Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Author Topic: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences  (Read 320028 times)

S.Pansa

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1650 on: March 07, 2017, 08:46:39 AM »
It seems difficult to determine what scientists have done with regards to modeling permafrost carbon emissions in CMIP5.  However, to me the linked reference seems to indicate that CMIP5 used land models that did not represent carbon emissions from permafrost very well (and thus they have low confidence in the projected emissions); and that scientists will try to do a better job in CMIP6. ...


That's my impression as well. Here is another very nice paper that comes pretty much to the same conclusion.
Schuur etal (including Schaefer, McGuire, ...), Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback, Nature 2015 (doi:10.1038/nature14338, free copy here).
The paper is based on research that was published after AR5.  On page 177 it says:

Next steps for model–data integration
The Earth system models analysed for the IPCC AR5 did not include permafrost carbon emissions, and there is a need for the next assessment to make substantive progress analyzing this climate feedback. It is clear, even among models that are currently capable of simulating permafrost carbon emissions, that improvements are needed to the simulations of the physical and biological processes that control the dynamics of permafrost distribution and soil
thermal regime.


More on the shortfalls of the current permafrost carbon models (same page).

The bad news are outlined on page 176:
There is uncertainty, but the vulnerable fraction does not appear to be twice as high or half as much as 5%–15%, based on this analysis. Ten per cent of the known terrestrial permafrost carbon pool is equivalent to, 130–160 Pg carbon.


If my math is correct, that equates to 475 to 590 Gt CO2 to the end of this century. The only good news: According to them, most of it will be released constantly in form of CO2-carbon. An abrupt release is not likely, they conclude:

projected emissions of CO2 and CH4 from thawing permafrost are unlikely to occur at a speed that could cause abrupt climate change over a period of a few years to a decade


The sad thing is. Pretty much all of the carbon budget estimates and mitigation pathways (at least those I am aware of) are base on the AR5-framework. Consequently, most of them do ignore the emissions from permafrost carbon feedback. 
Taking into account that the best estimate for these emissions is 475 to 590 Gt CO2 (until 2100), most of these budget-estimates and pathways are imho based in an alternative reality, or in  la la land (with a lot of arctic sea ice left in the summers after 2050?). What is the best guess for the 2C-carbon budget 1.000 Gt CO2?
Of course this is not news to you guys ... but it gets constantly ignored elsewhere. And even than most of the 2C-pathways require absurd amounts of negative emissions. What a mess ...

/rant ;)

Ah, all will be fine. Let's simple built a billion E-SUVs, just under 2 tones each - those who enable us to finally enjoy our wonderful nature & stop - en passant - the ongoing mass extinction (needs a cool app of course)

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10983
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1651 on: March 07, 2017, 04:57:42 PM »
The linked article is entitled: "Global greening may soak up less carbon dioxide than projected", and it makes it clear that scientists have ESLD again.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2123610-global-greening-may-soak-up-less-carbon-dioxide-than-projected/?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1488883052

Extract: "Our planet is getting greener thanks in part to the growth-boosting effects of extra carbon dioxide in the air. But this greening won’t soak up quite as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as climate scientists have been projecting.

That’s the conclusion of the first experiment to test the effect of raised CO2 levels on trees growing in soil low in phosphorus, which is common in the tropics and subtropics."

See also:
Journal reference: Nature Climate Change, DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE3235
Journal reference: Nature Ecology & Evolution, DOI: 10.1038/s41559-017-0081
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

DrTskoul

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 550
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1652 on: March 07, 2017, 07:20:04 PM »
EsLD ?
“You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts.”
― Richard P. Feynman

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10983
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1653 on: March 08, 2017, 02:30:08 AM »
EsLD ?

Erred on the Side of Least Drama.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

DrTskoul

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 550
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1654 on: March 08, 2017, 03:10:44 AM »
Ahhh ...Thanks.
“You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts.”
― Richard P. Feynman

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1401
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1655 on: March 08, 2017, 06:10:50 PM »
The sad thing is. Pretty much all of the carbon budget estimates and mitigation pathways (at least those I am aware of) are base on the AR5-framework
(edited by jai)

Yep, but that is not all of the scientific knowledge that was disallowed in the AR5 CMIP5 model runs there are many more. for instance:

Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1656 on: March 08, 2017, 06:57:01 PM »
The sad thing is. Pretty much all of the carbon budget estimates and mitigation pathways (at least those I am aware of) are base on the AR5-framework
(edited by jai)

Yep, but that is not all of the scientific knowledge that was disallowed in the AR5 CMIP5 model runs there are many more. for instance:

Just looked at schedule for AR6. 3 working group reports in 2021, synthesis report 2022, Final UNFCCC report 2023. So physical observations after 2020 can't get in?
What chance of getting missing feedbacks in ?

