Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Author Topic: Human Stupidity  (Read 21505 times)

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Human Stupidity
« on: May 19, 2016, 12:15:50 AM »
When it is human stupidity that has caused climate change, why do so many think that humans will be able to avoid exceeding the 2C target?
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Revillo

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2016, 12:23:06 AM »
I'd be curious to know if anyone here believes we can
avoid the 2C target. I think it was just a randomly selected number that policy makers have put forward to sound like they're making some sort of progress and appease activists.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2016, 01:20:16 AM »
When NOAA has new information (see linked article) indicating that sea level could rise by 3m in the 2050-2060 timeframe due to instabilities in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, WAIS; why do so many people point to the IPCC AR5 report as being authoritative?

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/04/12/405089.htm
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2016, 04:07:16 AM »
Per the National Research Council, NRC, (2013), Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change Anticipating Surprises, The National Academies Press, Washington D.C.: "Because large uncertainties remain, the Committtee judges an abrupt change in the WAIS with this century to be plausible, with an unknown although probably low probability."

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

Edit: For Hansen et al 2016 see:

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

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.html
Abstract: "We use numerical climate simulations, paleoclimate data, and modern observations to study the effect of growing ice melt from Antarctica and Greenland. Meltwater tends to stabilize the ocean column, inducing amplifying feedbacks that increase subsurface ocean warming and ice shelf melting. Cold meltwater and induced dynamical effects cause ocean surface cooling in the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic, thus increasing Earth's energy imbalance and heat flux into most of the global ocean's surface. Southern Ocean surface cooling, while lower latitudes are warming, increases precipitation on the Southern Ocean, increasing ocean stratification, slowing deepwater formation, and increasing ice sheet mass loss. These feedbacks make ice sheets in contact with the ocean vulnerable to accelerating disintegration. We hypothesize that ice mass loss from the most vulnerable ice, sufficient to raise sea level several meters, is better approximated as exponential than by a more linear response. Doubling times of 10, 20 or 40 years yield multi-meter sea level rise in about 50, 100 or 200 years. Recent ice melt doubling times are near the lower end of the 10–40-year range, but the record is too short to confirm the nature of the response. The feedbacks, including subsurface ocean warming, help explain paleoclimate data and point to a dominant Southern Ocean role in controlling atmospheric CO2, which in turn exercised tight control on global temperature and sea level. The millennial (500–2000-year) timescale of deep-ocean ventilation affects the timescale for natural CO2 change and thus the timescale for paleo-global climate, ice sheet, and sea level changes, but this paleo-millennial timescale should not be misinterpreted as the timescale for ice sheet response to a rapid, large, human-made climate forcing. These climate feedbacks aid interpretation of events late in the prior interglacial, when sea level rose to +6–9 m with evidence of extreme storms while Earth was less than 1 °C warmer than today. Ice melt cooling of the North Atlantic and Southern oceans increases atmospheric temperature gradients, eddy kinetic energy and baroclinicity, thus driving more powerful storms. The modeling, paleoclimate evidence, and ongoing observations together imply that 2 °C global warming above the preindustrial level could be dangerous. Continued high fossil fuel emissions this century are predicted to yield (1) cooling of the Southern Ocean, especially in the Western Hemisphere; (2) slowing of the Southern Ocean overturning circulation, warming of the ice shelves, and growing ice sheet mass loss; (3) slowdown and eventual shutdown of the Atlantic overturning circulation with cooling of the North Atlantic region; (4) increasingly powerful storms; and (5) nonlinearly growing sea level rise, reaching several meters over a timescale of 50–150 years. These predictions, especially the cooling in the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic with markedly reduced warming or even cooling in Europe, differ fundamentally from existing climate change assessments. We discuss observations and modeling studies needed to refute or clarify these assertions."
« Last Edit: May 19, 2016, 04:36:41 AM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2016, 04:48:43 AM »
I'd be curious to know if anyone here believes we can
avoid the 2C target. I think it was just a randomly selected number that policy makers have put forward to sound like they're making some sort of progress and appease activists.

IPCC's AR5 calculates Carbon Budget using fully linear TCR (transient climate response) values; however, if we do not stay well below the 2C target then non-linear climate response is unavoidable; so who thinks that the authors of AR5 used good judgement in developing their guidance for policy makers?
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Revillo

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #5 on: May 19, 2016, 05:59:57 AM »
The IPCC reports are inevitably conservative given that the governments of all 120 participating countries approve of its every word, a number of which derive their funding largely from the sale of fossil fuels.

