,000 years.  There findings for the upper end risk (e.g. RCP 8.5) indicated that the projected GMSTA range could be between 4.78C to 7.36C by 2100, based on one set of calculations (see the first two attached images).

Tobias Friedrich, Axel Timmermann, Michelle Tigchelaar, Oliver Elison Timm and Andrey Ganopolski (09 Nov 2016), "Nonlinear climate sensitivity and its implications for future greenhouse warming", Science Advances, Vol. 2, no. 11, e1501923, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1501923

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/11/e1501923 (http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/11/e1501923)

Extract: "Global mean surface temperatures are rising in response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The magnitude of this warming at equilibrium for a given radiative forcing—referred to as specific equilibrium climate sensitivity (S)—is still subject to uncertainties. We estimate global mean temperature variations and S using a 784,000-year-long field reconstruction of sea surface temperatures and a transient paleoclimate model simulation. Our results reveal that S is strongly dependent on the climate background state, with significantly larger values attained during warm phases. Using the Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 for future greenhouse radiative forcing, we find that the range of paleo-based estimates of Earth’s future warming by 2100 CE overlaps with the upper range of climate simulations conducted as part of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). Furthermore, we find that within the 21st century, global mean temperatures will very likely exceed maximum levels reconstructed for the last 784,000 years. On the basis of temperature data from eight glacial cycles, our results provide an independent validation of the magnitude of current CMIP5 warming projections."

While Friedrich et. al. (2016) is a useful starting point, its use of an effective/specific equilibrium climate sensitivity (S) calibrated to the last 784,000 years of warming cycles, means that it is missing the aperiodic dynamical climate sensitivity illustrated in the third image, the risk of Hansen's ice-climate feedback mechanism and the risk that we may well exceed the value of S calibrated to the last 784,000 years, as the fourth attached image shows that S increases in value with increasing values of GMST.

Edit: In regards to my last point about S increasing with GMST, per the following linked NOAA article is entitled: "Global Climate Report - Annual 2016"

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201613#gtemp (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201613#gtemp)

Extract: "The average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2016 was 0.94°C (1.69°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), surpassing the previous record warmth of 2015 by 0.04°C (0.07°F)."

This indicates that at the end of 2016, GMST was around 14.84oC, while the 7oC upper-end GMSTA by 2100 forecast by Friedrich et. al. (2016) would put GMST near 21 to 22oC; which an aperiodic temporary spike in GMST as illustrate by the third attachment image could put us in range of tipping permanently into an equable climate pattern.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: nicibiene on May 11, 2017, 02:13:44 PM
As it is a OT area and has to do a lot to do with stupidity, greed and its consequences for all of us: I watched a report about a german doctor from Leipzig University, struggling with antibiotica resistent microbes. He made a trip to India where the pharma industry produces cheap antibiotica, leaving us with the nice gift of MRSA...

Really terrible what they found out....

http://mediathek.daserste.de/Reportage-Dokumentation/The-invisible-enemy-deadly-superbugs-f/Video?bcastId=799280&documentId=42690832 (http://mediathek.daserste.de/Reportage-Dokumentation/The-invisible-enemy-deadly-superbugs-f/Video?bcastId=799280&documentId=42690832)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 14, 2017, 06:22:15 PM
The first linked Wikipedia article is about psychological attribution theory; and points out that this theory is scientific and can reliably applied to projecting juror decision making.  As projecting anthropogenic global warming is fundamentally related to both: (a) the attribution bias of climate scientists regarding estimates of Earth Systems response to radiative forcing; and (b) the attribution bias of decision makers as to how much radiative forcing society will impose on the planet.

Thus it is clearly an example of human mental illness that climate modelers do not make use of attribution theory in order to better account for the likely impacts of these two sources of errors in climate model projections:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_(psychology)

Extract: "In social psychology, attribution is the process by which individuals explain the causes of behavior and events.

While people strive to find reasons for behaviors, they fall into many traps of biases and errors. As Fritz Heider says, "our perceptions of causality are often distorted by our needs and certain cognitive biases.

Attribution theory can be applied to juror decision making. Jurors use attributions to explain the cause of the defendant's intent and actions related to the criminal behavior."

The second linked Wikipedia article is about psychological attribution bias.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_bias

Extract: "In psychology, an attribution bias or attributional bias is a cognitive bias that refers to the systematic errors made when people evaluate or try to find reasons for their own and others' behaviors.

Additionally, there are many different types of attribution biases, such as the ultimate attribution error, fundamental attribution error, actor-observer bias, and hostile attribution bias. Each of these biases describes a specific tendency that people exhibit when reasoning about the cause of different behaviors."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 15, 2017, 06:16:01 PM
As a follow-on to my Replies #255 thru #282, I provide the following to linked references to indicate that correctly accounting for dynamical climate sensitivity in the coming decades require the use of very sophisticated climate models that can account for bipolar seesaw mechanisms correctly and which correctly apply paleo-lessons-learned (including the impacts of freshwater hosing) to our current dynamic conditions:


Joel Pedro, Markus Jochum, Christo Buizert, Sune Rasmussen, and Feng He (2017), "The Bipolar Seesaw and Its Discontents", Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 19, EGU2017-11688

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/EGU2017-11688.pdf (http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/EGU2017-11688.pdf)

Abstract: "The thermal bipolar ocean seesaw hypothesis is the prevailing explanation for the out-of-phase changes in northern and southern high-latitude climate during the Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events of the last glacial period and deglaciation (Stocker and Johnsen, 2003). However the seesaw hypothesis has been challenged on several grounds: it neglects the much larger transport of heat in the atmosphere compared to ocean, and it does not specify the modes and time scales of signal propagation in the coupled ocean-atmosphere system. The purpose of this presentation is to critically review the seesaw hypothesis and address these critiques.

