Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Author Topic: Human Stupidity  (Read 21377 times)

timallard

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 131
  • designer
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #50 on: May 28, 2016, 02:41:56 PM »
Noting from a recent paper and now at 3-ppm/year we hit 600-ppm in 67-years where Antarctica begins to go fast and by 800-ppm it's dedicated to all melt within 130-years thus AbruptSLR's post shows a situation where 3-5C in 85-years is quite reasonable along with 2m of SLR.

It won't stop there.

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

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

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

The Beaufort Blob is our score card now.


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

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

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

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

Wrong.

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

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

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

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

Consider that ours is a geologic excursion directly comparable to the PETM, it's a big ask to fight to save the sea-ice, what other options are there, chemtrails are already being used, aerosols didn't do the job and never will because the oceans move the heat that matters to sustaining the ice.
-tom

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10988
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #51 on: May 28, 2016, 07:34:19 PM »
Consider that ours is a geologic excursion directly comparable to the PETM, it's a big ask to fight to save the sea-ice, what other options are there, chemtrails are already being used, aerosols didn't do the job and never will because the oceans move the heat that matters to sustaining the ice.

Tom,

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

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

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

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

Tom,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Consider that.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2016, 09:24:08 PM by timallard »
-tom

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10988
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #53 on: May 29, 2016, 01:30:11 AM »
Consider that.

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

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

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

Edit: Separately, I note that the Paris Pact does not include a carbon pricing plan, and if such a plan were to be sufficiently progressive, it would have an impact.  Also, I reiterate that knowingly polluting without compensating for it is a criminal act.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2016, 08:16:50 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

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1001
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #54 on: May 29, 2016, 05:45:11 AM »
I must agree with Mr. AbruptSLR on the inefficacy of massive engineering to save arctic sea ice. But on a more cynical note, and since this is a thread on human stupidity:

Timing is everything.

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

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

sidd

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10988
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #55 on: May 29, 2016, 08:35:06 AM »
None of it will help, of course, as Mr. AbruptSLR points out, but if one has the stomach for it, take the money and run. Personally, I do not, rather spend my leisure running the fossillers outta business.

sidd

While I do believe that local acts of adaptive engineering do make sense, in general terms I fully concur with sidd, in that putting a technological band-aid on-top of an abruptly increasing non-linear problem (as Hansen et al 2016 describe) is nothing more than giving an opiate to a patient with cancer.  And while early treatment (in the form of a few percent carbon pricing plan enacted in the 1970 to 1980 timeframe) would have been preferable, surgery today (in the form of aggressively progressive carbon pricing together with regulation, investment in sustainable energy and a significant "Green Fund") is still better than leaving the cancer in-place and applying a balm.
“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: 10988
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #56 on: May 29, 2016, 02:31:19 PM »
To my last post I would like to add that today all too many people are looking of a "savior" (ala technological miracles and/or Donald Trump) so that they do not need to assume responsibility themselves (whether for climate change, pollution or socio-economic inequalities).  Also, I do not mean to single out the fossil fuel industry, when governments also have exposure to climate change law suits (ala the recent case in Massachusetts).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's a reduction of 60-ppm+.

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

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

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

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

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

It's not a pretty picture.
-tom

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10988
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #58 on: May 31, 2016, 06:17:00 PM »
While some posts here offer a range of ideas on how to reduce the stupidity of current human behavior/impacts, the following link leads to the thread entitled "Climate Change Triage - cutting out the rot and the fat", which contains many more such ideas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

anotheramethyst

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #59 on: June 01, 2016, 03:35:54 AM »
Here's my 2 cents.  Take them for what they're worth, and I apologize in advance to everyone that I'm about to offend.  Civilization is going to blow right past 2°C and probably 2.5°C as well, but I expect our human-emitted greenhouse gases will peak and start to decline in the next decade or so.  If Earth reaches 3°C, 4°C, 6°C or higher it will be from a runaway greenhouse effect that we will be powerless to stop. 

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

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

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

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

:)

swoozle

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #60 on: June 01, 2016, 05:58:11 AM »
Ha.