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

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

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

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #6 on: May 19, 2016, 06:03:56 PM »
The IPCC reports are inevitably conservative given that the governments of all 120 participating countries approve of its every word, a number of which derive their funding largely from the sale of fossil fuels.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hopefully, the public will come to appreciate that "Faking it until you make it" is the wrong approach for dealing with climate change.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #7 on: May 19, 2016, 06:37:49 PM »
With a hat tip to DavidR, the attached plot indicates that our current Arctic sea ice extent may be as much as 4 standard deviation below the mean IJIS values for this time of year.  If the Arctic Ocean experiences a seasonal blue ocean event this year, it will represent a major failure of the IPCC/CMIP5 model projections.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #8 on: May 19, 2016, 07:21:50 PM »
For those who think that my critique of human stupidity focuses unfairly on scientists, I provide the following link to a status report on the Accelerated Climate Model for Energy, ACME; which is a state-of-the-art Earth Systems Model, ESM; for which scientists are making a major effort to improve model forecasts beyond CMIP5 (see the attached image).  The report indicates that the Version 1 of the ACME model will be released in June 2016; and that model runs that will be completed by July 2017, after which papers will be written and peer reviewed and results might possibly be incorporated into AR7.  While I have not seen the "… series of science experiments, in the works for 2 years …", I am concerned that they likely will not fully address the issues of ice-climate feedback raised both by Hansen et al (2016) and DeConto & Pollard (2016).

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

Extract: "More important, the team, which consists of eight national laboratories, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, four academic institutions, and one private-sector company, is on schedule for release of Version 1 of the ACME model in June 2016.
The major activity this past year was completion of Version 1 of the model, based on the Community Earth System Model or CESM. The team has been running tests on the model since late last year. After the release in June, the team will start a series of science experiments, in the works for 2 years, that will run from July 2016 through July 2017."
« Last Edit: May 19, 2016, 08:02:42 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

ivica

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 499
  • Kelele
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #9 on: May 19, 2016, 08:55:45 PM »
Desmond Tutu: "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor."
My 2c ;)

magnamentis

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 834
    • View Profile
    • Nexpaq Modular ARA iOS Software Mobile Computing Phones Philosophy Ethics Numerology Mikrocirkulation Vaskular Therapie Gesundheit Blut Gesundheit Schmerzen Multipelsklerose Diabetes Immunsystem Fibromyalgie
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #10 on: May 19, 2016, 11:41:54 PM »
which applies to ourselves being treated injust while the the side of the oppressor would have to be replaced with the term "cowerdice" sorry for the long speach, just so much share your 2cts that i had to chime in quickly and to be fair, not being a coward comes with a huge price tag as i'm sure you're aware :-) ;)
http://magnamentis.com
Knowledge, Understanding & Insight Are Among The Best Sources For Personal Freedom & Vitality !

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #11 on: May 19, 2016, 11:53:33 PM »
which applies to ourselves being treated injust while the the side of the oppressor would have to be replaced with the term "cowerdice" sorry for the long speach, just so much share your 2cts that i had to chime in quickly and to be fair, not being a coward comes with a huge price tag as i'm sure you're aware :-) ;)

I was thinking in terms of human stupidity vs human wisdom; but a case can be made for thinking in terms of human cowardice vs human morality.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

magnamentis

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 834
    • View Profile
    • Nexpaq Modular ARA iOS Software Mobile Computing Phones Philosophy Ethics Numerology Mikrocirkulation Vaskular Therapie Gesundheit Blut Gesundheit Schmerzen Multipelsklerose Diabetes Immunsystem Fibromyalgie
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #12 on: May 20, 2016, 01:50:32 AM »
yes, while for the stupid it's easier to be brave due to their inability to see and consider the consequences but that topic's filling entire sections of libraries, after all we are part of an interlaced system and it appears that each part has its place in it.

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

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

http://magnamentis.com
Knowledge, Understanding & Insight Are Among The Best Sources For Personal Freedom & Vitality !