We use transient simulations with a coupled ocean-atmosphere-sea-ice global climate model (GCM) to trace the ocean and atmospheric heat-transport changes and pathways of inter-hemispheric signal propagation during a simulated collapse and a simulated strengthening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). While the simulated AMOC perturbations result in climate variations in close agreement with palaeoclimate observations, changes to the heat budget and their propagation throughout the globe differ from the ideas of Stocker and Johnsen (2003). The key differences are as follows. (1) Changes in ocean heat transport in the Atlantic in response to AMOC perturbations are partially compensated by changes in northward heat transport in the global atmosphere and in the Pacific Ocean. (2) There is little ocean transmission of temperature anomalies between the South Atlantic and high latitude Southern Ocean, because the lack of zonal boundaries and the steeply outcropping isopycnals of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) act as a barrier to signal propagation. (3) On the multi-centennial timescale of the simulations the heat content of the Southern Ocean to the south of the ACC is insensitive to AMOC changes, and South Atlantic temperature anomalies, rather than crossing the ACC spread at intermediate depths into the Indian and Pacific oceans. (4) The global intermediate-depth ocean to the north of the ACC thus better fits the description of being a ’heat reservoir’ for changes in the AMOC than the Southern Ocean. (5) In the simulations, signal propagation to latitudes south of the ACC (including Antarctica) is dominated by teleconnections between the Hadley Circulation, the mid-latitude westerlies and Southern Ocean sea ice extent.

We conclude with an inter-hemispheric coupling hypothesis that recognises the coupled nature of (interbasin) ocean and atmosphere heat transport, the difficulty of propagating ocean anomalies across the ACC and the role of wind-stress, sea ice and associated surface heat flux changes on temperature variations at high latitudes.

References
Stocker, T. F., and S. J. Johnsen (2003), A minimum thermodynamic model for the bipolar seesaw, Paleoceanography, 18, PA000920, doi:10.1029/2003PA000920.

&

G. Marino, E. J. Rohling, L. Rodríguez-Sanz, K. M. Grant, D. Heslop, A. P. Roberts, J. D. Stanford & J. Yu (11 June 2015), "Bipolar seesaw control on last interglacial sea level", Nature, Volume: 522, Pages: 197–201, doi:10.1038/nature14499

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/abs/nature14499.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/abs/nature14499.html)

Abstract: "Our current understanding of ocean–atmosphere–cryosphere interactions at ice-age terminations relies largely on assessments of the most recent (last) glacial–interglacial transition, Termination I (T-I). But the extent to which T-I is representative of previous terminations remains unclear. Testing the consistency of termination processes requires comparison of time series of critical climate parameters with detailed absolute and relative age control. However, such age control has been lacking for even the penultimate glacial termination (T-II), which culminated in a sea-level highstand during the last interglacial period that was several metres above present. Here we show that Heinrich Stadial 11 (HS11), a prominent North Atlantic cold episode, occurred between 135 ± 1 and 130 ± 2 thousand years ago and was linked with rapid sea-level rise during T-II. Our conclusions are based on new and existing, data for T-II and the last interglacial that we collate onto a single, radiometrically constrained chronology. The HS11 cold episode punctuated T-II and coincided directly with a major deglacial meltwater pulse, which predominantly entered the North Atlantic Ocean and accounted for about 70 per cent of the glacial–interglacial sea-level rise. We conclude that, possibly in response to stronger insolation and CO2 forcing earlier in T-II, the relationship between climate and ice-volume changes differed fundamentally from that of T-I. In T-I, the major sea-level rise clearly post-dates Heinrich Stadial 1. We also find that HS11 coincided with sustained Antarctic warming, probably through a bipolar seesaw temperature response, and propose that this heat gain at high southern latitudes promoted Antarctic ice-sheet melting that fuelled the last interglacial sea-level peak."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 15, 2017, 07:33:32 PM
The linked reference indicates that our current climate models do not sufficiently account for dynamical climate behavior and the risk of a possible abrupt change in climate regime with continued global warming:

Jones, R. N. and Ricketts, J. H.: Reconciling the signal and noise of atmospheric warming on decadal timescales, Earth Syst. Dynam., 8, 177-210, doi:10.5194/esd-8-177-2017, 2017.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/177/2017/ (http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/177/2017/)

http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/177/2017/esd-8-177-2017.pdf (http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/177/2017/esd-8-177-2017.pdf)