I don't think a thread titled "Human Stupidity" is a place where you should assume you'll upset people by being pessimistic / realistic. I, for one, generally agree with you. 10 years seems a little fast but who knows.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10988
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #61 on: June 01, 2016, 05:15:58 PM »
Given the human stupidity that got us into our current situation is it really surprising that the US Senate has just pass a bill for a multi-billion dollar program on the most dangerous form of geoengineering (albedo hacking), and that many in the US Congress are pushing for funding for field tests.  Additionally, besides the inherent dangers of albedo hacking it will likely do little or nothing about Hansen et al (2016)'s ice-climate feedback (which is tied to the collapse of the WAIS, which once trigger is tied to gravity); nor to ocean acidification:

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

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

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

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

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

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

i once had a partner who was bragging that he is on the phone with that guy ( D.C.) and all i could tell him was that for me that means more of a disqualification than a qualification. later everyone understood, because that was in 1997.
http://magnamentis.com
Knowledge, Understanding & Insight Are Among The Best Sources For Personal Freedom & Vitality !

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10988
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #63 on: June 01, 2016, 05:26:15 PM »
probably "Halliburton" and/or "Dick Cheney" are holding a crucial patent in the technology that will get the biggest part of the state funding. while this is indeed a possibility, one should not take the two names literally, i think (hope) it's clear what i'm heading at.


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

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

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

Extract: "Palm oil produced on tropical plantations that drive deforestation has become a major biofuel for vehicles in the European Union, industry figures released Tuesday by an environmental group revealed."
“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: 10988
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #64 on: June 01, 2016, 05:36:10 PM »
Another sign of human stupidity is the fact that it is not what you say, but how you say it that counts.  For example AR5 contains all kinds of caveats about the potential for higher ECS values and the potential collapse of the WAIS that are ignored; and the following link shows that unless you make a fancy animated spiral graph of increasing GMST departure values than no one pays attention:

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

Extract: "The Temperature Spiral Has an Update. It’s Not Pretty."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

LRC1962

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 392
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #65 on: June 01, 2016, 07:32:36 PM »
Related: Laws of unintended consequences.
We often believe that technology is always useful and that new technologies will save us from the disasters befalling on us.  I am starting to think that what we need is not more technology but less.
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-03-23/how-the-greatest-technology-ever-developed-backfired-on-us
When there’s no immediate threat to our understanding of the world, we change our beliefs. It’s when that change contradicts something we’ve long held as important that problems occur.
http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/i-dont-want-to-be-right
An apapro song maybe:
THE DARKNESS LYRICS
"Seemed Like A Good Idea At The Time"

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Solo]

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

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

https://youtu.be/bc2XWbDAmNA

Point is, we need to be very careful about fixes, as fixes can sometimes be worse than the original problem.
"All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second,  it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
       - Arthur Schopenhauer

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10988
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #66 on: June 01, 2016, 07:55:42 PM »
I note that for many years/decades many scientists have misinterpreted paleo-data, causing them to underestimate climate sensitivity, and we are currently forcing global warming at a rate over ten times that during the PETM; which is a clear example of human stupidity.  Smart scientists like Hansen, DeConto and Pollard have used paleo-data to better calibrate their climate models to indicate the risk of abrupt climate change due to ice-climate interaction.  The linked references below provide additional paleo-evidence of both high ice-climate feedback sensitivity and of high ECS values:

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

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

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


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


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


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



See also:

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

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

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

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


Extract: "Feedback system

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

LRC1962

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 392
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #67 on: June 01, 2016, 08:39:03 PM »
I note that for many years/decades many scientists have misinterpreted paleo-data, causing them to underestimate climate sensitivity, and we are currently forcing global warming at a rate over ten times that during the PETM; which is a clear example of human stupidity. 
We also have a great propensity to look at things myopically. In other words, we create an hypothesis, collect the data and develop the theory. We then ignore any extraneous data, because that just creates too much complexity. Problem with that is that the data not used may be vital to understanding the real truth. Another issue is that we seemed to think we have be best questions to ask.
Alexander Graham Bell is said to have never answered a childs question with Because. Reason was he never knew when he tried to actually anwser the question, he himself may have discovered something he did not know.
"All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second,  it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
       - Arthur Schopenhauer