Will the horse have not only left the stable but also the stable burnt down ?  This observer believes that by 2023 the Arctic will be a different place.




AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10983
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1657 on: March 08, 2017, 07:22:54 PM »
Just looked at schedule for AR6. 3 working group reports in 2021, synthesis report 2022, Final UNFCCC report 2023. So physical observations after 2020 can't get in?
What chance of getting missing feedbacks in ?

Will the horse have not only left the stable but also the stable burnt down ?  This observer believes that by 2023 the Arctic will be a different place.

I have previously posted a lot of information about the efforts to better calibrate AR6 in the "Climate Model Test Beds: Calibrating Nonlinear ESMs" at the link below (be sure to look at both pages of the thread):

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1478.50.html
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10983
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1658 on: March 09, 2017, 10:24:23 PM »
The sad thing is. Pretty much all of the carbon budget estimates and mitigation pathways (at least those I am aware of) are base on the AR5-framework
(edited by jai)

Yep, but that is not all of the scientific knowledge that was disallowed in the AR5 CMIP5 model runs there are many more. for instance:

No policy maker would accept any projection without a CMIP6 level of effort; however, the computers in the CMIP6 project to not have enough power to correctly model the interaction of all feedbacks (I believe that ACME has the world's more powerful computers used for climate modeling and I do not believe that its Phase I projections will be included in CMIP6).  In addition to jai's list of underestimated feedbacks, there are indications that cloud feedbacks are more positive than previously assumed, and I do not believe that any CMIP6 model accounts for Hansen's ice-climate interaction.  Thus, more than likely we will be able to measure real climate responses sooner than we will get reasonably accurate climate model projections.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1401
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1659 on: March 10, 2017, 02:58:20 AM »
The sad thing is. Pretty much all of the carbon budget estimates and mitigation pathways (at least those I am aware of) are base on the AR5-framework
(edited by jai)

Yep, but that is not all of the scientific knowledge that was disallowed in the AR5 CMIP5 model runs there are many more. for instance:
No policy maker would accept any projection without a CMIP6 level of effort; however, the computers in the CMIP6 project to not have enough power to correctly model the interaction of all feedbacks (I believe that ACME has the world's more powerful computers used for climate modeling and I do not believe that its Phase I projections will be included in CMIP6).  In addition to jai's list of underestimated feedbacks, there are indications that cloud feedbacks are more positive than previously assumed, and I do not believe that any CMIP6 model accounts for Hansen's ice-climate interaction.  Thus, more than likely we will be able to measure real climate responses sooner than we will get reasonably accurate climate model projections.


Just looked at schedule for AR6. 3 working group reports in 2021, synthesis report 2022, Final UNFCCC report 2023. So physical observations after 2020 can't get in?
What chance of getting missing feedbacks in ?

Will the horse have not only left the stable but also the stable burnt down ?  This observer believes that by 2023 the Arctic will be a different place.

well on the upside that will give them plenty of time to:

  • realize how incredibly off their models were WRT Sea ice loss, ENSO response/warming response/Global Atmospheric circulation response to SO2 emissions reductions in China
  • go through the painstaking process of lead author and contributing author selection for the "Mea Culpa to Humanity and the World from the Global Scientific Community" that will serve as the prologue to the executive summary of the AR6
   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r94gooSsCc



Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

nicibiene

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
    • www.nicibiene.de
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1660 on: March 10, 2017, 11:30:18 AM »
Just read a little about the obviously in the models included hopefully presumption more CO2 means more biomass growth and the chance for more food (as a lot of people mean).

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/as-carbon-dioxide-grows-tropical-trees-do-not/

"Computer models that predict how climate change will play out assume that as greenhouse gas concentrations go up, forests will take advantage of the additional carbon dioxide and grow a bit more, increasing their capacity to mitigate global warming...."