Abstract. Interactions between externally forced and internally generated climate variations on decadal timescales is a major determinant of changing climate risk. Severe testing is applied to observed global and regional surface and satellite temperatures and modelled surface temperatures to determine whether these interactions are independent, as in the traditional signal-to-noise model, or whether they interact, resulting in step-like warming. The multistep bivariate test is used to detect step changes in temperature data. The resulting data are then subject to six tests designed to distinguish between the two statistical hypotheses, hstep and htrend. Test 1: since the mid-20th century, most observed warming has taken place in four events: in 1979/80 and 1997/98 at the global scale, 1988/89 in the Northern Hemisphere and 1968–70 in the Southern Hemisphere. Temperature is more step-like than trend-like on a regional basis. Satellite temperature is more step-like than surface temperature. Warming from internal trends is less than 40 % of the total for four of five global records tested (1880–2013/14). Test 2: correlations between step-change frequency in observations and models (1880–2005) are 0.32 (CMIP3) and 0.34 (CMIP5). For the period 1950–2005, grouping selected events (1963/64, 1968–70, 1976/77, 1979/80, 1987/88 and 1996–98), the correlation increases to 0.78. Test 3: steps and shifts (steps minus internal trends) from a 107-member climate model ensemble (2006–2095) explain total warming and equilibrium climate sensitivity better than internal trends. Test 4: in three regions tested, the change between stationary and non-stationary temperatures is step-like and attributable to external forcing. Test 5: step-like changes are also present in tide gauge observations, rainfall, ocean heat content and related variables. Test 6: across a selection of tests, a simple stepladder model better represents the internal structures of warming than a simple trend, providing strong evidence that the climate system is exhibiting complex system behaviour on decadal timescales. This model indicates that in situ warming of the atmosphere does not occur; instead, a store-and-release mechanism from the ocean to the atmosphere is proposed. It is physically plausible and theoretically sound. The presence of step-like – rather than gradual – warming is important information for characterising and managing future climate risk.

Extract: "Climate conceptualised as a mechanistic system and described using classical statistical methods is substantially different from climate conceptualised as a complex system.
With record atmospheric and surface ocean temperatures in 2015/16 variously being described as a singular event, a reinvigoration of trend-like warming or a wholesale shift to a new climate regime, this issue is too important to be left unresolved."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 15, 2017, 09:02:49 PM
The first link leads to a collection of Journal of Climate references on the teleconnection of heat from the tropics to the poles; which will likely play a central role in any dynamical climate modeling of the risk of abrupt climate change.  While there are a large number of references including in the first links website, I only provide an abstract for the most recent reference at that website from the second link.  Purich et. al. (2016) indicate that a lot of the increase in sea ice extent around Antarctica  in the timeframe from 1979 to 2013 was associate with a period of negative IPO; however, as the IPO has now become positive, we can expect a decrease in Antarctic sea ice extent and an associated decrease in albedo.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/topic/connecting_tropics_to_polar (http://journals.ametsoc.org/topic/connecting_tropics_to_polar)


Ariaan Purich, Matthew H. England, Wenju Cai, Yoshimitsu Chikamoto, Axel Timmermann, John C. Fyfe, Leela Frankcombe, Gerald A. Meehl, and Julie M. Arblaster (2016), "Tropical Pacific SST Drivers of Recent Antarctic Sea Ice Trends', Journal of Climate, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0440.1 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0440.1)


http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0440.1 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0440.1)


Abstract: "A strengthening of the Amundsen Sea low from 1979 to 2013 has been shown to largely explain the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice concentration in the eastern Ross Sea and decrease in the Bellingshausen Sea. Here it is shown that while these changes are not generally seen in freely running coupled climate model simulations, they are reproduced in simulations of two independent coupled climate models: one constrained by observed sea surface temperature anomalies in the tropical Pacific and the other by observed surface wind stress in the tropics. This analysis confirms previous results and strengthens the conclusion that the phase change in the interdecadal Pacific oscillation from positive to negative over 1979–2013 contributed to the observed strengthening of the Amundsen Sea low and the associated pattern of Antarctic sea ice change during this period. New support for this conclusion is provided by simulated trends in spatial patterns of sea ice concentrations that are similar to those observed. These results highlight the importance of accounting for teleconnections from low to high latitudes in both model simulations and observations of Antarctic sea ice variability and change."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 17, 2017, 10:59:16 PM
The linked RollingStone article is entitled: "The Doomsday Glacier".  The first attached image from the article presents a frightening looking artistic illustration of a possible initial collapse sequence for the Thwaites Glacier (the Doomsday Glacier).  The second attached image is from the Sentinel 1 satellite from May 16 2017, which shows a major crack in the Southwest Tributary Glacier Ice Shelf that is beginning to interconnect with a major crack in the Pine Island Ice Shelf; & I note that if the Southwest Tributary Glacier were to loss its ice shelf in the near future, this could trigger a collapse of the adjoining Thwaites Glacier:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-doomsday-glacier-w481260 (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-doomsday-glacier-w481260)

Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 18, 2017, 06:27:26 PM
For those who do not understand the significance of my last post I provide the following reposts from the 'Hazard Analysis for PIG/Thwaites from 2012 to 2040-2060 Timeframe ' thread, in the Antarctic folder:
From Reply #54 of the 'Hazard Analysis for PIG/Thwaites from 2012 to 2040-2060 Timeframe ' thread:

"The linked reference (with a free pdf and see the attached reference figure) presents a very interesting discussion of the potential migration of the eastern shear margin of the Thwaites Glacier, that could someday contribute to the accelerated ice mass loss from this critical basin:

http://www.igsoc.org/journal/59/217/j13J050.pdf (http://www.igsoc.org/journal/59/217/j13J050.pdf)


Weak bed control of the eastern shear margin of Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica; Joseph A. MacGREGOR, Ginny A. CATANIA, Howard CONWAY, Dustin M. SCHROEDER, Ian JOUGHIN, Duncan A. YOUNG, Scott D. KEMPF, & Donald D. BLANKENSHIP; Journal of Glaciology, Vol. 59, No. 217, 2013 doi: 10.3189/2013JoG13J050


"ABSTRACT. Recent acceleration and thinning of Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica, motivates investigation of the controls upon, and stability of, its present ice-flow pattern. Its eastern shear margin separates Thwaites Glacier from slower-flowing ice and the southern tributaries of Pine Island Glacier. Troughs in Thwaites Glacier’s bed topography bound nearly all of its tributaries, except along this eastern shear margin, which has no clear relationship with regional bed topography along most of its length. Here we use airborne ice-penetrating radar data from the Airborne Geophysical Survey of the Amundsen Sea Embayment, Antarctica (AGASEA) to investigate the nature of the bed across this margin.  Radar data reveal slightly higher and rougher bed topography on the slower-flowing side of the margin, along with lower bed reflectivity. However, the change in bed reflectivity across the margin is partially explained by a change in bed roughness. From these observations, we infer that the position of the eastern shear margin is not strongly controlled by local bed topography or other bed properties. Given the potential for future increases in ice flux farther downstream, the eastern shear margin may be vulnerable to migration. However, there is no evidence that this margin is migrating presently, despite ongoing changes farther downstream.""


From Reply #55 of the 'Hazard Analysis for PIG/Thwaites from 2012 to 2040-2060 Timeframe ' thread

"The MacGregor et al 2013 paper that I cite in the immediately preceding post is more significant than my brief comments from yesterday (and also in this post) indicate for reasons including:

(1) The first attached figure from MacGregor et al 2013 indicates: (a) In panel "b" the red jiggly line shows the crack location for the large iceberg that just calved from the Pine Island Ice Shelf, PIIS, this austal winter; which indicates that the next major calving event from PIIS will likely relieve the buttressing action on the glacier labeled "SW tributary", which will most likely accelerate the ice velocity, and will likely extend the upstream flow stream, for this "SW tributary" glacier; and  (b) Panel "a" shows that if the flow stream for the "SW tributary" glacier extends about 50km upstream then it will link with the eastern shear margin of the Thwaites Glacier (see also the figure in the preceding post that shows the shear strain from 2009).

(2) The back ground image of the second attached figure from NASA-JPL shows the changes in ice mass loss through 2012 as measured by the GRACE satellite (note that no scale is provided as the amounts may need to be increase by up to 40% to correct for GIA interpretation according to: An investigation of Glacial Isostatic Adjustment over the Amundsen Sea sector, West Antarctica; A. Groh; H. Ewert, M. Scheinert, M. Fritsche, A. Rülke, A. Richter, R. Rosenau, R. Dietrich; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.001 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.001)).  Nevertheless this background image clearly shows that along the deep eastern portions of the Byrd Subglacial Basin and just west of the "Thwaites Glacier eastern shear margin" that the amount of ice mass loss has increased significantly between 2009 and 2012, indicating that either: (a) the ice flow in this critical area is slowly accelerating [and if the link between the flow stream for the "SW tributary" and the "Thwaites Glacier eastern shear margin" link as discussed in point (1) this may accelerate even faster]; and/or (b) a large amount of basal melt water is flowing out of the deep eastern portion of the Byrd Subglacial Basin.

(3) The third attached image shows the altimeter measured ice surface elevation change along the Amundsen Sea coastline by 2011 (see the "Surge" thread for details), indicating that the coastal zone of the Thwaites Glacier Gateway area is thinning rapidly and if the acceleration of ice flow along the "Thwaites Gacier eastern shear margin" discussed in points (1) and (2) occur then this thinning would both accelerate and would extend toward (and would link with) the thinning area upstream of the "SW tributary" glacier. 

(4) Given sufficient time, and/or sufficient ice flow acceleration, the ice thinning along the extended Thwaites Glacier Gateway discussed in point (3) could convert the ice in this area into an ice shelf that floats over the top of the somewhat rough bottom topology in this area shown in the fourth attached image.