johnm33

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 602
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #68 on: June 01, 2016, 10:54:20 PM »
"We also have a great propensity to look at things myopically. In other words, we create an hypothesis, collect the data and develop the theory. We then ignore any extraneous data"
      My favourite is RapaNui, an island that struggled to maintain it's population for centuries,[very narrow genetic base] then visited by Europeans who first gave them the 'pox' then carried out numerous raids to carry them into slavery in the brothels and plantations of South America, saved only by the fact that having no natural immunity they died very quickly and thus had no value, plus by now instead of the traditional extremely warm welcome they used to offer sailors they now all hid; this didn't work out too well because now the island acquired the reputation of being deserted and next thing some mad Scot turned up with a load of sheep which proceeded to devour the centuries old permaculture gardens and anyone who objected got shot, once the gardens were destroyed famine ensued and general uprising took care of the shepherd. Now of course to add insult to injury their main source of employment is showing around European tourists and academics who fly in from all around the world to study, explore and wonder why these people couldn't see what was coming? I mean you just couldn't make this stuff up!

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10988
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #69 on: June 01, 2016, 11:03:51 PM »
The oil & gas industry have known about the impacts of climate change since at least the early 1970's and the American Petroleum Institute, API, has already updated all of its offshore design requirement for oil drilling equipment to consider the impacts of increase storm/wave activity due to climate change (see the first attached image).  Furthermore, I note that for planning/funding purposes government policy makers at best consider 50%CL impact/load levels; while for the design of infrastructure confidence levels, CLs, of at least 90% are required.  Also, durations for planning/environmental studies/engineering/permitting/construction have not yet been adequately considered within Integrated Assessment Models; & consequently these model projections indicate less vulnerability than is the actual case.  Also, virtually no impact assessment exercises have yet considered abrupt changes in the climate state (see the second attached image) such as possible changes in the Arctic sea ice extent and/or collapse of the WAIS. Finally, should some adaptive measures be built to the current "Fake it Until You Make it" climate change standards, they will most likely be overwhelmed by the actual future environmental loads, leaving us collectively in a worse position than if we have not taken the limited adaptive actions; which is another clear example of human stupidity.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

abbottisgone

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 297
  • "...I'm a rock'n'roll star,...... YES I ARE!!!!!!"
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #70 on: June 02, 2016, 10:20:11 AM »
I'd be curious to know if anyone here believes we can
avoid the 2C target. I think it was just a randomly selected number that policy makers have put forward to sound like they're making some sort of progress and appease activists.
No, 2C can't be avoided as Dr David Mills from the Ausra initiative of solar thermal fame was on Youtube years ago saying the science confirmed 440ppm was locked in.

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

Yes, so I am guessing...
..
But I left school and grew my hair
They didn't understand
They wanted me to be respected as
A doctor or a lawyer man
But I had other plans..........

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10988
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #71 on: June 02, 2016, 06:29:29 PM »
The linked reference assesses the different impacts from the 1.5C case (which we might reach before the end of this year) and the 2C case.  While this reference cites considerable regional impacts for the 2C case; I reiterate that using ESLD logic DeConto has demonstrated numerically that well before we reach 2.7C the WAIS should start to irreversibly collapse:

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

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

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

Abstract. Robust appraisals of climate impacts at different levels of global-mean temperature increase are vital to guide assessments of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. The 2015 Paris Agreement includes a two-headed temperature goal: "holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C". Despite the prominence of these two temperature limits, a comprehensive overview of the differences in climate impacts at these levels is still missing. Here we provide an assessment of key impacts of climate change at warming levels of 1.5 °C and 2 °C, including extreme weather events, water availability, agricultural yields, sea-level rise and risk of coral reef loss. Our results reveal substantial differences in impacts between a 1.5 °C and 2 °C warming that are highly relevant for the assessment of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. For heat-related extremes, the additional 0.5 °C increase in global-mean temperature marks the difference between events at the upper limit of present-day natural variability and a new climate regime, particularly in tropical regions. Similarly, this warming difference is likely to be decisive for the future of tropical coral reefs. In a scenario with an end-of-century warming of 2 °C, virtually all tropical coral reefs are projected to be at risk of severe degradation due to temperature-induced bleaching from 2050 onwards. This fraction is reduced to about 90 % in 2050 and projected to decline to 70 % by 2100 for a 1.5 °C scenario. Analyses of precipitation-related impacts reveal distinct regional differences and hot-spots of change emerge. Regional reduction in median water availability for the Mediterranean is found to nearly double from 9 % to 17 % between 1.5 °C and 2 °C, and the projected lengthening of regional dry spells increases from 7 to 11 %. Projections for agricultural yields differ between crop types as well as world regions. While some (in particular high-latitude) regions may benefit, tropical regions like West Africa, South-East Asia, as well as Central and northern South America are projected to face substantial local yield reductions, particularly for wheat and maize. Best estimate sea-level rise projections based on two illustrative scenarios indicate a 50 cm rise by 2100 relative to year 2000-levels for a 2 °C scenario, and about 10 cm lower levels for a 1.5 °C scenario. In a 1.5 °C scenario, the rate of sea-level rise in 2100 would be reduced by about 30 % compared to a 2 °C scenario. Our findings highlight the importance of regional differentiation to assess both future climate risks and different vulnerabilities to incremental increases in global-mean temperature. The article provides a consistent and comprehensive assessment of existing projections and a good basis for future work on refining our understanding of the difference between impacts at 1.5 °C and 2 °C warming.
“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: 10988
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #72 on: June 02, 2016, 08:34:36 PM »
As noted in Reply #61, the first linked article indicates that the US Senate appropriations committee has approved over USD $5 billion in funds to study albedo hacking (solar radiation management, SRM):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extract: "Based on the separation of these two patterns the authors show that the global conveyor has been weakening since the late 1930s and that the North Atlantic overturning cell suffered an abrupt shift around 1970. The distinction between the two modes provides also a new frame for interpreting past abrupt climate changes."
« Last Edit: June 02, 2016, 11:54:44 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: 10988
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #73 on: June 02, 2016, 11:31:10 PM »
The following link leads to daily values of estimate world population, which on June 2 2016, was well over 7.426 Billion people and climbing.  It will certainly be difficult to adequately address climate change with such a rapidly rising world population:

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

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

http://listcrux.com/10-effective-ways-to-control-population/
“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: 10988
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #74 on: June 03, 2016, 05:19:55 AM »
In coming posts, I plan on briefly summarizing some of my thoughts on measures for changing the fundamentals of our socio-economic; which could improve future conditions for coming generations.

As a follow-on to Reply #58:

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

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

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

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

However, in the near future the emotion of awe can be developed in a clear-thinking (mindful) few individuals and then multiplied by Swarm Intelligence to reduce the apathy generated by habituation in our masses consumption global socio-economic system.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2016, 04:10:45 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

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1001
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #75 on: June 03, 2016, 05:27:37 AM »
I would suggest a different first step for the tenfold way to reduce population:

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

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

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

sidd

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 #76 on: June 03, 2016, 11:40:10 AM »
If it were funny i'd have posted this in the humor section but it's definitely stupid.

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

Distance to Germany is roughly 150km and distance to Italian border is approximately 100km.
http://magnamentis.com
Knowledge, Understanding & Insight Are Among The Best Sources For Personal Freedom & Vitality !

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10988
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #77 on: June 03, 2016, 04:08:24 PM »
I would suggest a different first step for the tenfold way to reduce population:

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

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

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

sidd

It sounds like you are volunteering the 1st World to pay for 3rd World education, as how can the 3rd World pay for education without development.  Hopefully, you can get the new Trump controlled GOP to go along with you.
“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: 10988
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #78 on: June 03, 2016, 05:06:48 PM »
When money is to be made, how can we expect countries to honor the Paris Pact and more than they did the Kyoto Protocol?

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

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

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

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

http://koin.com/2016/06/02/the-cost-of-green-energy-is-more-pollution/
Extract: "The cost of green energy is more pollution - For every green energy source, a natural gas equivalent has to balance it out."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1001
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #79 on: June 04, 2016, 06:09:28 AM »
"It sounds like you are volunteering the 1st World to pay for 3rd World education, as how can the 3rd World pay for education without development. "

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

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

More cynically

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

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

sidd
« Last Edit: June 04, 2016, 07:15:24 AM by sidd »

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10988
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #80 on: June 04, 2016, 07:06:00 PM »
The linked LBNL report discusses technological means to reduce climate impact of the projected installation of 700 million new air conditioners by 2030, and 1.6 billion new air conditioners by 2050 (see the attached associated image).  While smart scientists can imagine such "Superefficiency and Low Global Warming Potential Refrigerants in Room Air Conditioning", I wonder whether the government officials and the global socio-economic system is smart enough to implement such technologies in a timely manner.