I found pretty interesting details about the photosyntesis of C3 and C4 plants, I wasn't aware by now. C3 (most are that type) plants adapted to a lower athmospheric CO2 level, they need to breath more air to get their energy, their photosynthesis is not that efficient. The problem is, for more gas exchange they have to open their stomata longer. With open stomata they loose watervapour, they need enough water for growth, they are hurtable when drought an heat appears. More athmospheric CO2 would first mean, they have to breath less, shut their stomata longer. You could mean, so they could deal better with drought, but less evaporation means a loss of the cooling effect for their leaves. The leaves loose their air condition and get dry. Not a real good thing for more growth as the leaves are their engine  :o ...

https://academic.oup.com/treephys/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/treephys/tpr002#25185304

As scientists looked for the growth of tree rings in the tropics-where water sets no limits, they found that there is no effect of more growth. They assume that more starch, sugar could be transported to the ground/roots or soil minerals/nutricious borders set limits. Why should trees grow more then the soil gives them? I think they have a root powered sense for what is good for them, a balance system. They simply shut their stomata, they hold their breath somehow, to survive. Just like an starving animal stops moving to keep the energy balanced. But what will be, if the heat increases? Will they use the water to cool down? The behaviour of the northern trees seems to tell, they will not. I think they have no choice. Breathing means metabolism.

And what would it mean if water & CO2 overfed tropical trees hold their breath? Maybe that could also cause the little negative feedback of more athmospheric water vapour, atmospheric rivers, or tropical wetlands?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/as-carbon-dioxide-grows-tropical-trees-do-not/

Also very big source discussing the question - with a lot of other cross references seems to be that:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4865672/#!po=2.00000
(maybe I will dig through it, but not now)

Also remarkable: Wheat e.g.seem to get less nutricious.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/328/5980/899
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” –“Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning.” Albert Einstein

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1401
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1661 on: March 10, 2017, 06:05:24 PM »
http://fusion.net/story/391091/soil-study-portends-major-carbon-release/

Deep soil carbon much more active in response to warming that previously thought

The implications of this study, the first to extensively look at carbon stocks in soil below 20 centimeters in depth—which contain more than 50% of the planet’s soil-based organic carbon—are extremely worrisome, according to the study:

    The results shed light on what is potentially a big source of uncertainty in climate projections. Soil organic carbon harbors three times as much carbon as Earth’s atmosphere. In addition, warming is expected to increase the rate at which microbes break down soil organic carbon, releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere and contributing to climate change.


“Our calculations suggest that by 2100 the warming of deeper soil layers could cause a release of carbon to the atmosphere at a rate that is significantly higher than today, perhaps even as high as 30% of today’s human-caused annual carbon emissions depending on the assumptions on which the estimate is based,” said Caitlin Hicks Pries, a postdoctoral researcher in Berkeley Lab’s Climate and Ecosystem Sciences Division.


study here:  http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2017/03/08/science.aal1319

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2017/03/09/soils-carbon-climate/
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Andre

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1662 on: March 10, 2017, 09:26:54 PM »
Improved estimates of ocean heat content from 1960 to 2015

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/3/e1601545.full

Abstract:
We found that changes in OHC are relatively small before about 1980; since then, OHC has increased fairly steadily and, since 1990, has increasingly involved deeper layers of the ocean. In addition, OHC changes in six major oceans are reliable on decadal time scales. All ocean basins examined have experienced significant warming since 1998, with the greatest warming in the southern oceans, the tropical/subtropical Pacific Ocean, and the tropical/subtropical Atlantic Ocean. This new look at OHC and EEI changes over time provides greater confidence than previously possible, and the data sets produced are a valuable resource for further study.


One of the co-authors of the study also wrote a piece for the Guardian:

Earth's oceans are warming 13% faster than thought, and accelerating

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/mar/10/earths-oceans-are-warming-13-faster-than-thought-and-accelerating

Abstract:
First, we corrected past data for known biases in measurements. Second, we related the temperature measurements to results calculated from advanced climate computer models. Third, we applied temperature knowledge to larger areas so that a single measurement was representative of a large space around the measurement site. Finally, we used their knowledge of recent and well-observed temperatures to show that the method produced excellent results.

We were able to extend our techniques back to the late1950s and show that the rate of global warming has changed significantly in the past 60 years. One main outcome of the study is that it shows we are warming about 13% faster than we previously thought. Not only that but the warming has accelerated. The warming rate from 1992 is almost twice as great as the warming rate from 1960. Moreover, it is only since about 1990 that the warming has penetrated to depths below about 700 meters.