If the scenario develops as discussed above over the next three decades then this would match the WAIS collapse scenario that I have presented both in this thread and elsewhere in the Antarctica folder."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 21, 2017, 08:33:57 PM
While the vast majority of my posts are intended to make people more aware that consensus science's portrayal of climate change risk err considerably on the side of least drama; nevertheless, I still suspect that the majority of readers cannot see the forest from all of these damned trees in the way.  Therefore, I have decided to pick on the recent linked first article entitled: "SkS Analogy 4 - Ocean Time Lag", to illustrate how such a consensus based 'scientific' call to action can greatly underplay the risks associated with regard to dynamical climate sensitivity as illustrated by the second linked reference associated with the influences that the IPO as short-term GMSTA.  The first attached image is from the first reference & indicates that due to a 30-year lag we will not reach 2C warming until 2035 + 30 – 2065.  However, the second & third images, from the second reference, indicate respectively that we appear to have entered a warm IPO period (which may well last until ~2035); which indicates that we could reach +1.8C by 2034 (when considering the confidence range).

https://www.skepticalscience.com/SkS_Analogy_04_Ocean_Time_Lag.html (https://www.skepticalscience.com/SkS_Analogy_04_Ocean_Time_Lag.html)

Extract: "Greenhouse gases (GHG) determine amount of warming, but oceans delay the warming.

This figure therefore shows the temperature anomaly starting in 1970, the year when the temperature increase due to greenhouse gases began to emerge from the background noise. This figure indicates 3 things: (1) the time lag between emitting greenhouse gases and when we see the principle effect is about 30 years, due mostly to the time required to heat the oceans, (2) the rate of temperature increase predicted by a climate sensitivity of 3°C tracks well with the observed rate of temperature increase, and (3) we have already locked in more than 1.5°C warming. As of 2017 we have reached 406 ppm CO2. At the current increase of 2 ppm CO2/yr., this implies that we will reach 440 ppm and lock in 2°C warming by 2035 … if we don’t act now."

The second reference is:

Henley, B. J and King, A. D. (2017) Trajectories toward the 1.5C Paris target: Modulation by the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1002/2017GL073480

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL073480/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL073480/abstract)

Abstract: "Global temperature is rapidly approaching the 1.5°C Paris target. In the absence of external cooling influences, such as volcanic eruptions, temperature projections are centered on a breaching of the 1.5°C target, relative to 1850–1900, before 2029. The phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) will regulate the rate at which mean temperature approaches the 1.5°C level. A transition to the positive phase of the IPO would lead to a projected exceedance of the target centered around 2026. If the Pacific Ocean remains in its negative decadal phase, the target will be reached around 5 years later, in 2031. Given the temporary slowdown in global warming between 2000 and 2014, and recent initialized decadal predictions suggestive of a turnaround in the IPO, a sustained period of rapid temperature rise might be underway. In that case, the world will reach the 1.5°C level of warming several years sooner than if the negative IPO phase persists."

Plain Language Summary
Global temperature is rapidly approaching the 1.5°C Paris target. In this study, we find that in the absence of external cooling influences, such as volcanic eruptions, the midpoint of the spread of temperature projections exceeds the 1.5°C target before 2029, based on temperatures relative to 1850–1900. We find that the phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), a slow-moving natural oscillation in the climate system, will regulate the rate at which global temperature approaches the 1.5°C level. A transition to the positive phase of the IPO would lead to a projected exceedance of the target centered around 2026. If the Pacific Ocean remains in its negative phase, however, the projections are centered on reaching the target around 5 years later, in 2031. Given the temporary slowdown in global warming between 2000 and 2014, and recent climate model predictions suggestive of a turnaround in the IPO, a sustained period of rapid temperature rise might be underway. In that case, the world will reach the 1.5°C level of warming several years sooner than if the negative IPO phase persists.


See also the associated following article entitled: "Pacific Ocean shift could see 1.5C limit breached within a decade":

https://www.carbonbrief.org/pacific-ocean-shift-could-see-1point5-limit-breached-within-decade (https://www.carbonbrief.org/pacific-ocean-shift-could-see-1point5-limit-breached-within-decade)
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 22, 2017, 01:08:37 AM
In my last post, I indicated that the dynamical impact of the current positive phase of the IPO may well accelerate the rate of increase of GMSTA through at least 2035.  While some readers may think that this is largely irrelevant as the IPO oscillates, so that after 2035 one would expect this dynamical impact to reverse itself during the following negative IPO phase, resulting in a neutral impact on climate change from the IPO.  However, such Pollyannaish thinking does not consider the fact that once triggered the main phase collapse of the WAIS is irreversible, and in this and the next few posts, I hope to present a few key considerations indicating that the initial stages of a WAIS main phase collapse could begin by the 2035 to 2040 timeframe.  I note that the Antarctic folder has multiple threads with more input on such a WAIS collapse scenario during this century:

Edit: I note that in September 2012 the Thwaites Ice Tongue flow rate surged and continued flowing at a high rate through the end of 2012 (and this high flow rate can be associated with the surface elevation depression shown in the second image)

In this regards, the linked reference studies a subglacial draining event beneath Thwaites Glacier from June 2013 to January 2014:

Smith et. al. (2017), "Connected subglacial lake drainage beneath Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica", The Cryosphere, 11, 451–467, doi:10.5194/tc-11-451-2017

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/11/451/2017/tc-11-451-2017.pdf (http://www.the-cryosphere.net/11/451/2017/tc-11-451-2017.pdf)

Abstract. We present conventional and swath altimetry data from CryoSat-2, revealing a system of subglacial lakes that drained between June 2013 and January 2014 under the central part of Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica (TWG). Much of the drainage happened in less than 6 months, with an apparent connection between three lakes spanning more than 130 km. Hydro-potential analysis of the glacier bed shows a large number of small closed basins that should trap water produced by subglacial melt, although the observed largescale motion of water suggests that water can sometimes locally move against the apparent potential gradient, at least during lake-drainage events. This shows that there are important limitations in the ability of hydro-potential maps to predict subglacial water flow. An interpretation based on a map of the melt rate suggests that lake drainages of this type should take place every 20–80 years, depending on the connectivity of the water flow at the bed. Although we observed an acceleration in the downstream part of TWG immediately before the start of the lake drainage, there is no clear connection between the drainage and any speed change of the glacier."