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #13 on: May 20, 2016, 02:00:32 AM »
In the linked May 10, 2016 article by Rolf Schuttenhelm, entitled: "Real Global Temperature Trend, p18 – Now how high is climate sensitivity? Here’s the answer of the world’s 13 leading climate experts!", Schuttenhelm ask 13 highly regarded climate experts what their guts tell them about climate sensitivity.


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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #14 on: May 20, 2016, 03:22:40 AM »
I would like to add that it is one of my intentions in this thread to convey the idea that: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"; and in this regards I note that Obama's efforts to promote the use of methane (largely from fracking) as a bridge fuel to a sustainable future has contributed (along with increased agricultural activities) to the recent acceleration of the concentration of CH4 in the atmosphere.  Also, I note that per the attached plot methane has a relatively high Global Warming Potential, GWP, in the near-term (I note that the red curve is now generally accepted and the blue curve is accepted as being out of date):
« Last Edit: May 20, 2016, 03:29:48 AM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #15 on: May 20, 2016, 05:02:04 PM »
While all kinds of decision makers are claiming progress in controlling GHG emissions the linked data indicates that these anthropogenic emissions are actually accelerating instead of decelerating, and that according to NOAA the CO₂ -equiv at the end of 2015 was 485 ppm. Most disturbing is the rapid growth in atmospheric methane concentrations, and I note that in NOAA's conversion of methane into CO₂-equiv they use the old formula (see the IPCC 2007 curve in the image in Reply #14) for methane's GWP, thus they are dumbing down these numbers by declining to utilize the most current science presented by Drew Shindell 2009 (see the figure in Reply #14):

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

The index, now in its 10th year, measures how much of the sun's warmth is trapped in the atmosphere by gases like CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. The data is compiled from a global network of measuring stations, including the famed observatory atop Mauna Loa, known for having the longest continuous record of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Mauna Loa's CO2 levels for the northern hemisphere are currently about 4 ppm higher than this time last year. Scientists there predict it may not dip below 400 ppm again.
NOAA's index shows that CO2 concentration has risen by an average of 1.76 parts per million since it was established in 1979, and that increase is accelerating. In the 1980s and 1990s, it rose about 1.5 ppm per year. Over the last five years, the rate of increase has been about 2.5 ppm, said Ed Dlugokencky, a senior scientist with NOAA's Earth Systems Research Laboratory who helped compile the inventory."
« Last Edit: May 20, 2016, 05:08:20 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

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #16 on: May 20, 2016, 06:59:40 PM »
The Faustian Bargain struck between AR5 scientists and policy makers is dependent on the complexity/uncertainty of the climate change "wicked problem" that allows for the moral hazard of applying magic thinking to future projections.  In order to shine some light on the nature of the uncertainty that allows for this moral hazard, I offer the following list of issues where AR5 scientists have consistently chosen the most Pollyannaish assumptions when making their projections and associated ranges of probability:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

« Last Edit: May 20, 2016, 09:50:24 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

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #17 on: May 20, 2016, 07:35:41 PM »
Many people criticized Al Gore in that his "An Inconvenient Truth" movie/book did not offer many solutions to climate change.  In this light I provide the following link to an article written by Dante Disparte (CEO of Risk Cooperative) & Daniel Wagner (CEO of Country Risk Solutions).  They are the co-authors of “Global Risk Agility and Decision Making”.


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

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



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

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


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


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

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1308.0.html
« Last Edit: May 20, 2016, 09:43:25 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

A-Team

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1656
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #18 on: May 20, 2016, 09:41:34 PM »
Bravo!

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

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

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

It is only when you delve into the assumptions and details that any real understanding of code is attained. As an analogy, take the Forest Plan spreadsheet for any national forest in the US. Very complex models of tree growth by species, weather, bug damage, soils, moisture, drought, temperature, elevation, slope, aspect, erosion etc but all leading to the same conclusion: more stumps. It is only when environmentalists dug into the models for themselves that they came to understand an unsustainable cut was baked in by limitations in parameter assumptions.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2016, 10:13:51 PM by A-Team »

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #19 on: May 20, 2016, 10:38:32 PM »
One thing that has bothering me for some time is the 'scientists from 120 countries' composition of IPCC. I would guess 99% of peer-reviewed research on climate change (indeed most any topic in science) is based out of 7-8 countries (as are 99% of forum originations). Would that not leave 110 countries scratching around for qualified representatives to rebut notions of representatives of the big emitters wanting to paper over the problem, ie kick the can down the road to 2100 and beyond?