« Last Edit: March 10, 2017, 09:39:25 PM by Andre »

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10983
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1663 on: March 10, 2017, 10:34:54 PM »
The linked Scribbler article is entitled: "New Research Shows Global Warming Could Turn Tropics Into a Sweltering Dead Zone".  I note that if climate sensitivity is worse than that assumed by these studies, then we may well see much worse damage by the end of the century, than what such articles project.

https://robertscribbler.com/2017/03/09/new-research-shows-global-warming-could-turn-tropics-into-a-sweltering-dead-zone/

Extract: "New research out of Purdue University finds that a global warming event called the PETM made parts of the tropics too hot for living organisms to survive. And though the PETM happened many millions of years ago, these new scientific revelations are pertinent to the present day. The reason is that human activity in the form of fossil fuel burning is now rapidly causing the globe to heat up. And such warming, if it continues, could well turn large sections of the tropics into a dead zone.

During the present day, about half the human population, a good chunk of the world’s life forms, and a considerable amount of global farming occupies the tropics. However, according to recent research by the Max Planck Institute, parts of the tropical zone could be rendered basically uninhabitable to human beings by mid Century as the Earth heats up due to fossil fuel burning."

See also the associated following linked article entitled: "Evidence disproving tropical ‘thermostat’ theory: global warming can breach limits for life"

https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2017/Q1/evidence-disproving-tropical-thermostat-theory-global-warming-can-breach-limits-for-life.html

Extract: "New research findings show that as the world warmed millions of years ago, conditions in the tropics may have made it so hot some organisms couldn’t survive.

Longstanding theories dating to the 1980s suggest that as the rest of the earth warms, the tropical temperatures would be strictly limited, or regulated by an internal ‘thermostat.’"

&

The following linked article entitled: "Climate-exodus expected in the Middle East and North Africa".

https://www.mpg.de/10481936/climate-change-middle-east-north-africa

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10983
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1664 on: March 11, 2017, 06:07:57 PM »
One main outcome of the study is that it shows we are warming about 13% faster than we previously thought. Not only that but the warming has accelerated. The warming rate from 1992 is almost twice as great as the warming rate from 1960. Moreover, it is only since about 1990 that the warming has penetrated to depths below about 700 meters.

Andre,

Thanks for this important reference; as it confirms that climate sensitivity is higher than AR5 assumes.

Also, for those who like reference citations I provide the following:

Lijing Cheng, Kevin E. Trenberth, John Fasullo, Tim Boyer, John Abraham and Jiang Zhu (10 Mar 2017), "Improved estimates of ocean heat content from 1960 to 2015", Science Advances, Vol. 3, no. 3, e1601545, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1601545
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10983
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1665 on: March 11, 2017, 07:12:42 PM »
    • go through the painstaking process of lead author and contributing author selection for the "Mea Culpa to Humanity and the World from the Global Scientific Community" that will serve as the prologue to the executive summary of the AR6
       

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r94gooSsCc

    "At the advent of danger there are always two voices that speak with equal force in the human heart: one very reasonably invites a man to consider the nature of the peril and the means of escaping it; the other, with a still greater show of reason, argues that it is too depressing and painful to think of the danger since it is not in man's power to foresee everything and avert the general march of events, and it is better therefore to shut one's eyes to the disagreeable until it actually comes, and to think instead of what is pleasant. When a man is alone he generally listens to the first voice; in the company of his fellow-men, to the second."
    - Tolstoy, War and Peace.

    I doubt that AR6 will include any Mea Culpa from scientists, so long as they can hide in the company of do-nothing policy makers, a self-serving public and Pollyannaish magic-thinkers.
    [/list]
    « Last Edit: March 12, 2017, 12:41:18 AM by AbruptSLR »
    “It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
    ― Leon C. Megginson

    AbruptSLR

    • ASIF Emperor
    • Posts: 10983
      • View Profile
    Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
    « Reply #1666 on: March 12, 2017, 05:09:08 PM »
    http://fusion.net/story/391091/soil-study-portends-major-carbon-release/

    Deep soil carbon much more active in response to warming that previously thought

    The implications of this study, the first to extensively look at carbon stocks in soil below 20 centimeters in depth—which contain more than 50% of the planet’s soil-based organic carbon—are extremely worrisome, according to the study:

        The results shed light on what is potentially a big source of uncertainty in climate projections. Soil organic carbon harbors three times as much carbon as Earth’s atmosphere. In addition, warming is expected to increase the rate at which microbes break down soil organic carbon, releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere and contributing to climate change.