Related to this Smith et. al. (2017) reference, the first attached image shows the a 2009 image of the Thwaites subglacial cavity that collapsed before January 2013 (see the second image) and the location of the adjoining Thwaites subglacial lake that drained in the June 2013 to January 2014 timeframe.  I note that the Smith et. al. (2017) reference indicates that this subglacial lake drains every 20 to 80 years depending on the connectivity of the water flow on the bed (see the third image of the approximate layout of the Thwaites subglacial water drainage system), which means the next such drainage could well be in the 2035 to 2040 timeframe.  The fourth image shows how the glacial ice in this Thwaites gateway area breaks into relatively small (3 to 5 km on a side) icebergs that could float away from the Thwaites gateway during the next drainage event without being pinned to the seafloor as the current Thwaites Ice Tongue is.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 22, 2017, 01:46:48 AM
Next, I provide a few abstracts from the linked: "Proceedings of the Wellington Symposium", held 12–17 February 2017, Wellington, New Zealand

https://www.igsoc.org/symposia/2017/newzealand/proceedings/proceedings.html (https://www.igsoc.org/symposia/2017/newzealand/proceedings/proceedings.html)

The first abstract (75A2445) indicates that the ice mass loss from the major Greenland outlet glaciers are "… influenced not only by their interaction with the ocean but equally by their interaction with the atmosphere, making them potentially more sensitive to climate change than thought so far."  Thus, with atypically high warming of the GMSTA to at least 2035, we could expect atypically high ice mass loss from the major Greenland outlet glacier, that could increase the current rate of cooling of the North Atlantic surface waters; which could impact the thermohaline ocean circulation (see the first image).  However, the second abstract (75A2308) indicates that recent findings from the RICE (Roosevelt Island climate evolution) project in the Ross Ice Shelf of Antarctica indicates that when the North Atlantic cools, due to the bipolar seesaw, the coastal ocean waters in the Amundsen Sea and Ross Sea areas warm rapidly.  The third abstract (75A2296) indicates that the ACME model confirms that with more global warming tropical Pacific atmospheric energy is telecommunicated to the Western Antarctic, which could increase local atmospheric temperatures resulting in more melt water ponds such as those indicated by the second image of surface melt days in Western Antarctica in January of 2005.  Lastly, the four abstract by DeConto (75A2456), indicates that hydrofracturing (from surface melt water) and cliff failures (from the loss of the Thwaites Ice Tongue) could trigger a collapse of the WAIS.

75A2445
Rapid melting in the basal zone of a major Greenland outlet glacier
Poul Christoffersen, Tun Jan Young, Bryn Hubbard, Samuel Huckerby Doyle, Alun Hubbard, Marion Bougamont, Coen Hofstede, Keith Nicholls
Corresponding author: Poul Christoffersen
Corresponding author e-mail: pc350@cam.ac.uk
The Greenland ice sheet is losing mass and raising sea levels by 1 mm a–1. While melting of the ice sheet explains half of the net annual loss, the other half is caused by dynamic processes operating in the catchments of marine-terminating outlet glaciers. These processes are poorly understood because they are confined to the basal zone, which is often inaccessible. The Subglacial Access and Fast Ice Research Experiment (SAFIRE) is addressing this paucity of data by drilling to the bed of Store Glacier, the second-largest outlet glacier in West Greenland in terms of flux. Seven 600-m-deep boreholes were drilled to the base of the glacier, about 30 km inland from the calving terminus, at a location where ice flows at a rate of 700 m a–1. Sensors installed at the bed and within ice show that the glacier overrides a warm bed consisting of soft, water-saturated sediment. Basal motion comprised a combination of intense deformation of temperature basal ice as well as sliding. High basal water pressure with diurnal variations showed that water produced on the surface is transported subglacially in a distributed basal water system, which nevertheless was sufficiently efficient to cause rapid lowering of the water level in all seven boreholes, once the system was intercepted. To evaluate the quantify of heat transported from surface to bed, we measured rates of basal melting with a phase-sensitive, frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) radar system installed autonomously at the borehole drill site. The radar captured internal and basal reflector ranges at high spatial (millimetre) and temporal (hourly) resolutions, producing a unique time series of ice deformation and basal melting, coincident with englacial and subglacial borehole measurements. Here, we show that the rate of basal melting was 3 m a–1 in winter, when heat at the bed is provided mainly by basal friction, and that it increases to 20 m a–1 in summer, when heat is also transported to the bed from the surface. Our measurements show that the flow of outlet glaciers from the Greenland Ice Sheet is influenced not only by their interaction with the ocean but equally by their interaction with the atmosphere, making them potentially more sensitive to climate change than thought so far.