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

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

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

Edit:  For those who are wondering, I am fairly confident that people like Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk are not going to allow AI to be degraded with the rest of society in the coming decades.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2016, 11:21:08 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

Revillo

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #20 on: May 20, 2016, 11:17:05 PM »
Tempted as we may be to place blame on stupidity or greed or avarice, or to a particular institution or individual, the reality is that fossil fuels have a set of properties which make them exceptionally useful compared with other sources of energy, and substitutes are not readily available.

Climate scientist and environmentalists may be quick to jump on claims that an evil or incompetent bunch has stifled and distorted progress on alternatives to fossil fuels,  but it is simple physics which thwarts us, and thoughtful, calm, rational men and women are wracking their brains out without much gratitude over a problem more tragic than wicked.

Buddy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1432
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #21 on: May 20, 2016, 11:26:46 PM »
Climate scientist and environmentalists may be quick to jump on claims that an evil or incompetent bunch has stifled and distorted progress on alternatives to fossil fuels....

That is only because THEY HAVE STIFLED AND DISTORTED PROGRESS.


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

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

FOX News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #22 on: May 21, 2016, 12:14:40 AM »
When I wrote "human stupidity" it was not my intention to single out scientists; nevertheless, scientists are at the forefront of this issue and in the linked article James Hansen makes it clear that he believes that scientific reticence is dangerous; especially in light of the recent paper Hansen et al (2016):

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

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

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

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

One final comment, closely related to scientific reticence. A criticism of our paper that may warrant response is that the ice melt rates that we assumed were “unrealistic”.  In fact it is certain that multi-meter per century melt rates have occurred many times in Earth’s history, spurred by much weaker forcings than the human-made forcing.  We presented evidence in our paper that rapid sea level rise even occurred in late-Eemian, when there was less ice available for melt than today.  Just this week a paper was published showing that the fastest natural increase of greenhouse gas climate forcing in the past 66 million years was at least 10 times slower than the human-made change.  Unfortunately, the melt rates we talk about for the next several decades are very realistic, and we are already seeing expected response to current melt rates."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

misanthroptimist

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #23 on: May 21, 2016, 08:00:20 AM »
I'd be curious to know if anyone here believes we can
avoid the 2C target. I think it was just a randomly selected number that policy makers have put forward to sound like they're making some sort of progress and appease activists.
No, I do not believe that we can avoid more than 2C warming. IMO, civilization is a lost cause, living on borrowed time. With that  in mind, I am planning to make a very small, self-sufficient complex in an area with very large biological diversity, with the idea that something will be able to adapt. If that idea is ultimately wrong...well, that's likely a problem for my descendants rather than me. At least no one will be able to say that I didn't try. :)

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #24 on: May 21, 2016, 09:20:53 AM »
Climate scientist and environmentalists may be quick to jump on claims that an evil or incompetent bunch has stifled and distorted progress on alternatives to fossil fuels....

That is only because THEY HAVE STIFLED AND DISTORTED PROGRESS.


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

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

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

It is indeed stupid for humans to be conducting a one-shot experiment by radiatively forcing the Earth's Systems at a rate ten times that which occurred during the PETM; where no one can accurately project what exactly is going to occur; but which will clear have major negative socio-economic consequences.  It is also stupid for humans to be hoping for a technological miracle, as some kind of savior; in order to avoid doing the hard work to make all of our socio-economic interactions responsible for the negative impacts that fossil fuels create on the common good.  Also, I note that it takes hard work to make the powerful (who got power in part by transferring the negative impacts of fossil fuels to others) take responsibility for their actions; and this hard work includes shining the light of understanding (including by state-of-the-art ESMs) on the uncertainties that makes climate change a wicked (not inherently evil but complex enough to allow for moral hazard) problem.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2016, 11:14:19 AM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #25 on: May 21, 2016, 07:31:09 PM »
Climate scientist and environmentalists may be quick to jump on claims that an evil or incompetent bunch has stifled and distorted progress on alternatives to fossil fuels,  but it is simple physics which thwarts us, and thoughtful, calm, rational men and women are wracking their brains out without much gratitude over a problem more tragic than wicked.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exxon has dismissed the investigations as politically motivated."

