Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences  (Read 1015567 times)

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1850 on: August 24, 2017, 06:49:10 PM »
The linked source shows that Shindell (2014) calculations show that the TCR is estimated to be lying within the range of 1.3 to 3.2 centigrade degrees, with a median value of 1.7 centigrade degrees.  Also, the attached image by Shindell shows that the red TCR probability distribution function is skewed to the right, thus emphasizing higher values, the caption for the figure is given at the bottom of this post:

http://www.cccep.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/Releases/2014/Importance-of-new-study-on-the-sensitivity-of-the-Earths-climate.aspx

Extract: "Dr Shindell was a co-author on a paper by Alexander Otto and others, published in the journal ‘Nature Geoscience’ last year, which suggested that the value of the transient climate response lies between 0.9 and 2.0 centigrade degrees, with a median value of 1.3 centigrade degrees. However, Dr Shindell’s new paper shows that if a correction is made to the assumptions about aerosols and ozone, the transient climate response would be estimated to be higher, lying within the range of 1.3 to 3.2 centigrade degrees, with a median value of 1.7 centigrade degrees."

Also see:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/04/shindell-on-constraining-the-transient-climate-response/

&

David A. Stainforth, (2014), "Climate projection: Testing climate assumptions", Nature Climate Change4,248–249doi:10.1038/nclimate2172

Figure caption: "Figure shows representative probability distribution functions for TCR using the numbers from Shindell (2014) in a Monte Carlo calculation (Gaussian for Fghg and dTobs, lognormal fits for the skewed distributions for Faerosol+ozone+LU and E). The green line is if you assume exactly no difference between the effects of aerosols and GHGs; Red is if you estimate that difference using climate models; Dashed red is the small difference made by using a different start date (1850 instead of 1750)."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1851 on: August 24, 2017, 06:56:31 PM »
Yes.  The problem of criticizing anyone who steps out of line [with one's own views], and starts telling the truth [or a different version of the truth] must stop.  Not everything will conform to the majority.  Marshall and Warren were awarded the nobel prize in medicine for their work, which went against the majority.  Sometimes, contrarian opinions are just rubbish.  Other times, they help further scientific understand.  To dismiss them outright [as some here would have], reeks of bias and prejudice, and diminishes the role of science.

I think readers can benefit by reading the linked SkS article about climate change and the Galileo Complex:

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-skeptics-are-like-galileo.htm

Extract: "Some climate change skeptics compare themselves to Galileo, who in the early 17th century challenged the Church’s view that the sun revolves around the earth and was later vindicated.

The comparison to Galileo is not only flawed; the very opposite is true."

Edit:

If anyone wants to read an example of a typical dialogue on climate sensitivity and transient climate response, you can find one at the following link:

http://www.climatedialogue.org/climate-sensitivity-and-transient-climate-response/

Edit 2: For those uncertain how TCR related to ECS, I provide Fig. 9.42 of the AR5 report.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2017, 07:38:05 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1852 on: August 24, 2017, 07:32:15 PM »
Yes.  The problem of criticizing anyone who steps out of line [with one's own views], and starts telling the truth [or a different version of the truth] must stop.  Not everything will conform to the majority.  Marshall and Warren were awarded the nobel prize in medicine for their work, which went against the majority.  Sometimes, contrarian opinions are just rubbish.  Other times, they help further scientific understand.  To dismiss them outright [as some here would have], reeks of bias and prejudice, and diminishes the role of science.

Talk about misrepresenting what I said! There is an overwhelming policy consensus that I would argue is "soft denial" that does accept that climate change is real but does not accept that it is truly an urgent problem requiring immediate large-scale action.

Those that support harder versions of denial get well supported by industry groups and even feted by some of our current politicians, like Trump, and are given a voice by the media.

Those that argue against the soft denial get publicly attacked and place themselves at professional risk. These are the "contrary" thinkers - Kevin Anderson, Jim Hansen etc. They are the real Galileos, speaking uncomfortable truth to power.

Ned W

  • Guest
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1853 on: August 24, 2017, 07:55:39 PM »
early mortality projections, mainly in sub-sahara Africa  and SE Asia under a >2.0C warming scenario are in excess of 1 billion human beings.
Geoff Beacon asked for a source, and you replied with this:

Quote
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/134014/1/9789241507691_eng.pdf

Quote
    Climate change is projected to have substantial adverse impacts on future mortality, even
    under optimistic scenarios of future socioeconomic development. Under a base case
    socioeconomic scenario, we estimate approximately 250 000 additional deaths due to climate
    change per year between 2030 and 2050.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1920.msg108521.html#msg108521

Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but I don't understand how you went from "250,000 additional deaths ... per year between 2030 and 2050" to "mortality projections ... are in excess of 1 billion human beings"  250,000 cases/year x 20 years is 5 million, not over 1 billion.

Was there some additional aspect that I'm missing?  Just curious.

The report looked only at A1B emission scenario temp response between 2030-2050  this temperature range is from about +.85 to +1.5C (from 2000) (see graph below). We are already at the +.65C (from 2000) value today.  The temp regime will reach the +1.5C by 2035.

They also state in the report that they are not including other impacts like migration and conflict.  If you look at the gridded surface temperature response to warming, at +2.0C, sub-sahara africa will experience +3.5C  and at +4.0C it will be +6.0C.

If you project the human mortality based on current conflicts (in Yemen for example) and severe droughts (in Ethiopia) and include time periods through 2100 and even beyond.  The mortality rate goes up far beyond the analysis in the report. 

The 2 billion human deaths projection is my own.
First, thanks for replying to my question.  But it looks like the source you gave to Geoff Beacon (the WHO report) has basically nothing at all to do with the claim that you made (1+ billion excess deaths).  Why cite a source that gives a number 400 times smaller than yours and that doesn't really lead in any direct quantifiable way to your number?

Beyond that ... how can I say this politely?  Almost everything you say in your response is wrong or at least sloppy.

"The report looked only at A1B emission scenario temp response between 2030-2050  this temperature range is from about +.85 to +1.5C (from 2000)"
The actual A1B increase from 2000 is 0.7 C in 2030 and 1.3 C in 2050.

"We are already at the +.65C (from 2000) value today."
Using GISTEMP I get values around 0.4 to 0.6 depending on how I calculate it.  The best way, to avoid noise from the start and end years, is using a LOWESS function, which gives a value of +0.47 for 2017, relative to 2000.

"The temp regime will reach the +1.5C by 2035."
Is that still relative to 2000?  Because if so, it won't reach anywhere near +1.5C by 2035, neither in the CMIP3 A1B scenario used by the WHO report nor in the CMIP5 RCP8.5 scenario.  Relative to 2000, A1B has a warming of +0.84 C in 2035.  RCP8.5 has a warming of +0.99 C.  The other CMIP5 RCPs all have even less warming.

"They also state in the report that they are not including other impacts like migration and conflict." 
That is correct.

"If you look at the gridded surface temperature response to warming, at +2.0C, sub-sahara africa will experience +3.5C  and at +4.0C it will be +6.0C."
No, I don't see that at all.  Under RCP8.5, warming in Africa south of the Sahara is almost identical to the global average, both at +2C and at +4C and everywhere in between.  You are exaggerating the warming rate by 50%.


Source: KNMI climate explorer, using SREX region masks for WAF, SAF, and EAF.

It is not surprising that Africa would experience a similar rate to the globe as a whole -- land warms faster than oceans, but tropics warm more slowly than high latitudes, and the two effects cancel out.

"If you project the human mortality based on current conflicts (in Yemen for example) and severe droughts (in Ethiopia) and include time periods through 2100 and even beyond.  The mortality rate goes up far beyond the analysis in the report. "
Yes, if you cherry-pick places and times where there are large famines or conflicts, and then extrapolate those out to the indefinite future, you can create artificially high numbers of deaths.  That is not a reasonable method to draw inferences about the future.

The world has warmed nearly 1 C since 1960 while death rates have declined not risen. It is entirely possible that this will change in the future, and that climate change will result in an increase in the death rate, but I see no evidence for your claim that 2 billion climate-related deaths will occur in any reasonable time frame. 

« Last Edit: August 24, 2017, 08:08:52 PM by Ned W »

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1854 on: August 24, 2017, 08:45:45 PM »
For those who missed the linked 2014 article entitled: "Tail Risk vs. Alarmism", it argues that no reasonable adult would consider it alarmist to take a child by the hand to guard her against a 1% 'long-tailed' risk when crossing the street.  Similarly, policy makers should protect children from what they see as right-tailed climate change risk:

http://climatechangenationalforum.org/tail-risk-vs-alarmism/

Extract: "Tail risk is a concept that everyone is familiar with at some level. To take a rather obvious example, suppose an 8-year-old girl comes to a busy street which she must cross to catch her school bus. Unsure what to do, she asks an adult bystander for advice.  The adult replies that, most probably, she will make it across the street unharmed.