75A2308
Glacial Antarctic warm events as captured by RICE ice core
Abhijith UV, Nancy Bertler, Giuseppe Cortese
Corresponding author: Abhijith UV
Corresponding author e-mail: Abhijith.Uv@vuw.ac.nz
The last glacial period in Antarctica has been punctuated by several episodes of warm events, where air temperature rose between 1 and 3°C, which are referred to as Antarctic isotope maxima (AIM). On correlating high-resolution Antarctic and Greenland ice-core records for AIM events, an out-of-phase relationship has been observed between both the hemispheres, with Antarctica warming when Greenland is under a cold phase and Antarctica cooling when Greenland stays in a warm state. This out-of-phase relationship is called the ‘bipolar seesaw’. Possible explanations include oceanic teleconnections via a shift in strength of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and Antarctic bottom water (AABW) formation. A recent comparison between the WAIS Divide and NGRIP records identified a Northern Hemisphere lead of about 218 ± 92 a and 208 ± 96 a for the onset and termination of Dangaard/Oeschger and AIM events, further evidence for an important oceanic role in the interhemispheric energy distribution. Roosevelt Island is a local ice rise at the northern edge of the Ross Ice Shelf. A 764 m deep ice core, the Roosevelt Island Climate Evolution (RICE) core, was obtained over two field seasons in 2011/12 and 2012/13. Due to its proximity to the Ross Sea, one of the major contributors to AABW, the RICE records have the potential to provide new insights into the drivers and consequences during the evolution of AIM events. Here, we will present preliminary data of the major ion record from the RICE ice core covering an age range of 18–60 ka with the main focus of understanding core aspects of AABW during AIM events, including its strength and mode of formation and further to test the bipolar seesaw hypothesis.

75A2296
Role of tropical teleconnections in changes in the Southern Ocean dynamics and Antarctic sea-ice extent in the ACME Earth System Model
Rahul Sivankutty, Diana Francis, Eayrs Clare, David Holland, Stephen Price
Corresponding author: Rahul Sivankutty
Corresponding author e-mail: rs5521@nyu.edu
Recent studies suggest that changes in the Southern Ocean, particularly the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, can influence the thermal structure of the upper ocean and thus affect sea-ice concentration in the Antarctic region. The poleward shifting of subtropical westerlies can result in changes in ocean circulation pattern. The changes in the Southern Annular Mode, and its linkage to tropical SST variability, prove that tropical teleconnections can play an important role in Antarctic climate variability. Using a state-of-the-art Earth system model – the US Department of Energy’s Accelerated Climate Model for Energy (ACME) – which includes coupled representations of all of the components of the physical climate system (atmosphere, land, ocean, sea ice and land ice), we study the tropical linkages to the variability in the Southern Ocean and Antarctic sea ice. The study validates the model’s ability to capture the observed teleconnection patterns. The mechanisms by which the tropical climate influences the dynamics of the Southern Ocean and thereby Antarctic sea ice variability are highlighted.

75A2456
Future fate of the polar ice sheets and implications for global coastlines
Rob DeConto
Corresponding author: Rob DeConto
Corresponding author e-mail: deconto@geo.umass.edu
New climate and ice-sheet modeling, calibrated to past changes in sea level, is painting a stark picture of the future fate of the great polar ice sheets if greenhouse-gas emissions continue unabated. This is especially true for Antarctica, where a substantial fraction of the ice sheet rests on bedrock more than 500 m below sea level. Here, we will explore the sensitivity of the polar ice sheets to a warming atmosphere and ocean, using models that include previously underappreciated physical processes, including surface meltwater-driven hydrofracturing and structural failure of ice cliffs. Approaches to more precisely define the climatic thresholds capable of triggering rapid and potentially irreversible ice-sheet retreat will also be discussed, as will the potential for policy and aggressive mitigation strategies like those discussed at the 2015 Paris Climate Conference to substantially reduce the risk of extreme sea-level rise.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 22, 2017, 02:00:30 AM
For my last post in this series about an potential early trigger to the main phase collapse of the WAIS in the 2035 to 2040 timeframe, I provide the linked reference [Hay et. al (2016)] that evaluates the implications of more accurately considering a 3-D viscoelastic Earth models as opposed to the less accurate assumption of elastic response on the sea-level fingerprint implications of an abrupt collapse of the WAIS.  Their findings conclude that "… when viscous effects are included, the peak sea-level fall predicted in the vicinity of WAIS during a melt event will increase by ~25% and ~50%, relative to the elastic case, for events of duration 25 years and 100 years, respectively."  This is important as the local change in sea level is due to ice mass loss from the WAIS; and I note that the magma below the Thwaites Glacier has low viscosity.