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

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

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

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

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #26 on: May 21, 2016, 08:44:10 PM »
Some people think that abrupt climate change will not occur in their lifetimes, however, the linked article indicates that the remaining carbon budget from 2015 may be as low as 590 GtCO2; and as CO₂-e emissions are around 50GtCO2, it is easy to see that we could readily exceed the 2C limit by around 2030 (or earlier depending on the actual ECS value); which could then trigger DeConto & Pollard (2016)'s cliff failures and hydrofracturing (most significantly in the WAIS but also meaningfully in the GIS).  Furthermore, in the way of additional positive feedbacks that Hansen did not include in his ice-climate feedback mechanism, I remind the reading that: (a) the bottom layer of marine glaciers typically contain methane hydrates that can be rapidly be decomposed as icebergs are calved & roll to the surface during cliff failures (as is frequently currently observed for the Jakobshavn Glacier); (b) as ice sheets lose large amounts of mass, isostatic rebound can raise the seafloor that was previously beneath the calved portions of marine glaciers by hundreds of meters (particularly in the Byrd Subglacial Basin area of the West Antarctic), which can destabilized methane hydrates within the raised seafloor; and (c) the multiple meters of global SLR can trigger seismic activity in coastal areas around the world, which could cause submarine landslides in the continental slope areas; which again could release methane from hydrates around the world.  Obviously, as NOAA has warned of a potential 3m global SLR between 2050-2060, these methane hydrate feedback mechanisms could possibly drive radiative forcing above the RCP 8.5 level before the end of the century, if they were to occur in combination with other potential sources of natural methane emissions from the Arctic and degrading (but periodically submerged) tropical rainforests:

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

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

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

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

Extract: "There is general agreement that a limit of 590 billion tons would safely keep the world from overheating in ways that would impose ever greater strains on human society. The argument is about the upper limit of such estimates.
Dr Rogelj says: “In order to have a reasonable chance of keeping global warming below 2°C, we can only emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide, ever. That’s our carbon budget.
“This has been understood for about a decade, and the physics behind this concept are well understood, but many different factors can lead to carbon budgets that are either slightly smaller or slightly larger. We wanted to understand these differences, and to provide clarity on the issue for policy-makers and the public.
“This study shows that, in some cases, we have been overestimating the budget by 50 to more than 200%. At the high end, this is a difference of more than 1,000 billion tons of carbon dioxide.”"
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #27 on: May 21, 2016, 11:09:45 PM »
I think that the NRC should begin working on a new report on Abrupt Climate Change, for publication at the end of 2017, and that it should include the works of DeConto & Pollard (2016) and Hansen et al (2016) as well preliminary findings of the ACME project on the response of ice sheets.

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

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

For the old 2013 NRC report see:

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

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

See also:

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


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


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

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/world/australia/australia-to-lay-off-leading-scientist-on-sea-levels.html?_r=2
« Last Edit: May 21, 2016, 11:15:04 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

Revillo

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #28 on: May 23, 2016, 06:49:51 AM »
I just don't see the point in villifying oil companies. Maybe it will satisfy our bloodlust to attack Exxon for hiding evidence of climate change, but all the evidence and science was a matter of public record well before the 1980s. The fact that they had a patent for a contraption to lower emissions that was prohibitively expensive isn't exactly a scandal.

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

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

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

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




AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #29 on: May 23, 2016, 09:48:15 AM »
I just don't see the point in villifying oil companies. Maybe it will satisfy our bloodlust to attack Exxon for hiding evidence of climate change, but all the evidence and science was a matter of public record well before the 1980s. The fact that they had a patent for a contraption to lower emissions that was prohibitively expensive isn't exactly a scandal.

...

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


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

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


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

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

See also:

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

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

For the Secretary Problem:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem
« Last Edit: May 25, 2016, 07:56:42 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

magnamentis

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 834
    • View Profile
    • Nexpaq Modular ARA iOS Software Mobile Computing Phones Philosophy Ethics Numerology Mikrocirkulation Vaskular Therapie Gesundheit Blut Gesundheit Schmerzen Multipelsklerose Diabetes Immunsystem Fibromyalgie
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #30 on: May 23, 2016, 12:34:23 PM »
thanks for this great post, great read in such concentrated form, provided by the links ;)
http://magnamentis.com
Knowledge, Understanding & Insight Are Among The Best Sources For Personal Freedom & Vitality !

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #31 on: May 24, 2016, 05:09:25 PM »
I noted in Reply #14 that Obama's policy of promoting the use of methane (especially shale gas) as an energy bridge to more sustainable power sources; seems to be actually accelerating radiative forcing at the moment due to the relatively high rate of methane leaks (and the high GWP of methane) associated with methane development as a fuel (including shale gas).  As a follow on to that post, the linked article indicates that when Hillary Clinton was part of Obama's administration she promoted the use of shale gas in numerous foreign countries, but was only successful in Canada, China and Argentina due to energy market volatility, including Saudi Araba's recent efforts to flood the market with crude oil.  Furthermore, the article indicates that if Clinton become president she may well continue to promote the use of shale gas (both in the USA and overseas); which might further accelerate global warming if methane leaks are not better controlled (which is particularly difficult to control overseas).  Note, I am not promoting Trump as president as he has claimed that climate change is a hoax:
 
https://theintercept.com/2016/05/23/hillary-clinton-fracking/

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



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



The State Department’s shale gas initiative “was clearly driven by the promotion of Big Oil’s expansion,” Charlie Cray, senior researcher at Greenpeace USA, told The Intercept. “That it was one of State’s highest priorities undermines their credibility as leaders in the global effort to prevent the calamitous threats of climate change.”"
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

solartim27

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 375
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #32 on: May 24, 2016, 05:40:03 PM »
The only reason fracking is profitable  is president cheney's halliburton  rule
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/21828-time-to-end-the-cheney-halliburton-loophole
« Last Edit: May 24, 2016, 05:56:52 PM by solartim27 »
FNORD

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #33 on: May 24, 2016, 11:33:26 PM »
The linked reference indicates society currently only looks at the impacts of climate of individual sectors (like agriculture) in isolation; which is likely to misrepresent the true impacts.  For example the Paris Pact does not limit carbon emissions from agriculture yet it is impossible to achieve its stated goals when considering the impacts of agriculture growth on the climate:

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


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

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

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

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


Using the CLIMSAVE Integrated Assessment Platform (IAP), which links models of agriculture, forestry, urban growth, land use, water resources, flooding and biodiversity, the new study compares single-sector and integrated modelling approaches and their outcomes.
The resulting discrepancies are particularly evident for indicators such as food production and water exploitation which are highly influenced by other sectors through changes in demand, land suitability and resource competition.
"This analysis has demonstrated quantitatively for the first time the uncertainty arising from a single sector perspective. This highlights the importance of developing adaptation plans that are robust to changes in climate and socio-economic pathways and that take account of cross-sectoral interactions", concludes Dr. Harrison."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #34 on: May 25, 2016, 06:36:39 PM »
Experts have a lot of doubts about the feasibility of implementing negative emissions technology, NET, any time soon:

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

I note that achieving the goals of the Paris Pact is highly dependent on the successful implementation of NET on large scales.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #35 on: May 25, 2016, 09:36:40 PM »
Per the first linked reference, theory and experiments indicate that if scientists were able/willing to identify an upcoming tipping point with catastrophic damage [such as that identified by Hansen et al. (2016) taken together with DeConto & Pollard (2016)] that this would simplify collective action to control GHG emissions.  Unfortunately, the research also indicates that the higher degree of strategic reasoning used by current policy elites increase the risk for climate catastrophe:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

In this regards, per Carl Sagan: "Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge." Thus with the use of Swarm Intelligence to use AI to leverage human wisdom/insight (the opposite of human stupidity), hopefully, policy elites will stop playing brinksmanship with climate catastrophe, and instead start making timely decision to limit the consequences of our fat tailed climate risks.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2016, 09:46:41 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

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #36 on: May 26, 2016, 01:09:26 AM »
The title of this thread "Human Stupidity" includes the question of the difference between "The Tragedy of the Commons/Small Decisions" and the tendency for state elite to intentionally plan to acquire more power at the expense of others; with the goal of finding a more effective path forward to fight climate change; as our current efforts are woefully inadequate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #37 on: May 26, 2016, 01:33:37 AM »
State elites have repeatedly demonstrated that they are willing to use warfare to promote national self-interest, and climate change is a clear stress riser that can contribute to the risk of war.  Carl von Clausewitz (using the thesis-antithesis-synthesis triad) makes it clear (see the following extract from Wikipedia) that while governments start wars to try to get what they want (normally based on violent emotions), the "fog of war" (or chance) forces on-the-fly changes to the original state policy based on genius (or "military genius").

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

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

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

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

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

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

Increased use of inductive thinking (which acknowledges the uncertainties of the fat-tailed risks rather than ignoring them) has historically allowed science to effectively tackle such fat-tailed problems (such as climate change), & I believe that von Clausewitz's "military genius" also uses such induction to identify solutions to complex problems clouded by "the fog of war".  Finally in note that inductive reasoning allows for the possibility that the conclusion be false, even where all of the premises are true; thus allowing von Clausewitz's "military genius" (such as Elon Musk, Larry Page, or Mark Zuckerberg) to make one-the-fly adjustments in order to better deal with problems clouded by "the fog of war."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #38 on: May 26, 2016, 01:38:09 AM »
I postulate that so little has been achieved in the fight against climate change because the power elite have corrupted (or undermined): politics, press-coverage, legislative & executive governmental branches, and even the scientific message conveyed by the IPCC.  Furthermore, I propose that the judicial branch of government may be one of the more effective manner to force the legislative & executive branches of government to appropriately internalize the externalization of dis-benefits of anthropogenic radiative forcing (which under current law amounts to theft by those who benefit vs those who sustain dis-benefit due to costs of non-internalized anthropogenic radiative forcing).

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


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

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

Abstract: "Of the climate science papers that take a position on the issue, 97% agree that climate change is caused by humans, but less than half of the US population shares this belief. This misalignment between scientific and public views has been attributed to a range of factors, including political attitudes, socio-economic status, moral values, levels of scientific understanding, and failure of scientific communication. The public is divided between climate change 'believers' (whose views align with those of the scientific community) and 'sceptics' (whose views are in disagreement with those of the scientific community). We propose that this division is best explained as a socio-political conflict between these opposing groups. Here we demonstrate that US believers and sceptics have distinct social identities, beliefs and emotional reactions that systematically predict their support for action to advance their respective positions. The key implication is that the divisions between sceptics and believers are unlikely to be overcome solely through communication and education strategies, and that interventions that increase angry opposition to action on climate change are especially problematic. Thus, strategies for building support for mitigation policies should go beyond attempts to improve the public’s understanding of science, to include approaches that transform intergroup relations."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #39 on: May 26, 2016, 01:48:13 AM »
While all kinds of decision makers are claiming progress in controlling GHG emissions the linked data indicates that these anthropogenic emissions are actually accelerating instead of decelerating, and that according to NOAA the CO₂ -equiv at the end of 2015 was 485 ppm. Most disturbing is the rapid growth in atmospheric methane concentrations, and I note that in NOAA's conversion of methane into CO₂-equiv they use the old formula (see the IPCC 2007 curve in the image in Reply #14) for methane's GWP, thus they are dumbing down these numbers by declining to utilize the most current science presented by Drew Shindell 2009 (see the figure in Reply #14):

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


Edit: I note that if one assumes that the GWP100 for methane is 35 instead of 25 (per the plot in Reply #14), then NOAA's calculated value for the CO2-eq for 2015 would be 518ppm instead of 485ppm; which is a big difference, and one that NOAA should publically acknowledge.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #40 on: May 26, 2016, 05:13:48 PM »
For those who are not familiar with swarm intelligence, the linked article discusses how swarm intelligence is becoming more & more practicable by combining machine AI together with human intelligence:

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

Extract: "Swarm intelligence seeks to amplify, not replace, human intelligence, with the idea that large groups predict an event outcome better than just one individual can. According to UNU inventor and Unanimous AI chief executive Louis Rosenberg, forcing polarized groups into a swarm lets them find that answer that will satisfy most people."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

EgalSust

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #41 on: May 26, 2016, 07:14:57 PM »
It is possible/probable that the Land-Ocean GMST departure will exceed the CMIP5 RCP 8.5 95%CL range this year; and that the Land GMST departure will exceed the CMIP5 RCP 8.5 99% CL range this year.


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


(source)

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

My sources for the temp. observations:

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

NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #42 on: May 27, 2016, 01:21:22 AM »
It is possible/probable that the Land-Ocean GMST departure will exceed the CMIP5 RCP 8.5 95%CL range this year; and that the Land GMST departure will exceed the CMIP5 RCP 8.5 99% CL range this year.


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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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


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


Note that the force adjustment is required because the radiative forcing assumed by CMIP5 RCP 8.5 did not occur.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #43 on: May 27, 2016, 10:24:04 AM »
The issue of intergenerational ethics is called the Tyranny of the Contemporary, and the linked article indicates that at least since the IPCC has been established, the current "me" generation has badly failed this ethical test:

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

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

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

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195379440.001.0001/acprof-9780195379440-chapter-6
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #44 on: May 27, 2016, 06:07:49 PM »
It would appear that donations and jobs still buy influence:

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

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



Geologists Vs. Climate Scientists

Kerry Emanuel, a professor of meteorology at MIT who studies hurricanes and climate change, said the AGU's decision to continue ties with Exxon likely reflects AGU's constituency, which includes some climate skeptics.
"I know that AGU has gotten a lot of pressure from geologists in general not to pay much attention to the climate issue," said Emanuel, who also signed the petition and is considering boycotting AGU's annual conference this year. "I just don't know how to quantify that.""
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #45 on: May 27, 2016, 06:25:28 PM »
The linked articles discuss where Africa's "Great Green Wall" project is a waste of time & resources:

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

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

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

Also see:
https://www.issafrica.org/iss-today/commanding-the-sahara-to-retreat
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #46 on: May 27, 2016, 07:08:36 PM »
When the definition of insanity is when you keep doing the same thing and expect different results; are we going to continue our same old approach when Robert DeConto (of DeConto & Pollard 2016) indicates that per his model projections cliff failures and hydrofacturing in the WAIS will accelerate markedly when the GMST departures from pre-industrial get into the 2 to 2.7C range?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


« Last Edit: May 27, 2016, 07:22:36 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

timallard

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 131
  • designer
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #47 on: May 27, 2016, 08:55:11 PM »
Experts have a lot of doubts about the feasibility of implementing negative emissions technology, NET, any time soon:

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

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

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

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

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

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

-tom

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #48 on: May 28, 2016, 02:47:49 AM »
As a follow-up to the climate sensitivity information in Reply #13, I provide the linked reference that uses an information-theoretic weighting of climate models by how well they reproduce the satellite measured deseasonlized covariance of shortwave cloud reflection, indicates a most likely value of ECS of 4.0C.  As this satellite data is certainty biased by the recent acceleration of natural aerosol emissions associated with the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration, the actually ECS is likely higher than 4.0C, as will become apparent if climate change reduces future plant activity.  Unfortunately, the envisioned upgrades to the Paris Pact do not have any contingency for addressing such high values (4 to 4.5C) of ECS (including accelerting NET):

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


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

Abstract: "Physical uncertainties in global-warming projections are dominated by uncertainties about how the fraction of incoming shortwave radiation that clouds reflect will change as greenhouse gas concentrations rise. Differences in the shortwave reflection by low clouds over tropical oceans alone account for more than half of the variance of the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) among climate models, which ranges from 2.1 to 4.7 K. Space-based measurements now provide an opportunity to assess how well models reproduce temporal variations of this shortwave reflection on seasonal to interannual timescales. Here such space-based measurements are used to show that shortwave reflection by low clouds over tropical oceans decreases robustly when the underlying surface warms, for example, by −(0.96±0.22)%/K (90% confidence level) for deseasonalized variations. Additionally, the temporal covariance of low-cloud reflection with temperature in historical simulations with current climate models correlates strongly (r = −0.67) with the models’ ECS. Therefore, measurements of temporal low-cloud variations can be used to constrain ECS estimates based on climate models. An information-theoretic weighting of climate models by how well they reproduce the measured deseasonalized covariance of shortwave cloud reflection with temperature yields a most likely ECS estimate around 4.0 K; an ECS below 2.3 K becomes very unlikely (90% confidence)."
« Last Edit: May 28, 2016, 03:13:01 AM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10990
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #49 on: May 28, 2016, 12:00:00 PM »
With a hat tip to Richard Rathbone for his post in the Antarctic folder with a link to the following April 2016 EGU General Assembly press conference 8 video clip roughly focused on the implications of the Paris Pact:


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

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

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

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