    “Our calculations suggest that by 2100 the warming of deeper soil layers could cause a release of carbon to the atmosphere at a rate that is significantly higher than today, perhaps even as high as 30% of today’s human-caused annual carbon emissions depending on the assumptions on which the estimate is based,” said Caitlin Hicks Pries, a postdoctoral researcher in Berkeley Lab’s Climate and Ecosystem Sciences Division.


    study here:  http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2017/03/08/science.aal1319

    http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2017/03/09/soils-carbon-climate/


    This research seems important enough to merit a more complete citation, as it indicates that carbon emissions from deeper soils are more sensitive to warming than previously assumed:

    Caitlin E. Hicks Pries, C. Castanha, R. Porras & M. S. Torn (09 Mar 2017), "The whole-soil carbon flux in response to warming", Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.aal1319

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2017/03/08/science.aal1319

    Extract: "Soil organic carbon harbors three times as much carbon as Earth’s atmosphere, and its decomposition is a potentially large climate change feedback and major source of uncertainty in climate projections. The response of whole-soil profiles to warming has not been tested in situ. In this deep warming experiment in mineral soil, CO2 production from all soil depths increased significantly with 4°C warming—annual soil respiration increased by 34-37%. All depths responded to warming with similar temperature sensitivities, driven by decomposition of decadal-aged carbon. Whole-soil warming reveals a larger soil respiration response than many in situ experiments, most of which only warm the surface soil, and models."

    See also the linked article entitled: "Study: Soils Could Release Much More Carbon Than Expected as Climate Warms"

    http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2017/03/09/soils-carbon-climate/

    Extract: "Their findings are based on a field experiment that, for the first time, explored what happens to organic carbon trapped in soil when all soil layers are warmed, which in this case extend to a depth of 100 centimeters. The scientists discovered that warming both the surface and deeper soil layers at three experimental plots increased the plots’ annual release of CO2 by 34 to 37 percent over non-warmed soil. Much of the CO2 originated from deeper layers, indicating that deeper stores of carbon are more sensitive to warming than previously thought."
    “It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
    ― Leon C. Megginson

    AbruptSLR

    • ASIF Emperor
    • Posts: 10983
      • View Profile
    Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
    « Reply #1667 on: March 12, 2017, 05:29:46 PM »
    Andre,

    Thanks for this important reference; as it confirms that climate sensitivity is higher than AR5 assumes.

    Also, for those who like reference citations I provide the following:

    Lijing Cheng, Kevin E. Trenberth, John Fasullo, Tim Boyer, John Abraham and Jiang Zhu (10 Mar 2017), "Improved estimates of ocean heat content from 1960 to 2015", Science Advances, Vol. 3, no. 3, e1601545, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1601545

    Not to seem repetitive, but it is a big deal that the oceans are warming 13% faster than previously assumed as discussed by Scribbler in the linked article entitled: "The Oceans are Warming Faster than Previously Thought; Rate of Heat Build-up Accelerating"

    https://robertscribbler.com/2017/03/10/the-oceans-are-warming-faster-than-previously-though-rate-of-heat-build-up-is-accelerating/

    Extract: "This increased rate of warming is rather concerning — especially when you consider the fact that about 90 percent of the total extra heat absorbed by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses produced primarily by fossil fuel burning ends up in the world’s oceans. For this reason, ocean heat gain is probably a better determiner of overall global warming than atmospheric heat gain. And, as a result, what we’re looking at is a world that’s surprising us with the rate at which it is responding to the insults of human fossil fuel emissions.

    Of course, heat in the oceans produces numerous added impacts to the Earth System. As we’ve seen in Antarctica and Greenland, that heat gain has caused a number of the world’s largest ice shelves and glaciers to start melting from below — increasing concerns about the future rate of global sea level rise. The accelerating heat gain in the world’s oceans is absolutely the primary driver of the ongoing global coral bleaching event that has continued uninterrupted since 2014. More ocean heat means less oxygen — which increases the extent of ocean dead zones. And various sea creatures from starfish to mollusks to walruses to puffins have all seen habitat loss and/or loss of key food sources due to ongoing warming.