Carling C. Hay, Harriet C. P. Lau, Natalya Gomez, Jacqueline Austermann, Evelyn Powell, Jerry X. Mitrovica, Konstantin Latychev, and Douglas A. Wiens (2016), "Sea-level fingerprints in a region of complex Earth structure: The case of WAIS", Journal of Climate, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0388.1 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0388.1)


http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0388.1 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0388.1)


Abstract: "Sea-level fingerprints associated with rapid melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) have generally been computed under the assumption of a purely elastic response of the solid Earth. We investigate the impact of viscous effects on these fingerprints by computing gravitationally self-consistent sea-level changes that adopt a 3-D viscoelastic Earth model in the Antarctic region consistent with available geological and geophysical constraints. In West Antarctica, the model is characterized by a thin (~65 km) elastic lithosphere and sub-lithospheric viscosities that span three orders of magnitude, reaching values as low as ~4 × 1018 Pa s beneath WAIS. Our calculations indicate that sea-level predictions in the near field of WAIS will depart significantly from elastic fingerprints in as little as a few decades. For example, when viscous effects are included, the peak sea-level fall predicted in the vicinity of WAIS during a melt event will increase by ~25% and ~50%, relative to the elastic case, for events of duration 25 years and 100 years, respectively. Our results have implications for studies of sea-level change due to both ongoing mass loss from WAIS over the next century and future, large scale collapse of WAIS on century-to-millennial time scales."

I conclude this post by noting that the first image from Vaughan et. al. (2011) shows the height of ice above flotation for the WAIS, with superimposed black lines showing seaways that they believed occurred during the last collapse of the WAIS.  In the second image I have sketched on top of the Vaughan et. al. (2011) image the areas of the WAIS that I believe may initiate the main phase collapse of the WAIS circa 2040, assuming we follow RCP 8.5 through 2035.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 22, 2017, 06:18:27 PM
As a follow-up to Replies #288 & 289, the first attached Sentinel 1a image of the Pine Island Ice Shelf, PIIS, for May 21 2017, shows that the crack in the PIIS is becoming wider and may interconnect with the large crack in the ice shelf for the SW Tributary glacier.  If/when both of these ice shelves calve they may relieve the buttress action of the SW Tributary glacier, which would put more stress on the Thwaites Glacier's eastern shear margin; which would cause the ice flow velocity for Thwaites to increase somewhat.

Edit: For those who cannot see the images in Reply #289, I provide the second attached image illustrating the connection between the Thwaites Eastern Shear Margin and the SW Tributary Glacier.
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 23, 2017, 06:08:45 PM
I feel that in Reply #291, I wasn't very clear on the recent subglacial lake drainage event beneath Thwaites Glacier.  Therefore, here is more information on the June 2013 to Jan 2014 drainage of four subglacial lakes beneath the Thwaites Glacier.  The article is entitled: "Hidden lakes drain below West Antarctica’s Thwaites Glacier".

http://www.washington.edu/news/2017/02/08/hidden-lakes-drained-under-west-antarcticas-thwaites-glacier/ (http://www.washington.edu/news/2017/02/08/hidden-lakes-drained-under-west-antarcticas-thwaites-glacier/)

Extract: "Researchers at the University of Washington and the University of Edinburgh used data from the European Space Agency’s CryoSat-2 to identify a sudden drainage of large pools below Thwaites Glacier, one of two fast-moving glaciers at the edge of the ice sheet. The study published Feb. 8 in The Cryosphere finds four interconnected lakes drained in the eight months from June 2013 and January 2014. The glacier sped up by about 10 percent during that time, showing that the glacier’s long-term movement is fairly oblivious to trickles at its underside.

Melting at the ice sheet base would refill the lakes in 20 to 80 years, Smith said. Over time meltwater gradually collects in depressions in the bedrock. When the water reaches a certain level it breaches a weak point, then flows through channels in the ice. As Thwaites Glacier thins near the coast, its surface will become steeper, Smith said, and the difference in ice pressure between inland regions and the coast may push water coastward and cause more lakes to drain."
Title: Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 23, 2017, 06:16:13 PM
Also, I think that I have not been so clear about the relationship of the geothermal heat flux and the basal ice melting in the WAIS.  Therefore, the linked reference (see also the first attached image and associated caption below) provides more evidence of high geothermal flux and associated basal melt water beneath the Thwaites Glacier, both of which will threaten its future stability:

Dustin M. Schroeder, Donald D. Blankenship, Duncan A. Young, and Enrica Quartini, (2014), "Evidence for elevated and spatially variable geothermal flux beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet", PNAS, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1405184111

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/06/04/1405184111.abstract (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/06/04/1405184111.abstract)

http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2014/06/04/1405184111.DCSupplemental (http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2014/06/04/1405184111.DCSupplemental)

Also see:
http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/06/10/antarctic-glacier-melting/ (http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/06/10/antarctic-glacier-melting/)

Caption: "This map shows the locations of geothermal flow underneath Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica that were identified with airborne ice-penetrating radar. The dark magenta triangles show where geothermal flow exceeds 150 milliwatts per square meter, and the light magenta triangles show where flow exceeds 200 milliwatts per square meter. Letters C, D and E denote high melt areas: in the western-most tributary, C; adjacent to the Crary mountains, D; and in the upper portion of the central tributaries, E. Credit: University of Texas Institute Geophysics"

For those who are interested, I provide the following the second image from:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/high-heat-measured-under-antarctica-could-support-substantial-life/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/high-heat-measured-under-antarctica-could-support-substantial-life/)

Finally, the third image should another image of the subglacial drainage system beneath Thwaites & PIG, while the fourth image shows the associate surface ice flow velocities from 2016.