Any other reasonable adult listening to such advice would regard it as radically incomplete. Surely, no one would encourage the girl to cross the street if there were a 1% chance that she would be run over. The most probably outcome is, in this example, largely irrelevant. But here there is very little downside to walking the girl up the street to where there is a traffic light."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1855 on: August 24, 2017, 08:53:18 PM »
The linked 2015 reference indicates that 67 to 98% of the heat gain in the oceans from 2006 to 2013 occurred in the Southern Hemisphere (see the red areas of the attached plot of the ocean heat gain in the 0-2000 m layer of water).  This support PH17's point that slow response positive feedback mechanisms are being activated by the concentration of Anthropogenically driven heat in both the tropical Pacific and in the Southern Ocean:

Dean Roemmich, John Church, John Gilson, Didier Monselesan, Philip Sutton & Susan Wijffels, (2015), "Unabated planetary warming and its ocean structure since 2006", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate2513


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2513.html

Abstract: "Increasing heat content of the global ocean dominates the energy imbalance in the climate system. Here we show that ocean heat gain over the 0–2,000 m layer continued at a rate of 0.4–0.6 W m−2 during 2006–2013. The depth dependence and spatial structure of temperature changes are described on the basis of the Argo Program's accurate and spatially homogeneous data set, through comparison of three Argo-only analyses. Heat gain was divided equally between upper ocean, 0–500 m and 500–2,000 m components. Surface temperature and upper 100 m heat content tracked interannual El Niño/Southern Oscillation fluctuations, but were offset by opposing variability from 100–500 m. The net 0–500 m global average temperature warmed by 0.005 °C yr−1. Between 500 and 2,000 m steadier warming averaged 0.002 °C yr−1 with a broad intermediate-depth maximum between 700 and 1,400 m. Most of the heat gain (67 to 98%) occurred in the Southern Hemisphere extratropical ocean. Although this hemispheric asymmetry is consistent with inhomogeneity of radiative forcing and the greater area of the Southern Hemisphere ocean, ocean dynamics also influence regional patterns of heat gain."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Daniel B.

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1856 on: August 24, 2017, 08:54:44 PM »
For those who missed the linked 2014 article entitled: "Tail Risk vs. Alarmism", it argues that no reasonable adult would consider it alarmist to take a child by the hand to guard her against a 1% 'long-tailed' risk when crossing the street.  Similarly, policy makers should protect children from what they see as right-tailed climate change risk:

http://climatechangenationalforum.org/tail-risk-vs-alarmism/

Extract: "Tail risk is a concept that everyone is familiar with at some level. To take a rather obvious example, suppose an 8-year-old girl comes to a busy street which she must cross to catch her school bus. Unsure what to do, she asks an adult bystander for advice.  The adult replies that, most probably, she will make it across the street unharmed.

Any other reasonable adult listening to such advice would regard it as radically incomplete. Surely, no one would encourage the girl to cross the street if there were a 1% chance that she would be run over. The most probably outcome is, in this example, largely irrelevant. But here there is very little downside to walking the girl up the street to where there is a traffic light."

The fallacy in this comparison is the assumption that the general population are children, who cannot determine for themselves their best possible course of action.  Change that same example to an 18-year old, and most adults would consider it alarmist to take them by the hand to guard against the same 1% risk.

Ned W

  • Guest
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1857 on: August 24, 2017, 09:14:47 PM »
More generally, argument by analogy is problematic.  For example:

* It would be irresponsible to expect a toddler to cross a busy multilane road by themselves.

* It would be reasonable to expect an older child to cross a quiet side-street by themselves.

* It would be irresponsible to sell your home and go deep into debt to buy an M1A1 Abrams tank in which to drive your child across a street in maximum safety because you were concerned that holding their hand and walking them across wouldn't be safe enough.

There's no inherent way of determining whether a proposed course of action is best analogized to the first, second, or third case; i.e., whether it's too little, just right, or too much.

That's why people avoid argument from analogy.

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1858 on: August 24, 2017, 09:25:46 PM »

Beyond that ... how can I say this politely?  Almost everything you say in your response is wrong or at least sloppy.

"The report looked only at A1B emission scenario temp response between 2030-2050  this temperature range is from about +.85 to +1.5C (from 2000)"
The actual A1B increase from 2000 is 0.7 C in 2030 and 1.3 C in 2050.

"We are already at the +.65C (from 2000) value today."
Using GISTEMP I get values around 0.4 to 0.6 depending on how I calculate it.  The best way, to avoid noise from the start and end years, is using a LOWESS function, which gives a value of +0.47 for 2017, relative to 2000.

you are using a different methodology than I am, the difference is unimportant to the actual conversation, but of course you probably realize that.

Quote
"The temp regime will reach the +1.5C by 2035."
Is that still relative to 2000?  Because if so, it won't reach anywhere near +1.5C by 2035, neither in the CMIP3 A1B scenario used by the WHO report nor in the CMIP5 RCP8.5 scenario.  Relative to 2000, A1B has a warming of +0.84 C in 2035.  RCP8.5 has a warming of +0.99 C.  The other CMIP5 RCPs all have even less warming.

you (and they) are both wrong, severely.  We will cross 2.0C of warming from pre-industrial by 2035 due to a climate regime shift to near perpetual El Nino states and complete loss of Arctic sea ice leading to a jump in arctic temperatures.

Quote
"They also state in the report that they are not including other impacts like migration and conflict." 
That is correct.

"If you look at the gridded surface temperature response to warming, at +2.0C, sub-sahara africa will experience +3.5C  and at +4.0C it will be +6.0C."
No, I don't see that at all.  Under RCP8.5, warming in Africa south of the Sahara is almost identical to the global average, both at +2C and at +4C and everywhere in between.  You are exaggerating the warming rate by 50%.


Source: KNMI climate explorer, using SREX region masks for WAF, SAF, and EAF.

It is not surprising that Africa would experience a similar rate to the globe as a whole -- land warms faster than oceans, but tropics warm more slowly than high latitudes, and the two effects cancel out.

sorry but you are again incorrect on this assertion.  as stated by the IPCC AR5 report:  https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Chap22_FINAL.pdf#page=4
y. It is likely that land temperatures over Africa will rise faster than the global land average, particularly in the more arid regions, and that the rate of increase in minimum temperatures will exceed that of maximum temperatures. {22.2.1.2}

Quote
"If you project the human mortality based on current conflicts (in Yemen for example) and severe droughts (in Ethiopia) and include time periods through 2100 and even beyond.  The mortality rate goes up far beyond the analysis in the report. "
Yes, if you cherry-pick places and times where there are large famines or conflicts, and then extrapolate those out to the indefinite future, you can create artificially high numbers of deaths.  That is not a reasonable method to draw inferences about the future.

including events that are currently projected by the U.S. pentagon climate change threat assessment that are not included in the cited report on mortality above is not exactly 'cherry picking'.  Note I made no mention of conflict between Bangladesh and India, nor the projections of sea level rise and heat on south east asian rice cultivation.  It is clear that conflict and migration are going to cause far, far more deaths than heat and diseases mentioned in the report.

Quote
The world has warmed nearly 1 C since 1960 while death rates have declined not risen. It is entirely possible that this will change in the future, and that climate change will result in an increase in the death rate, but I see no evidence for your claim that 2 billion climate-related deaths will occur in any reasonable time frame.

if the average annual deaths from heat, disease and some nutritional impacts (through, as stated in the report, not nearly all of them) is 250,000 per year between over the 20 years of 2030-2050  +0.85 and +1.5 then the inclusion of regional instabilities, advanced sea level rise, migration impacts and other food-related impacts will be over 4 times that value during this period.

With a much higher rate by 2050 than was at 2030 since the value was presented as an average over that period.

So the next 50 years with temperatures going from (what it will actually be at 2050) of +3.5C to +6C (by 2100 if we do not geoengineer the climate and severely reduce emissions) will be well within the range of my estimates.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2017, 09:45:01 PM by jai mitchell »
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1859 on: August 24, 2017, 09:27:33 PM »
The fallacy in this comparison is the assumption that the general population are children, who cannot determine for themselves their best possible course of action.  Change that same example to an 18-year old, and most adults would consider it alarmist to take them by the hand to guard against the same 1% risk.

First, since we all agree that the really bad climate change consequences are at least some decades into the future, we are actually discussing the future of children who have no voice in what is going to happen to them, and who are totally dependent on the decisions made by adults now to either protect them or not.