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


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


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

“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: 10988
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #81 on: June 05, 2016, 02:25:26 AM »
As a follow-on to my Reply #74:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
-tom

Laurent

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2515
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #83 on: June 05, 2016, 05:20:55 PM »
I have no clue about the reality of this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPuh8IFbIzQ
Eco-Cooler: The Zero Electricity Air Cooler
If it works than certainly could be useful !

See also : http://sustainabilityzero.com/mitticool-a-clay-fridge-that-cools-through-evaporation/

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10988
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #84 on: June 06, 2016, 03:04:38 AM »
While it is certainly enjoyable listening to Al Gore's optimism in the linked 2016 TED talk.  Nevertheless, his optimism about the rapidly falling cost of sustainable energy makes me wonder: (a) will this cheap energy just encourage more people to consume more; and (b) with the WAIS in such a fragile condition will the large carbon foot associated with replacing the fossil fuel energy infrastructure with sustainable energy infrastructure push us past a critical ice-climate feedback tipping point?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7E1v24Dllk
“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: 10988
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #85 on: June 06, 2016, 11:15:16 AM »
As a follow-up to by last post where I criticize Al Gore's "Green BAU" approach, I note that while revenue neutral progressively increasing carbon pricing plans, together with carbon import tariffs to prevent "leakage," are not "the be-all and end-all" such plans are better than cap-and-trade plans that are susceptible to political pressure to allow weak emissions caps, volatility in emissions allowance prices, and overly generous allocations of emissions allowances to regulated entities (see the following link to the "Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan").

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

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

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

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

And finally, I note that much of Wall Street (in the form of hedge funds and derivatives) is now serving as a surrogate form of insurance, and as climate losses mount different parts of Wall Street will learn to more effectively fight the fossil fuel lobbyists.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2016, 11:40:06 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: 10988
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #86 on: June 07, 2016, 06:26:09 PM »
This is just a quick post to note that disconnects between scientific disciplines is also contributing to our underestimation of climate change impacts, which in turn contributes to policy makers taking inadequate action; and that while ACME is making an effort to integrate the contributions of different scientific disciplines, this is a slow process, and until then it is a case of garbage-in / garbage-out.  Furthermore, many of the radiative forcing scenarios used as inputs to ESM runs underestimate the impact of such matters as: (a) the impact of low crude oil prices on increasing consumption of oil in China and India; (b) the impact of the high average age in China on near-term consumption trends, including on meat consumption; and (c) combined military build-ups, and climate stress, that increase the risks of armed conflicts.
“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: 10988
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #87 on: June 08, 2016, 10:27:04 AM »
With a hat tip to Richard Rathbone for his post in the Antarctic folder with a link to the following April 2016 EGU General Assembly press conference 8 video clip roughly focused on the implications of the Paris Pact:


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.


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

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

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

Edit: I note that the estimate of exceeding 2.7C by 2032 to 2035, does consider lag-time after the carbon budget has been exceeded, but does not consider the risk of accelerating Arctic Amplification due the potential early seasonal loss of Arctic Sea Ice Extent as implied by the attached NSIDC May extent plot through 2016:
« Last Edit: June 08, 2016, 05:57:31 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 #88 on: June 08, 2016, 08:18:00 PM »
With a hat tip to Richard Rathbone for his post in the Antarctic folder with a link to the following April 2016 EGU General Assembly press conference 8 video clip roughly focused on the implications of the Paris Pact:


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.


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Is there agreement with this thesis?

Reference: Specific info on what an "excursion" is to paleontology & carbon metrics on recovery, main part well into the talk worth watching it all; Emiliani Lecture: AGU 2012 Fall Mtg; "No Future Without a Past 'or' History will Teach us Nothing"; Dr. Richard Zeebe, Univ.of Hawaii; 52:57; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6pyb9_PHv4
-tom

Laurent

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2515
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #89 on: June 08, 2016, 09:27:47 PM »
I am afraid that is where we are ! 400 ppm CO2 485 ppm CO2e more than 700 ppm CO2e on 10 years basis

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10988
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #90 on: June 08, 2016, 11:34:16 PM »
I am afraid that is where we are ! 400 ppm CO2 485 ppm CO2e more than 700 ppm CO2e on 10 years basis


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

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

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

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

See also:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/scientists-seek-new-measure-for-methane-20413
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Laurent