    Extra ocean heat also both reduces the ability of the ocean to absorb CO2 even as it puts stress on various carbon stores — increasing the risk that a carbon feedback response from the Earth System will emerge to further worsen the rate of global warming.

    Finally, warmer oceans can help to push hydrological events such as instances of heavy rainfall and severe drought to greater extremes.  A press release by the study’s authors noted:

    "…we know the oceans are much warmer now and they contain the memory of climate change. Higher sea surface temperatures are continually reinforced by the extra heat beneath the ocean surface. The oceans are affecting weather and climate through more intense rains. This process is a major reason why 2016 was the hottest year ever recorded at the Earth’s surface, beating out 2015 which was the previous record. Additionally 2015 was a year with record hurricanes, heat waves, droughts, and wild-fires around the world.""
    “It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
    ― Leon C. Megginson

    DrTskoul

    • ASIF Middle Class
    • Posts: 550
      • View Profile
    Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
    « Reply #1668 on: March 12, 2017, 06:57:57 PM »
    Atmospheric temperatures are kept in check by the ocean, if the ocean starts warming faster it is going to get bumpy
    “You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts.”
    ― Richard P. Feynman

    AbruptSLR

    • ASIF Emperor
    • Posts: 10983
      • View Profile
    Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
    « Reply #1669 on: March 15, 2017, 10:37:27 PM »
    The linked article is entitled: "The feedback paradox"; and it indicates that high natural variability likely indicates high climate sensitivity.

    https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/03/14/the-feedback-paradox/

    Extract: "What’s quite often been discussed/mentioned here is that if one argues for a significant natural contribution to our long-term warming, then that’s potentially arguing for a high climate sensitivity.

    Any feedback process based on temperature will act on both natural and forced changes in the temperature. If such feedbacks result in pronounced natural temperature variations, they also imply that the climate sensitivity is high."
    “It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
    ― Leon C. Megginson

    nicibiene

    • ASIF Lurker
    • Posts: 46
      • View Profile
      • www.nicibiene.de
    Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
    « Reply #1670 on: March 16, 2017, 09:00:40 AM »
    As I thought a little about the effects of deeper thawing of permafrost, more decomposition and the warming effect of that processes, combined with the fact that siberia gets more snow than before. Here a nice article about a team of scientists that went out to have a look at that effects.

    http://www.sciencepoles.org/interview/what-is-happening-to-carbon-in-arctic-tundra-permafrost

    Our experiment was unusual in that it was intended to be a summer warming experiment only, but it turned into a summer and winter warming experiment in the end. Researchers who have done winter warming experiments see that there is much stronger decomposition going on during winter compared to summer. The reason for this is that when the soils are just below freezing, even relatively small increases in temperature strongly stimulates decomposers into action.




    “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” –“Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning.” Albert Einstein

    GeoffBeacon

    • ASIF Citizen
    • Posts: 255
      • View Profile
    Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
    « Reply #1671 on: March 16, 2017, 02:58:59 PM »
    I rely on Carbon Brief's excellent daily information but, unusually, one of my comments didn't get through moderation.  It was in Humans causing up to two-thirds of Arctic summer sea ice loss. This was concerning the paper by Ding et. al. that some of the media used to claim that only half the sea ice loss was due to human activity.

    I'm not sure whether it was just CB's spam filter or I said something I shouldn't. I certainly don't put them in the "conservative scientists" camp. Was my comment really out of order and was it reasonably accurate?


    Jai

    Thanks for telling me this study is based on the CMIP5 ensemble. This should have given it a health warning.  Just before the Department of Energy and Climate Change was shut down, their climate experts told me ...

    In answer to your specific questions:

    1. Am I correct in thinking that some of these feedbacks were not used in the models that calculated the “remaining carbon budgets” – as used in the IPCC AR5?

    That’s correct, the models used vary in what they include, and some feedbacks are absent as the understanding and modelling of these is not yet advanced enough to include. From those you raise, this applies to melting permafrost emissions, forest fires and wetlands decomposition.


    2. Are there other missing feedbacks that should be considered?
    The feedbacks you mention are certainly important, although there are several other feedbacks that could be included, but are currently too difficult to model. As knowledge and understanding advances, they will be added to the climate models.



    See Carbon budgets: A straightforward answer from DECC

    I have a dispute with Nature over subscriptions so I'm not paying to read this article but my guess is that it should be titled "The CMIP5 ensemble can only explain half the Arctic sea ice loss."

    Did Ding et al. know they were using faulty tools?
    Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
    The Sustainable Plotlands Association

    jai mitchell

    • ASIF Upper Class
    • Posts: 1401
      • View Profile
    Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
    « Reply #1672 on: March 16, 2017, 03:24:57 PM »
    Did Ding et al. know they were using faulty tools?

    of course they did but they gave it an attribution regardless.
    Haiku of Past Futures
    My "burning embers"
    are not tri-color bar graphs
    +3C today

    AbruptSLR

    • ASIF Emperor
    • Posts: 10983
      • View Profile
    Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
    « Reply #1673 on: March 21, 2017, 06:18:03 PM »
    The linked reference indicates that models indicate that rainfall will increase rapidly in the Arctic in coming years.  This should increase Arctic Amplification to higher levels than previously assumed in AR5 (if for no other reason than that rain will markedly increase methane emissions from Arctic permafrost).

    R. Bintanja et al. Towards a rain-dominated Arctic, Nature Climate Change (2017). DOI: 10.1038/nclimate3240

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3240.html

    Abstract
    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, little is known about future changes in the distributions of rainfall and snowfall in the Arctic. Here we use 37 state-of-the-art climate models in standardized twenty-first-century (2006–2100) simulations to show a decrease in average annual Arctic snowfall (70°–90° N), despite the strong precipitation increase. Rain is projected to become the dominant form of precipitation in the Arctic region (2091–2100), as 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 rainfall and snowfall will heavily impact Arctic hydrology (for example, river discharge, permafrost melt), climatology (for example, snow, sea-ice albedo and melt)8, 9 and ecology (for example, water and food availability).
    “It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
    ― Leon C. Megginson

    AbruptSLR

    • ASIF Emperor
    • Posts: 10983
      • View Profile
    Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
    « Reply #1674 on: March 23, 2017, 06:17:53 PM »
    The linked article is entitled: "New Video: It's Alive – Microbes and Melt on the Greenland Ice Sheet"; and I recommend watching the associated video as it discusses and important positive feedback mechanism for both global warming and for sea level rise that was not included in AR5 projections (but which Jason Box has warned about for many years).

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/microbes-melt-gis.html

    Extract: "In recent years, several research groups have been looking in detail at the darkening of the ice sheet – and understanding that, as the planet warms, and ice melts, more liquid water means more habitat for bugs, more darkening, more melt,..you get the picture."
    “It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
    ― Leon C. Megginson

    AbruptSLR

    • ASIF Emperor
    • Posts: 10983
      • View Profile
    Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
    « Reply #1675 on: March 26, 2017, 08:52:34 AM »
    The linked Scribbler article is entitled: " From Canada to Siberia, Permafrost Thaw Produces ‘Hell’s Mouth’ Craters, Sinking Lands, and 7,000 Methane Pockets Waiting to Blow", and it notes that the AR5 projections do not adequately account for these sources of GHG this century:

    https://robertscribbler.com/2017/03/24/from-canada-to-siberia-permafrost-thaw-produces-hells-mouth-craters-sinking-lands-and-7000-methane-pockets-waiting-to-blow/
    “It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
    ― Leon C. Megginson

    AbruptSLR

    • ASIF Emperor
    • Posts: 10983
      • View Profile
    Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
    « Reply #1676 on: March 27, 2017, 11:33:58 PM »
    The linked article is entitled: "Extreme weather events linked to climate change impact on the jet stream", which indicates that climate changes to the jet stream are increasing extreme weather events.  The level of sensitivity of this behavior to radiative forcing was not identified in AR5.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170327083120.htm

    Summary: "Unprecedented summer warmth and flooding, forest fires, drought and torrential rain -- extreme weather events are occurring more and more often, but now an international team of climate scientists has found a connection between many extreme weather events and the impact climate change is having on the jet stream."

    See the associate reference at:

    Michael E. Mann, Stefan Rahmstorf, Kai Kornhuber, Byron A. Steinman, Sonya K. Miller, Dim Coumou. Influence of Anthropogenic Climate Change on Planetary Wave Resonance and Extreme Weather Events. Scientific Reports, 2017; 7: 45242 DOI: 10.1038/srep45242

    http://www.nature.com/articles/srep45242

    “It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
    ― Leon C. Megginson