Second, you are assuming that the adults (18-years old or otherwise) know the actual facts; while I have pointed out that AR5 projections are clearly out of date and under represent the true 'fat-tailed' risks.  Also, the linked reference demonstrates that climate response is dependent on the actual forcing pattern, and AR5 does not adequately model the true current model boundary conditions, nor the actual regional distributions of anthropogenic radiative forcing.  So the information that extant adults are basing their decisions on are written in quicksand.

A. D. Haugstad, K. C. Armour, D. S. Battisti & B. E. J. Rose (27 July 2017), "Relative roles of surface temperature and climate forcing patterns in the inconstancy of radiative feedbacks", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2017GL074372 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL074372/abstract

Abstract: "Radiative feedbacks robustly vary over time in transient warming simulations. Published studies offer two explanations: (i) evolving patterns of ocean heat uptake (OHU) or radiative forcing give rise to OHU or forcing “efficacies” and (ii) evolving patterns of surface temperature change. This study seeks to determine whether these explanations are indeed distinct. Using an idealized framework of an aquaplanet atmosphere-only model, we show that radiative feedbacks depend on the pattern of climate forcing. Yet the same feedbacks arise when the temperature pattern induced by that climate forcing is prescribed in the absence of any forcing. These findings suggest the perspective that feedbacks are influenced by efficacies of forcing and OHU is equivalent to the perspective that feedbacks are dependent on the temperature patterns induced by those forcings. Prescribed surface temperature simulations are thus valuable for studying the temporal evolution of radiative feedbacks."

Finally, you are apparently assuming that all parties are playing fair, while there is plenty of data showing that many fossil fuel companies (including ExxonMobil) have been actively misleading the public and promoting a left-tail bias.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1860 on: August 24, 2017, 09:41:49 PM »
More generally, argument by analogy is problematic.  For example:

* It would be irresponsible to expect a toddler to cross a busy multilane road by themselves.

* It would be reasonable to expect an older child to cross a quiet side-street by themselves.

* It would be irresponsible to sell your home and go deep into debt to buy an M1A1 Abrams tank in which to drive your child across a street in maximum safety because you were concerned that holding their hand and walking them across wouldn't be safe enough.

There's no inherent way of determining whether a proposed course of action is best analogized to the first, second, or third case; i.e., whether it's too little, just right, or too much.

That's why people avoid argument from analogy.

First, all climate models use a family of scenarios to establish a range of risks; which is effectively the same thing as taking a family of analogies (such as those you cite) to establish a PDF for risk evaluation; and in my example I was focusing on the right-tailed scenario that will indeed affect future young children very directly.

Second, all people living in civilized society expect that policy makers have applied appropriate factors of safety, that are appropriate for all ages of citizens.  This means that currently no infrastructure (crosswalk or otherwise) is planned using median risk values.  This is why the Paris Accord says that we need to stay well below a 1.5C temperature increase if we want to remain civilized.  We do not want to promote a law of the jungle (dog eat dog) future for our children.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Ned W

  • Guest
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1861 on: August 24, 2017, 10:24:17 PM »
"The temp regime will reach the +1.5C by 2035."
Is that still relative to 2000?  Because if so, it won't reach anywhere near +1.5C by 2035, neither in the CMIP3 A1B scenario used by the WHO report nor in the CMIP5 RCP8.5 scenario.  Relative to 2000, A1B has a warming of +0.84 C in 2035.  RCP8.5 has a warming of +0.99 C.  The other CMIP5 RCPs all have even less warming.

you (and they) are both wrong, severely.  We will cross 2.0C of warming from pre-industrial by 2035 due to a climate regime shift to near perpetual El Nino states and complete loss of Arctic sea ice leading to a jump in arctic temperatures.
This is what I meant when I called your work "sloppy".  You started out by referring to a WHO report that was based on X amount of warming relative to a 1961-1990 baseline.  Then you mixed in numbers about warming relative to a "year 2000" baseline.  Now you're referring to a pre-industrial baseline.

These differences matter!  For GISTEMP, "pre-industrial" is around -0.1 to -0.2 C while the year 2000 is around +0.5 C. Jumping back and forth between baselines adds or subtracts 0.6 to 0.7 C from all your numbers.  When you jump around from one baseline to another without specifying what you're talking about, it becomes impossible for anyone to follow your work.

That said, +2C relative to preindustrial by 2035 is possible, I suppose, but on the extreme end of the high range.  You're welcome to your views, but that certainly has nothing to do with the WHO report you cited.

Quote
Quote
"If you look at the gridded surface temperature response to warming, at +2.0C, sub-sahara africa will experience +3.5C  and at +4.0C it will be +6.0C."
No, I don't see that at all.  Under RCP8.5, warming in Africa south of the Sahara is almost identical to the global average, both at +2C and at +4C and everywhere in between.  You are exaggerating the warming rate by 50%.


Source: KNMI climate explorer, using SREX region masks for WAF, SAF, and EAF.

It is not surprising that Africa would experience a similar rate to the globe as a whole -- land warms faster than oceans, but tropics warm more slowly than high latitudes, and the two effects cancel out.

sorry but you are again incorrect on this assertion.  as stated by the IPCC AR5 report:  https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Chap22_FINAL.pdf#page=4
y. It is likely that land temperatures over Africa will rise faster than the global land average, particularly in the more arid regions, and that the rate of increase in minimum temperatures will exceed that of maximum temperatures. {22.2.1.2}
No, actually, I went straight to the RCP8.5 outputs that were the basis for the IPCC AR5 report.  All three regions of Africa south of the Sahara warm at close to the global average.  See the graph there, and feel free to download the actual model outputs at KNMI if you don't believe me.  The mask regions for sub-Saharan Africa are SAF, EAF, and WAF.

It's possible that some of the reason the sentence you quote fails to match up with the actual data used in the IPCC AR5 is because the sentence is about all of Africa not sub-Saharan Africa and in fact emphasizes "particularly in the more arid regions" which needless to say might refer to the Sahara.  This is yet another example of sloppy or careless work, jumping from a claim about Sub-Saharan Africa to a quote about what might actually be the Sahara. 

Quote
if the average annual deaths from heat, disease and some nutritional impacts (through, as stated in the report, not nearly all of them) is 250,000 per year between over the 20 years of 2030-2050  +0.85 and +1.5 then the inclusion of regional instabilities, advanced sea level rise, migration impacts and other food-related impacts will be over 4 times that value during this period.
OK, for the sake of argument let's go with that.  That brings the WHO estimate to 20 million, still two orders of magnitude lower than your claimed 2 billion.

Quote
With a much higher rate by 2050 than was at 2050 since the value was presented as an average over that period.
You're just hand-waving at this point, but why not, let's double the already-quadrupled WHO number, to humor you.

Quote
So the next 50 years with temperatures going from (what it will actually be at 2050) of +3.5C to +6C will be well within the range of my estimates.
We probably won't reach +6C or anything near it by 2100 but what the hell, let's triple the already doubled and quadrupled WHO number, bringing it to 120 million.  Your "2 billion" claim is still too high by about 1667%.

Really, your argument just comes down to hand-waving.  Geoff Beacon asked for a source for the "billions of excess deaths" claim, and you cited the WHO report.  I asked you how the WHO's figure of 5 million somehow turned into 2 billion, and the answer is ... basically, you just picked the number 2 billion because it's big and you think the number of people killed by climate change will be big. 

Next time, just make it clear that you're making the numbers up rather than faking a source for your claim, please.  It will save everyone else the time of trying to figure out what the hell the WHO report had to do with it all.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1862 on: August 24, 2017, 10:43:55 PM »
From 2014, but perhaps relevant to the discussion here?

Quote
at the current rate, global warming will rise to two degrees Celsius by 2036

Does anyone know if M. Mann has updated this projection?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1863 on: August 24, 2017, 11:54:00 PM »

This is what I meant when I called your work "sloppy".  You started out by referring to a WHO report that was based on X amount of warming relative to a 1961-1990 baseline.  Then you mixed in numbers about warming relative to a "year 2000" baseline.  Now you're referring to a pre-industrial baseline.

Ned,

The WHO report was based on the A1B emission scenario.

I am not sure why you think it is ok to make false assertions like you do regarding the body of my work but it is starting to look like trolling.  please pay attention to what you are reading and I won't be upset at your mis-assertions.
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Daniel B.

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1864 on: August 24, 2017, 11:57:29 PM »
From 2014, but perhaps relevant to the discussion here?

Quote
at the current rate, global warming will rise to two degrees Celsius by 2036

Does anyone know if M. Mann has updated this projection?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/

I have not seen anything about this specifically, but he did respond to the NY magazine's famous doomsday article.

https://m.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/1470539096335621

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1865 on: August 25, 2017, 12:04:28 AM »
Ned,

If we maintain the WHO average of 250K deaths per year between 2030 and 2050 and project this same value through 2100 we get 17.5 million and, as you agreed, they did not include deaths due to conflict and migration. 

Under the A1B emission scenario temperatures continue to rise, we are well above those projections now and they will continue to go up beyond even the RCP 8.5 for at least the next 3 decades.

Are you actually asserting that the average death value (one at the median date of 2040 will not increase by 2100?  you even agree that more destructive forces (by orders of magnitude) of conflict and migration are not included in the assessment.  In addition, the more pernicious impacts of drought and heatwaves as well as sea level rise on food production in the latter half of the century are also not included in the projection.

It is obvious that your assertions are not consistent with any real critical thought about this issue. 
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1866 on: August 25, 2017, 12:10:08 AM »
I am not sure why you think it is ok to make false assertions like you do regarding the body of my work but it is starting to look like trolling.

The linked articles by the Union of Concerned Scientists discuss the disinformation playbook that the fossil fuel industry is using:

Title: "Global Warming Skeptic Organizations"

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html#.WZ9N-YWcGUk

Extract: "An overwhelming majority of scientists agree — global warming is happening and human activity is the primary cause. Yet several prominent global warming skeptic organizations are actively working to sow doubt about the facts of global warming.

These organizations play a key role in the fossil fuel industry's "disinformation playbook," a strategy designed to confuse the public about global warming and delay action on climate change. Why? Because the fossil fuel industry wants to sell more coal, oil, and gas — even though the science clearly shows that the resulting carbon emissions threaten our planet."

&

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-facts-and-fossil-fuel-industry-disinformation-tactics.html#.WZ9MlYWcGUk

Also see:

Title: "New Documents Reveal Denial Playbook Originated with Big Oil, Not Big Tobacco"

http://www.ciel.org/news/oil-tobacco-denial-playbook/
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1867 on: August 25, 2017, 12:27:44 AM »
Does anyone know if M. Mann has updated this projection?
wili,

It is my understanding that in the linked article entitled: "Why Global Warming Will Cross a Dangerous Threshold in 2036", Mann explains that he is referring to Northern Hemisphere temperatures:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mann-why-global-warming-will-cross-a-dangerous-threshold-in-2036/

&

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/supplements/EBMProjections/Data/
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Ned W

  • Guest
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1868 on: August 25, 2017, 12:38:58 AM »
Ned,

If we maintain the WHO average of 250K deaths per year between 2030 and 2050 and project this same value through 2100 we get 17.5 million and, as you agreed, they did not include deaths due to conflict and migration. 
And that number, 17.5 million, is still 100 times smaller than your 2-billion claim. 

That's OK -- I understand you have other reasons, from outside the WHO report, to believe that the climate related mortality rate will be much higher than the WHO's figure.  I personally think "2 billion" is an absurdly high estimate, but it's OK to disagree.

The thing is, though, if only 1% of the magnitude of your argument comes from the WHO report, and 99% of it comes from elsewhere, you probably shouldn't cite the WHO report as your source.  That's literally the only point I'm trying to make here.

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1869 on: August 25, 2017, 01:12:40 AM »
The linked 2016 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/

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

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

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

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1870 on: August 25, 2017, 04:29:23 AM »
Ned,

If we maintain the WHO average of 250K deaths per year between 2030 and 2050 and project this same value through 2100 we get 17.5 million and, as you agreed, they did not include deaths due to conflict and migration. 
And that number, 17.5 million, is still 100 times smaller than your 2-billion claim. 

That's OK -- I understand you have other reasons, from outside the WHO report, to believe that the climate related mortality rate will be much higher than the WHO's figure.  I personally think "2 billion" is an absurdly high estimate, but it's OK to disagree.

The thing is, though, if only 1% of the magnitude of your argument comes from the WHO report, and 99% of it comes from elsewhere, you probably shouldn't cite the WHO report as your source.  That's literally the only point I'm trying to make here.

Fair enough.  The thing is that CURRENT mortality contributed to climate change is well over 250,000 per year.  Just look at the growing conflicts due to resource impacts and droughts.  While not all of these are global warming caused, their impacts are exacerbated by regional impacts that result from global warming.  At its peak there were over 10 million people suffering severe food insecurity in Ethiopia last year.  Much of the turmoil on Central and south america's rural areas are attributable to decreased crop yeilds that are already being observed. 

I don't rely on any document as a "source" but rather integrate it and synthesize it with what I already understand about the systems we are talking about.  I also read the things I post on and so understand what they left out. 

1 billion early mortality due to the full impact of global warming on our global population is an EXTREME UNDERESTIMATION of the actual. 

I have already told you why.
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1871 on: August 25, 2017, 03:35:04 PM »
The linked 2016 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."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1872 on: August 25, 2017, 03:40:50 PM »
From a paleo point of view the worst case scenario for our current situation is a collapse of the WAIS in the next few decades leading rapid warming of the Northern Hemisphere & the Tropics (with a cooling of the Southern Hemisphere) due to the ice-climate feedback as illustrated in  the following three references related to investigations of Lake El'gygytgyn, NE Arctic Russia; which 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

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.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


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

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1873 on: August 25, 2017, 04:10:42 PM »
I personally think "2 billion" is an absurdly high estimate, but it's OK to disagree.

In my Reply #1822, I referenced a 2014 KPMG and UK Government Office report that empirically showed that given 'perfect storm' conditions (without significant climate change distress) that Western Civilization could collapse as early as 2030; which indicates the fragile nature of our current global economy.  Furthermore, in my Reply #1825, I implied that I believe that the coming of the 4th Industrial Revolution will postpone any such societal collapse until about 2050.  However, in none of this current line of discussion have I pointed out that abrupt sea level rise could essentially guarantee a socio-economic collapse between 2050 and 2060 (resulting in mass migration, and billions of deaths) if ECS is in the range of 4.5C (see also my Replies #1805, 1819, 1827, 1828, 1835, 1869, 1871 & 1872).

In this regards, the first attached image shows a SkS plot of GMSTA for RCP 8.5 with an ECS of 4.5C; which indicates that GMSTA will reach 2.7C circa 2035 to 2040 assuming these conditions.  Next, the first & second linked refers indicate that that per the EGU conference DeConto the WAIS would initiate abrupt collapse when GMSTA is somewhere between 2 and 2.7C, due to hydrofracturing and cliff failures (see the second and third images, which assume that ECS =3C, instead of the 4.5C that I am assuming here as an example of synergistic 'fat-tailed' risk).

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://client.cntv.at/egu2016/press-conference-8 (DeConto starts about 22:10) "

The fourth image shows how rapidly sea levels could rise (per Pollard & DeConto 2016) once hydrofracturing and cliff failures begin in the WAIS.  Given the large population in coastal and river delta (e.g.: Nile, Mekong, Jamuna, etc.) regions, abrupt sea level rise initiating circa 2035 to 2040 would essentially guarantee warfare and socio-economic collapse between 2050 & 2060.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2017, 05:06:53 PM 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

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1874 on: August 25, 2017, 04:41:17 PM »
The linked reference indicates that agriculture is a prime driver of the extraction of carbon from the top 2m of soil; which can then be released to the atmosphere in the form of CO₂ or CH4 as the organics degrade. With our ever increasing population estimates the food required to feed these people is a major source of continued global warming that is underestimated in AR5:

Jonathan Sanderman, Tomislav Hengl, and Gregory J. Fiske (2017), "Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use", PNAS, doi: 10.1073/pnas.170610311

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/08/15/1706103114.full.pdf

Extract: "Human appropriation of land for agriculture has greatly altered the terrestrial carbon balance, creating a large but uncertain carbon debt in soils. Estimating the size and spatial distribution of soil organic carbon (SOC) loss due to land use and land cover change has been difficult but is a critical step in understanding whether SOC sequestration can be an effective climate mitigation strategy. In this study, a machine learning-based model was fitted using a global compilation of SOC data and the History Database of the Global Environment (HYDE) land use data in combination with climatic, landform and lithology covariates. Model results compared favorably with a global compilation of paired plot studies. Projection of this model onto a world without agriculture indicated a global carbon debt due to agriculture of 133 Pg C for the top 2 m of soil, with the rate of loss increasing dramatically in the past 200 years. The HYDE classes “grazing” and “cropland” contributed nearly equally to the loss of SOC. There were higher percent SOC losses on cropland but since more than twice as much land is grazed, slightly higher total losses were found from grazing land. Important spatial patterns of SOC loss were found: Hotspots of SOC loss coincided with some major cropping regions as well as semiarid grazing regions, while other major agricultural zones showed small losses and even net gains in SOC. This analysis has demonstrated that there are identifiable regions which can be targeted for SOC restoration efforts."

See also:

Title: "World’s soils have lost 133bn tonnes of carbon since the dawn of agriculture"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/worlds-soils-have-lost-133bn-tonnes-of-carbon-since-the-dawn-of-agriculture

Extract: "The world’s soils have lost a total of 133bn tonnes of carbon since humans first started farming the land around 12,000 years ago, new research suggests. And the rate of carbon loss has increased dramatically since the start of the industrial revolution."

Caption for upper & lower panels of attached image: "Fig. 1. Global distribution of cropping and grazing in 2010 from (A) HYDE v3.2 and (B) modeled SOC change in the top 2 m. In A, color gradients indicate proportion of grid cell occupied by given land use. In B, legend is presented as histogram of SOC loss (Mg C_ha􀀀1), with positive values indicating loss and negative values depicting net gains in SOC.

Fig. 2. Historic reconstruction of loss in SOC relative to 10,000 BC (assumed NoLU). Temporal evolution of cropland and grazing land is given in stacked area plots. (Inset) Biplot of SOC loss (Pg C) v. total used land area (106 km2) for each predicted time interval."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1875 on: August 25, 2017, 04:52:00 PM »
I personally think "2 billion" is an absurdly high estimate, but it's OK to disagree.

In this regards, the first attached image should a SkS plot of GMSTA for RCP 8.5 with an ECS of 4.5C; which indicates that GMSTA will reach 2.7C circa 2035 to 2040 assuming these conditions. 
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2016/EGU2016-10930.pdf


If we suddenly stopped all emissions of anthropogenic SO2 we would reach +2.0C within 10 years.
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1876 on: August 25, 2017, 05:37:50 PM »
The linked 2016 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).

The linked 2017 article is entitled: "Climate-Friendlier Air Conditioning Chemicals Hard to Find, Study Shows".  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

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

Daniel B.

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1877 on: August 25, 2017, 06:44:34 PM »
I personally think "2 billion" is an absurdly high estimate, but it's OK to disagree.

In this regards, the first attached image should a SkS plot of GMSTA for RCP 8.5 with an ECS of 4.5C; which indicates that GMSTA will reach 2.7C circa 2035 to 2040 assuming these conditions. 
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2016/EGU2016-10930.pdf


If we suddenly stopped all emissions of anthropogenic SO2 we would reach +2.0C within 10 years.

I think you meant to say +1.5C.



https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170508184929.htm

+2.0C is still several decades off, if we do not act.


Mozi

  • New ice
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1878 on: August 25, 2017, 06:52:36 PM »
He did say SO2, not CO2.

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1879 on: August 25, 2017, 07:11:48 PM »
Let's remember that the UN IPCC AR5 used the old, and wrong, numbers for the GWP100 numbers for methane. It thought that CO2e was at 430ppm at the time when in fact it was already well above 450ppm (breaking 450ppm at least 5 years earlier). So, at the time of AR5 we were already well above the starting point for RCP8.5. It should therefore be no surprise if we are in for a period of accelerated warming. Especially if "global dimming" is reduced and Arctic sea ice continues to recede.

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1880 on: August 25, 2017, 10:11:22 PM »
Let's remember that the UN IPCC AR5 used the old, and wrong, numbers for the GWP100 numbers for methane. It thought that CO2e was at 430ppm at the time when in fact it was already well above 450ppm (breaking 450ppm at least 5 years earlier). So, at the time of AR5 we were already well above the starting point for RCP8.5. It should therefore be no surprise if we are in for a period of accelerated warming. Especially if "global dimming" is reduced and Arctic sea ice continues to recede.

For what it is worth, the AR5 climate models did use the correct GWP for methane; however, regarding the carbon budget, I believe that it is correct too low of values for the GWP of methane were likely used.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1881 on: August 25, 2017, 10:30:10 PM »
He did say SO2, not CO2.

I think that it is value to note that not only may anthropogenic aerosols have been masking recent potential temperature increases more than assumed (and that a rapid removal of anthropogenic aerosols, like SO2, would allow those potential temperature increases to be rapidly realized; but that if ECS is actually between 4 and 4.5C, then the following masking factors may also soon be deactivated thus allowing the full climate sensitivity to be revealed:

- Vegetation and particularly forests emit VOCs that transform in the atmosphere non-linearly into SOA's which promote the formation of low altitude cloud, which have negative feedback.  Thus, if vegetation growth has been relatively high since the end of the little ice age in 1850, but is about to be overwhelmed matters like deforestation & wildfires, then this masking (negative feedback) could be lost soon.

- As PH17 identified, the ocean has been absorbing 90% of all anthropogenic extra heat, but now this oceanic heat may be triggering an increase in El Nino activity and may soon trigger a loss in Antarctic sea ice extent.

- Phase relationships regarding the ENSO, PDO, IPO, AMO and other decadal oceanic cycles appear to be moving into more positive (rather than masking) phases in the coming decade(s).

- Deforestation and wildfires not only decreases VOC production but also results in the transformation of a carbon sink into a carbon source.

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

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1882 on: August 25, 2017, 11:03:33 PM »
The linked peer reviewed reference finds that ExxonMobil has deceived the public w.r.t. climate change for over 40 years.

Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes (23 August 2017), "Assessing ExxonMobil's climate change communications (1977–2014)", Environmental Research Letters, Volume 12, Number 8,

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f

Abstract: "This paper assesses whether ExxonMobil Corporation has in the past misled the general public about climate change. We present an empirical document-by-document textual content analysis and comparison of 187 climate change communications from ExxonMobil, including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed publications, internal company documents, and paid, editorial-style advertisements ('advertorials') in The New York Times. We examine whether these communications sent consistent messages about the state of climate science and its implications—specifically, we compare their positions on climate change as real, human-caused, serious, and solvable. In all four cases, we find that as documents become more publicly accessible, they increasingly communicate doubt. This discrepancy is most pronounced between advertorials and all other documents. For example, accounting for expressions of reasonable doubt, 83% of peer-reviewed papers and 80% of internal documents acknowledge that climate change is real and human-caused, yet only 12% of advertorials do so, with 81% instead expressing doubt. We conclude that ExxonMobil contributed to advancing climate science—by way of its scientists' academic publications—but promoted doubt about it in advertorials. Given this discrepancy, we conclude that ExxonMobil misled the public. Our content analysis also examines ExxonMobil's discussion of the risks of stranded fossil fuel assets. We find the topic discussed and sometimes quantified in 24 documents of various types, but absent from advertorials. Finally, based on the available documents, we outline ExxonMobil's strategic approach to climate change research and communication, which helps to contextualize our findings."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1883 on: August 25, 2017, 11:24:51 PM »
Many scientists have promoted the use of technology to lower carbon emissions, but the linked peer reviewed research indicates that the historical record does not support this 'optimist' view point:

Mingquan Li & Qi Wang (2017), "Will technology advances alleviate climate change? Dual effects of technology change on aggregate carbon dioxide emissions", Energy for Sustainable Development, Volume 41, Pages 61–68, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2017.08.004

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0973082617300698

Abstract: "The relationship between technology change and carbon dioxide emissions is complex. Existing research has emphasized technology progress in reducing carbon emission intensity but has ignored the impact of technology progress on economic growth, which leads to changes in carbon dioxide emissions. We argue that technology has relatively independent economic and environmental attributes. To provide evidence for this, we developed a method to distinguish the scale effect of technology change and its influence on economic scale from the intensity effect of technology change and its influence on carbon emission intensity. We applied this method to study the impact of technology change on carbon dioxide emissions in 95 countries between 1996 and 2007. We found that technology change indeed reduced aggregate carbon dioxide emissions, but the scale and intensity effects of technology change separately expressed positive and negative values. As a consequence, previous studies that only consider the intensity effect overestimate the impact of technology change on carbon dioxide emissions. Our findings yield important considerations for carbon dioxide emissions control in policy making."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1884 on: August 26, 2017, 12:30:16 AM »
Given the large population in coastal and river delta (e.g.: Nile, Mekong, Jamuna, etc.) regions, abrupt sea level rise initiating circa 2035 to 2040 would essentially guarantee warfare and socio-economic collapse between 2050 & 2060.

The two attached images add some more food for thought on the question of possible abrupt sea level rise and socio-economic collapse circa 2050-2060. The first image shows a predicted pulse of methane emission from thermokaust lakes (in permafrost regions) circa 2050 following a BAU pathway to that point; and the second images shows the number of people per country/region that would be impacted by a 5m sea level rise.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1885 on: August 26, 2017, 03:03:23 AM »
Let's remember that the UN IPCC AR5 used the old, and wrong, numbers for the GWP100 numbers for methane. It thought that CO2e was at 430ppm at the time when in fact it was already well above 450ppm (breaking 450ppm at least 5 years earlier). So, at the time of AR5 we were already well above the starting point for RCP8.5. It should therefore be no surprise if we are in for a period of accelerated warming. Especially if "global dimming" is reduced and Arctic sea ice continues to recede.

For what it is worth, the AR5 climate models did use the correct GWP for methane; however, regarding the carbon budget, I believe that it is correct too low of values for the GWP of methane were likely used.

AR5 used a GWP100 of 21 for methane, as detailed in the attached section 11.9.1.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-ii.pdf

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1886 on: August 26, 2017, 04:01:36 AM »
AR5 used a GWP100 of 21 for methane, as detailed in the attached section 11.9.1.

Drew Shindell was co-chair of Chapter 8 of AR5, and per Table 8.7 (page 714) of the linked pdf of Chapter 8, when you include the feedback the GWP100 of methane is 34:

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

Edit: Table 8.7 has this footnote for methane: "These values do not include CO2 from methane oxidation. Values for fossil methane are higher by 1 and 2 for the 20 and 100 year metrics, respectively (Table 8.A.1)"  Thus, when you consider methane from fossil fuel and when you consider the GWP from the CO2 from methane oxidation, the resulting GWP values are higher than in Table 8.7.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2017, 04:07:45 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

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1887 on: August 26, 2017, 04:12:54 AM »
How can one part of AR5 contradict another?

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1888 on: August 26, 2017, 04:22:45 AM »
How can one part of AR5 contradict another?

How can AR5's paleo, observed and modeled values of ECS all contradict each other?

How can AR5 give tight confidence ranges on most of its values and then hide caveats in the text and footnotes that acknowledge all of the factors that are left out of consideration when determining those values and their 'tight' confidence ranges?

How can AR5's carbon budget be determined using TCR when all of their temperature this century projections effectively use ECS?

When you read AR5 you need to read all the 'fine print' and definitions extremely closely, and then (and only then) you can begin to understand just how much this document errs 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

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1889 on: August 26, 2017, 12:07:58 PM »
How can one part of AR5 contradict another?

the 21 value is the SAR value that was used to derive the Kyoto protocols.  Almost no-one has updated their estimates using more recent values since this was the methodology they were introduced to and do not have updated information (talking about governments here)

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-ii.pdf

Footnote at the bottom of page 1284

Quote
Note:
* CO2-equivalent emissions in this report are—if not stated otherwise—aggregated
using global warming potentials (GWPs) over a 100-year time horizon, often
derived from the IPCC Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1995a). A discussion
about different GHG metrics can be found in Sections 1.2.5 and 3.9.6 (see
Annex II.9.1 for the GWP values of the different GHGs).

ASLR is right the values he posted are what was used.  I note they also assert a -50 and +75% uncertainty in their GWP values for CH4 (on the 100 year timeline).
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1890 on: August 26, 2017, 03:15:02 PM »
When you read AR5 you need to read all the 'fine print' and definitions extremely closely, and then (and only then) you can begin to understand just how much this document errs on the side of least drama.

Following Hegel's belief that the key points of complex situations are often best conveyed by the arts, I provide the following quotes by Michael Crichton to convey that the 'consensus science' presented by AR5 is biased in that it errs on the side of least drama. 
"Michael Crichton was an American best-selling author, physician, producer, director and screenwriter, best known for his work in the science fiction, medical fiction and thriller genres. His books have sold over 200 million copies worldwide, and many have been adapted into films."

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton

1. "The notion that the natural world obeys its own rules and doesn't give a damn about your expectations comes as a massive shock... it will demand that you adapt to it — and if you don't, you die. It is a harsh, powerful, and unforgiving world, that most urban westerners have never experienced."

2. "Those who are certain are demonstrating their personality type, or their belief system, not the state of their knowledge."

3. "In the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better."

4. "I am certain there is too much certainty in the world."

5. "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

6. "Science is nothing more than a method of inquiry. The method says an assertion is valid — and merits universal acceptance — only if it can be independently verified. The impersonal rigor of the method means it is utterly apolitical. A truth in science is verifiable whether you are black or white, male or female, old or young. It's verifiable whether you like the results of a study, or you don't."

7. "I want to state emphatically that nothing in my remarks should be taken to imply that we can ignore our environment, or that we should not take climate change seriously. On the contrary, we must dramatically improve our record on environmental management. That is why a focused effort on climate science, aimed at securing sound, independently verified answers to policy questions, is so important now."

That is to say that in the Anthropocene understanding human behavior, and that scientists are humans, who want to be the 'heroes' of their own life stories.  Examples of this include:

1. True risk management evaluations use a family of input scenarios that range from conservative to non-conservative w.r.t. to uncertainty, with the median scenarios begin the most likely.  However, with regards to radiative forcing scenarios AR5 put RCP 4.5 in the median position while empirical evidence shows that RCP 8.5 is the path we continue to follow (just look at the Keeling Curve).

2. The vast majority of climate model runs have used SRES and RCP forcing scenarios at the lower end of this family of curves, while all of the risk lays at the upper end of this family of curves.

3. Scientists reduced the uncertainty ranges for the RCP scenarios as compared to the earlier SRES scenarios, on the pretext that policy makers would work to control emissions; however, empirical evidence has not supported this assumption for the BAU pathway that we are following.

4. The 'canonical' range for ECS cited in AR5 shows no improvement over the range of values assumed in the 1960's; which I attribute to consensus climate scientists erring on the side of least drama.  In reality, nature only has one current value of ECS and there is plenty of evidence that any reasonable risk evaluation should assume a value on the upper end of this range, per the Precautionary Science.

5. Generating carbon budgets using values of TCR instead of ECS is an act of extreme delusion.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2017, 03:22:22 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1891 on: August 26, 2017, 05:07:57 PM »
Daniel,

No, I meant +2.0C, in 10 years if we suddenly stopped the emissions of SO2 globally.
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1892 on: August 31, 2017, 04:39:36 PM »
The linked reference studies historical Alaskan SAT data and concludes that: "It is likely that enhanced climate warming may also have happened in the other regions of the Arctic since the late 1990s but left undetected because of incomplete observational coverage."  This implies that Arctic Amplification is greater than that reported in AR5 based on observational data:

Kang Wang et al (30 August 2017), "Continuously Amplified Warming in the Alaskan Arctic: Implications for Estimating Global Warming Hiatus", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2017GL074232

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL074232/abstract?utm_content=buffer9099c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Abstract: "Historically, in-situ measurements have been notoriously sparse over the Arctic. As a consequence, the existing gridded data of Surface Air Temperature (SAT) may have large biases in estimating the warming trend in this region. Using data from an expanded monitoring network with 31 stations in the Alaskan Arctic, we demonstrate that the SAT has increased by 2.19 °C in this region, or at a rate of 0.23 °C/decade during 1921-2015. Meanwhile, we found that the SAT warmed at 0.71 °C/decade over 1998-2015, which is two to three times faster than the rate established from the gridded datasets. Focusing on the "hiatus" period 1998-2012 as identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, the SAT has increased at 0.45 °C/decade, which captures more than 90% of the regional trend for 1951-2012. We suggest that sparse in-situ measurements are responsible for underestimation of the SAT change in the gridded datasets. It is likely that enhanced climate warming may also have happened in the other regions of the Arctic since the late 1990s but left undetected because of incomplete observational coverage."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1893 on: August 31, 2017, 08:10:12 PM »
The linked reference indicates that the time required to recharge the Western Pacific warm water pool has decreased from 1.5–3.5 years, in the 1979–99 period, to 0.8–1.3 years, in the 2000–16 period.  This is a clear sign that climate sensitivity is likely accelerating from the recent past, due to increased El Nino events:

Zeng-Zhen Hu et al (2017), "On the Shortening of the Lead Time of Ocean Warm Water Volume to ENSO SST Since 2000", Scientific Reports 7, Article number: 4294, doi:10.1038/s41598-017-04566-z

http://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-04566-z

Abstract; "The possible factors associated with the shortening of lead time between ocean warm water volume (WWV) variability along the equatorial Pacific and El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) variability after 2000 are documented. It is shown that the shortening of lead time is due to frequency increases of both WWV and ENSO. During 1979–99 the dominant frequencies were 1.5–3.5 years for both the Niño3.4 and WWV indices. In contrast, during 2000–16, both indices had a relatively flatter spectrum and were closer to a white noise process with a relative maximum at 1.5–2.0 years for the Niño3.4 index and 0.8–1.3 years for the WWV index. The frequency change of ENSO and WWV were linked to a westward shift of the Bjerknes feedback region. The results here are consistent with previous argument that the westward shift of the air-sea coupling region will cause an increase of ENSO frequency, as the corresponding zonal advection feedback reduces the period and growth of coupled instability, thus favoring more frequent and weak El Niño events."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1894 on: August 31, 2017, 09:41:02 PM »
I personally think "2 billion" is an absurdly high estimate, but it's OK to disagree.

In this regards, the first attached image should a SkS plot of GMSTA for RCP 8.5 with an ECS of 4.5C; which indicates that GMSTA will reach 2.7C circa 2035 to 2040 assuming these conditions. 
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2016/EGU2016-10930.pdf


If we suddenly stopped all emissions of anthropogenic SO2 we would reach +2.0C within 10 years.

I think you meant to say +1.5C.



https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170508184929.htm

+2.0C is still several decades off, if we do not act.



to clarify, along with the +IPO, the total reduction of SO2 emissions will cause an additional +0.5C warming globally.
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1895 on: September 01, 2017, 05:29:32 PM »
The linked SkS article critiquing the Trump administration's proposal to initiate a "red team/blue team" effort, parallels many of my criticisms the IPCC AR process for watering down cutting edge climate science regarding climate sensitivity by blending it with both outdated and second-class research.  Clearly, the IPCC process is biased by the governments that sponsor the IPCC in much the same way as the "red team/blue team" effort would be biased by the Trump administration.

Title: "The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists"

https://www.skepticalscience.com/trump-bailout-failed-contrarian-scientists.html

Extract: "Climate contrarians, like Trump’s EPA administrator Scott Pruitt and Energy Secretary Rick Perry, don’t understand how scientific research works. They are basically asking for a government handout to scientists to do what scientists are should already be doing. They are also requesting handouts for scientists who have been less successful in research and publications – a move antithetical to the survival of the fitness approach that has formed the scientific community for decades.

The helping handout would be through a proposed exercise called a “red team/blue team” effort. It is a proposal that would reportedly find groups of scientists on both “sides” of the climate issue (whatever that means), and have them try to poke holes in each others’ positions. I will explain why this is a handout but first let’s talk about the plan and how it interferes with the scientific process.

I say that Pruitt and Perry don’t understand how science works because we are already doing “red team/blue team” exercises everyday in our normal line of business. Science works by challenging each other and our ideas. If we think that a colleague has made an error, we tend to be merciless and tenacious to correct the errors. This is part of the premise of the concept of peer review – where we send studies and manuscripts to journals to have other experts objectively review them for errors.

So back to the basic premise of a red team/blue team exercise – basically the “red team” would critique some conclusion of a “blue team.” The blue team would be able to respond, and there would be this back and forth exchange."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1896 on: September 01, 2017, 05:49:48 PM »
The linked reference indicates that the frequency of extreme El Nino events will increase rapidly with relatively minor increases in GMSTA; while the frequency of extreme La Nina events will increase relatively little between 1.5 and 2C GMSTA.  This indicates that climate sensitivity is higher than assumed in AR5:

Guojian Wang et al (2017), "Continued increase of extreme El Niño frequency long after 1.5 °C warming stabilization", Nature Climate Change  7, 568–572,  doi:10.1038/nclimate3351

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n8/full/nclimate3351.html?foxtrotcallback=true

Abstract: "The Paris Agreement aims to constrain global mean temperature (GMT) increases to 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, with an aspirational target of 1.5 °C. However, the pathway to these targets and the impacts of a 1.5 °C and 2 °C warming on extreme El Niño and La Niña events—which severely influence weather patterns, agriculture, ecosystems, public health and economies—is little known. Here, by analysing climate models participating in the Climate Model Intercomparison Project’s Phase 5 (CMIP5) under a most likely emission scenario, we demonstrate that extreme El Niño frequency increases linearly with the GMT towards a doubling at 1.5 °C warming. This increasing frequency of extreme El Niño events continues for up to a century after GMT has stabilized, underpinned by an oceanic thermocline deepening that sustains faster warming in the eastern equatorial Pacific than the off-equatorial region. Ultimately, this implies a higher risk of extreme El Niño to future generations after GMT rise has halted. On the other hand, whereas previous research suggests extreme La Niña events may double in frequency under the 4.5 °C warming scenario, the results presented here indicate little to no change under 1.5 °C or 2 °C warming."

See also:

Title: "Scientists just found a surprising possible consequence from a very small amount of global warming"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/07/24/it-was-really-a-surprise-even-minor-global-warming-could-worsen-super-el-ninos-scientists-find/?utm_term=.034ff9728415
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1897 on: September 02, 2017, 04:46:46 PM »
The linked reference indicates that a modeled doubling of atmospheric CO₂ concentrations (I note that CO2e is already at 530ppm) leads to poleward shifts in the wintertime ocean heat flux convergence (OHFC); which results in enhanced Polar Amplification as compared to prior analyses (like CMIP5):

H. A. Singh, P. J. Rasch & B. E. J. Rose (1 September 2017), "Increased Ocean Heat Convergence into the High Latitudes with CO2-Doubling Enhances Polar-Amplified Warming", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2017GL074561

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL074561/abstract?utm_content=buffer60507&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Abstract: "We isolate the role of the ocean in polar climate change by directly evaluating how changes in ocean dynamics with quasi-equilibrium CO2-doubling impact high-latitude climate. With CO2-doubling, the ocean heat flux convergence (OHFC) shifts poleward in winter in both hemispheres. Imposing this pattern of perturbed OHFC in a global climate model results in a poleward shift in ocean-to-atmosphere turbulent heat fluxes (both sensible and latent) and sea ice retreat; the high-latitudes warm while the midlatitudes cool, thereby amplifying polar warming. Furthermore, midlatitude cooling is propagated to the polar mid-troposphere on isentropic surfaces, augmenting the (positive) lapse rate feedback at high latitudes. These results highlight the key role played by the partitioning of meridional energy transport changes between the atmosphere and ocean in high-latitude climate change."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1898 on: September 02, 2017, 07:55:53 PM »
Some readers have downplayed the importance of 'fat-tailed' climate change risks, and pointed at the consistency of the 'canonical' range of climate sensitivity presented in the various IPCC assessment reports.  However, I have pointed-out that this 'canonical' range is determined by a biased IPCC process of blending paleo, observational and modeled data.  In this regards, I make a few quick points illustrating why this 'fat-tailed' risk should be taken more seriously:

1 The best ESM projections indicate significantly higher climate sensitivity and higher GMSTA this century than that indicated by AR5.  Furthermore, these projected increases of GMSTA this century are nonlinear, so relatively small changes early this century result in nonlinearly higher increases in GMSTA later this century.

2. Proistosescu and Huybers (2017) demonstrated conclusively that the observational based estimates of ECS ignored the slow response feedbacks associated with the ocean's uptake of heat since the being of the industrial age in 1750, and that when this feedback is added to the observational based estimates of ECS these corrected values are much closer to the higher ESM estimates of ECS this century.

3. I have presented numerous post-AR5 references in this thread that indicate that when paleo data is interpreted using dynamical analyses that the paleo based estimates for ECS this century align much better with the best ESM projections of ECS.

4.  AR5 ignored the following considerations when assessing the stability of the WAIS: (a) the observed slowing of AMOC will accelerate warming of the deep water in the Southern Ocean; (b) DeConto & Pollard have demonstrated that cliff failures and hydrofracturing could destabilize most of the WAIS within a few decade of initiation; (c) the projected increase of extreme El Nino events with any amount of warming telecommunicates heat directly to West Antarctica; and (d) the ozone hole over Antarctica have accelerated the circumpolar westerly winds that advect relatively warm deep water towards key marine glaciers.

5. I have presented numerous references showing higher feedback responses than assumed in AR5, and in this regards: (a) The first attached image show how increases in the nonlinearity of positive feedbacks result in high values of climate sensitivity; (b) the second image shows how feedback factors (many of which were ignored by AR5 such as permafrost degradation and methane emissions from thermokarst lakes) relate to increases in GMST; and (c) the third image shows how a right skewed forcing pdf results in higher impact demands, which when combined with lower impact capacities (such as by people over building in flood zones) results in high climate change impacts on society.  Also, I note that when the radiative forcing of ozone is considered then CO2e is already over 530ppm, and masking factors like aerosol masking can be decreased rapidly due to such considerations as deforestation and a rapidly clean-up of anthropogenic air pollution such as is occurring in China.

The following extract from the linked reference entitled: "SPM: Summary for Policy Makers", shows how AR5 underestimates the risk of a WAIS collapse this century, due to uncertainties.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

 Extract w.r.t. Global Mean Sea Level Rise: "The contributions from ice sheet rapid dynamical change and anthropogenic land water storage are treated as having uniform probability distributions, and as largely independent of scenario. This treatment does not imply that the contributions concerned will not depend on the scenario followed, only that the current state of knowledge does not permit a quantitative assessment of the dependence. Based on current understanding, only the collapse of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet, if initiated, could cause global mean sea level to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st century. There is medium confidence that this additional contribution would not exceed several tenths of a meter of sea level rise during the 21st century."

Lastly, the fourth attached image shows how when slow response forcings are considered, even the Paris emission scenarios (if they are achieved) would result in a 4C increase in GMSTA; and I note that MIT has calculated that if ECS is 4.5C then the Paris emissions scenario would result in about a 5C increase in GMSTA this century.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1899 on: September 03, 2017, 06:33:47 PM »
The 2017 AGU Fall Meeting will host a session (ID#: 23637) entitled: "Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks: Advances and New Paradigms".  Hopefully, new paradigms will allow climate scientists to narrow the rather large range of 1.5 to 4.5 C give for ECS in AR5:

https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm17/preliminaryview.cgi/Session23637

Session description: "A major goal of current climate research is to reduce uncertainty in metrics of large-scale forced climate responses, such as the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity of temperature (ECS). The ECS is estimated at 1.5—4.5 K, a range largely due to clouds and other moist processes. These processes are deeply intertwined and are linked to changes in societally important factors such as precipitation. This session explores recent advances in understanding large-scale climate response to climate forcings. We welcome submissions on theory, observations and modelling studies of climate feedbacks, climate sensitivity, and climate responses of precipitation and large-scale dynamics, especially those exploring novel evaluation techniques, and new ways of thinking about processes that govern climate's response to external forcing."

The current list of submitted abstracts for this session are as follows:

Radiative Effects of the Diurnal Cycle of Clouds and their Response to Climate Change (216076)
Jun Yin, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States and Amilcare M Porporato, Duke Univ, Durham, NC, United States

An assessment of tropospheric water vapor feedback using radiative kernels (218133)
Run Liu1, Hui Su2, Kuo-Nan Liou3, Jonathan H. Jiang2, Yu Gu3 and Shaw Chen Liu4, (1)Jinan University, Guangzhou, China, (2)Jet Propulsion Lab, Pasadena, CA, United States, (3)Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, United States, (4)Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan

Relationships between lower tropospheric stability, low cloud cover, and water vapor isotopic composition in the subtropical Pacific (222065)
Joseph Galewsky, University of New Mexico Main Campus, Albuquerque, NM, United States

Low cloud feedback from A-Train sensors using the observation-based cloud radiative kernels (226729)
Qing Yue1, Eric J Fetzer2, Brian H Kahn3, Matthew D Lebsock1, Sun Wong4, Chen Zhou5 and Tao Wang4, (1)Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, United States, (2)Jet Propulsion Lab, Pasadena, CA, United States, (3)Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, United States, (4)JPL / Caltech, Pasadena, CA, United States, (5)Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, United States

Mean Precipitation Change From Invariant Radiative Cooling (227569)
Nadir Jeevanjee, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, United States and David M Romps, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States

Relationship between changes in the upper and lower tropospheric water vapor: A revisit (232809)
Mengmiao Yang, Department of Earth System Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, De-Zheng Sun, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, United States and Guang Jun Zhang, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA, United States

How large is Uncertainty in Calibrated Perturbed Physics Ensembles? (235205)
Simon FB Tett, University of Edinburgh, School of GeoSciences, Edinburgh, EH9, United Kingdom, Jonathan M Gregory, Met Office Hadley center for Climate Change, Exeter, United Kingdom, Nicolas Freychet, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK, Edinburgh, United Kingdom and Coralia Cartis, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
Nonlinear equilibrium climate sensitivity in a perturbed physics ensemble (241957)
Jonah Bloch-Johnson1, Dorian S Abbot1, Eli Tziperman2 and Timothy Cronin3, (1)University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States, (2)Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, United States, (3)MIT, Cambridge, MA, United States

Understanding intermodel spread in the lapse rate feedback (244030)
Stephen Po-Chedley1, Kyle Armour2, Cecilia M Bitz3, Mark D Zelinka4 and Qiang Fu1, (1)University of Washington Seattle Campus, Seattle, WA, United States, (2)University of Washington, Seattle, Seattle, WA, United States, (3)University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States, (4)Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, United States
An assessment of surface radiative forcing and response in climate models (252622)
Ryan J. Kramer, University of Miami, Miami, FL, United States, Brian J. Soden, University of Miami, Rosenstiel School for Marine and Atmospheric Science, Miami, FL, United States and Angeline G Pendergrass, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, United States

Mechanisms of fast atmospheric energetic equilibration following radiative forcing by Carbon Dioxide (254517)
Stephan Fueglistaler and Tra Dinh, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, United States

Climate Sensitivity and Natural Variability: Theoretical Frameworks and the Bounding of Radiative Feedback Estimates (255400)
Hansi Alice Singh, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Atmospheric Sciences & Global Change, Richland, WA, United States, L. Ruby Leung, PNNL / Climate Physics, Richland, WA, United States, Philip J Rasch, Pacific Northwest National Lab, Richland, WA, United States, Jian Lu, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, United States and Oluwayemi Anne Garuba, George Mason University Fairfax, Fairfax, VA, United States

Combining observations and models to reduce uncertainty in the cloud response to global warming (258995)
Joel R Norris, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States, Timothy Myers, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States and Seethala Chellappan, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA, United States

Externally forced patterns of multidecadal cloud change in observations and models (Invited) (259628)
Joel R Norris, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States, Robert Allen, University of California Riverside, Riverside, CA, United States, Amato T Evan, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA, United States, Mark D Zelinka, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, United States, Chris O'Dell, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States and Stephen A Klein, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore, CA, United States

Projected Changes in the Annual Cycle of Precipitation over Central Asia by CMIP5 Models (267043)
Xiaojing Yu, Institute of Desert Meteorology, China Meteorological Administration, Urumqi, China and Yong Zhao, School of Atmospheric Sciences, Chengdu University of Information Technology, Chengdu, China

Lidar Penetration Depth Observations for Constraining Cloud Longwave Feedbacks (273553)
Thibault Vaillant de Guelis1, Hélène Chepfer1, Vincent Noel2, Rodrigo Guzman1, David M Winker3, Jennifer E Kay4 and Marine Bonazzola5, (1)Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique Palaiseau, Palaiseau Cedex, France, (2)Laboratoire d'Aérologie, Toulouse, France, (3)NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, United States, (4)NCAR, Boulder, CO, United States, (5)Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, Paris, France

SST Patterns, Atmospheric Variability, and Inferred Sensitivities in the CMIP5 Model Archive (279935)
Kate Marvel1, Robert Pincus2 and Gavin A Schmidt1, (1)NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, United States, (2)University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO, United States

Commensurate comparisons of models with energy budget observations reveal consistent climate sensitivities (Invited) (280055)
Kyle Armour, University of Washington, Seattle, Seattle, WA, United States

Improving Constraints on Climate System Properties with Additional Data and New Statistical and Sampling Methods (282095)
Chris E Forest, Pennsylvania State University Main Campus, University Park, PA, United States, Alex G Libardoni, Pennsylvania State University Main Campus, Meteorology, University Park, PA, United States, Andrei P Sokolov, MIT, Cambridge, MA, United States and Erwan Monier, MIT, Center for Global Change Science, Cambridge, MA, United States

Estimating radiative feedbacks from stochastic fluctuations in surface temperature and energy imbalance (282961)
Cristian Proistosescu1, Aaron Donohoe2, Kyle Armour3, Gerard Roe3, Malte F Stuecker3 and Cecilia M Bitz3, (1)Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and the Ocean, University of Washington, Seattle, Seattle, WA, United States, (2)Applied Physics Laboratory University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States, (3)University of Washington, Seattle, Seattle, WA, United States

Atmospheric dynamics feedback: concept, simulations and climate implications (284242)
Michael Byrne, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom and Tapio Schneider, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, United States

A revised energy-balance framework for the Earth (292097)
Andrew E Dessler, Texas A&M Univ, College Station, TX, United States

Cloud Feedback Hypothesis Testing with a Data Driven Climate Model Ensemble (293794)
Benjamin M Wagman and Charles S Jackson, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States

Extratropical trends in cloud amount, thermodynamic phase, liquid and ice water path (297081)
Brian H Kahn1, Qing Yue2, Matthew D Lebsock2, Daniel McCoy3, Catherine M Naud4, Mark Richardson2, Graeme L Stephens2 and Ivy Tan5, (1)NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, United States, (2)Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, United States, (3)University of Washington, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Seattle, WA, United States, (4)Columbia University in the City of New York, Palisades, NY, United States, (5)Universities Space Research Association Columbia, Columbia, MD, United States

The Influence of a Varying Precipitation Efficiency on Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks (298270)
Ryan Li and Trude Storelvmo, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States

The Diversity of Cloud Responses to Twentieth-Century Sea Surface Temperatures (299228)
Levi Glenn Silvers1,2, David Paynter1 and Ming Zhao1, (1)Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, NJ, United States, (2)Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, United States

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