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2515
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #91 on: June 09, 2016, 10:56:27 AM »
At this point, knowing if the methane coefficient is 34 or 130 or more is irrelevant, wondering if we must reduce carbon or methane, it is gesturing! we have to reduce all gazes and not a little, we should stop emitting and adsorb all of the potent gazes  to begin with (CO2, CH4, N2O). Timallard's video, shows it clearly we are on track for the PETM (meaning extinction of human race very probable), it does show also that our models miss something huge and we should not rely on them at this point. Our liveable range is around 320 ppm of CO2e if we want a stable economy, not more, not less.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2016, 11:05:31 AM by Laurent »

timallard

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 131
  • designer
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #92 on: June 09, 2016, 03:41:46 PM »
Watching the FEEM lecture from 2015 last night and even Wadhams thinks carbon sequester when we end emissions is needed, space mirrors are still being promoted !!! ... he points out the maintenance problem, to me why not just order the colorful tiny bamboo umbrellas from china and ship to ---> Orbit  ;)

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

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

To me eliminating waste-heat looks far more promising than emissions controls right now to do effective cooling far better on a global scale than emissions and far easier to do politically as it just creates jobs.
-tom

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1001
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #93 on: June 11, 2016, 05:52:58 AM »
Eliminating waste heat would be a wonderful thing if it were possible. Unfortunately, Monsieur Carnot had cogent things to say concerning the Second Law, which make this quite difficult.

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

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

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

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

sidd

Laurent

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2515
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #94 on: June 11, 2016, 09:47:13 AM »
Sidd, you say that the earth receive 80 Terawatts at the surface and compare it to our total emission. That's wrong to do that because we need this 80 Tw to have the temperature we require, as you say 1/300 th is enough to unbalance so we need to compare with that amount. 80/300 = 0,27 Tw now we can compare to our emission... 20 Tw oh gosh off course it does have an impact, Timallard does not say that the radiative forcing is not a problem, he is saying (if understand that right) the quantity of energy we are releasing is not insignificant as many engineers do claim until now (mainly pro nuclear).

timallard

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 131
  • designer
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #95 on: June 11, 2016, 04:48:49 PM »
Sidd, you say that the earth receive 80 Terawatts at the surface and compare it to our total emission. That's wrong to do that because we need this 80 Tw to have the temperature we require, as you say 1/300 th is enough to unbalance so we need to compare with that amount. 80/300 = 0,27 Tw now we can compare to our emission... 20 Tw oh gosh off course it does have an impact, Timallard does not say that the radiative forcing is not a problem, he is saying (if understand that right) the quantity of energy we are releasing is not insignificant as many engineers do claim until now (mainly pro nuclear).
>> To tie in why to dam Bering Straits to these numbers 10-terawatts/winter, 20-terawatts/summer move through there annually ... most of that current drifts east to cause sea-ice loss in the Beaufort, it's a lot of heat and while colder than the Atlantic warm layer it still melts ice.

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

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

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

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

In the 2015 FEEM talk Wadhams states clearly with graphs that albedo-loss is the main reason the Arctic is heating so fast, it's the key issue.
-tom

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1001
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #96 on: June 11, 2016, 07:16:01 PM »
"Sidd, you say that the earth receive 80 Terawatts at the surface and compare it to our total emission."

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

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

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

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

sidd
« Last Edit: June 11, 2016, 09:26:07 PM by sidd »

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1001
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #97 on: June 11, 2016, 09:37:33 PM »
I think the comparison Mr. Laurent was trying to make is the following, please correct me if I am wrong.

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

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

Laurent

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2515
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #98 on: June 11, 2016, 09:41:46 PM »
Yes that is what I wanted to say ! Nearly the tenth of the power needed to unbalance the earth, that is not something that we should dismiss totally.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10988
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity
« Reply #99 on: June 11, 2016, 11:39:18 PM »
I think the comparison Mr. Laurent was trying to make is the following, please correct me if I am wrong.

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

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

I remind the readers that per Hansen et al 2016 (see the attached associated image) that if/when the WAIS beginning to collapse the radiative imbalance will likely temporarily increase from about 1 watt/m^2 to about 4 watt/m^2 (due to the reduction of Outgoing Longwave Radiation, OLR, from the polar regions associated with the Cold Spots in the Southern, and North Atlantic, Oceans.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson