Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Author Topic: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)  (Read 24656 times)

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11180
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
« Reply #250 on: April 16, 2017, 01:31:14 AM »
I selected the following 28 references [not including either von der Heydt et. al. 2016 nor Friedrich et al (2016)] that either directly, or indirectly, indicate that climate sensitivity is most likely significantly higher than the range summarized by AR5:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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


28. The linked reference uses an information-theoretic weighting of climate models by how well they reproduce the satellite measured deseasonlized covariance of shortwave cloud reflection, indicates a most likely value of ECS of 4.0C.  As this satellite data is certainly biased by the recent acceleration of natural aerosol emissions associated with the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration, the actually ECS is likely higher than 4.0C, as will become apparent if climate change reduces future plant activity.  Unfortunately, the envisioned upgrades to the Paris Pact do not have any contingency for addressing such high values (4 to 4.5C) of ECS (including accelerting NET):

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


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

And for those who do not like to read, I provide the two attached images of high equilibrium climate sensitivity, with the first based on paleo data, and the second based on modern observations.
“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: 11180
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
« Reply #251 on: April 16, 2017, 11:52:14 AM »
While I am on-a-roll:
First, the linked reference (with an open access pdf) presents a 2015 observation-based model findings of permafrost carbon fluxes when accounting for deep carbon deposits and thermokarst activity.  What I find to be particularly disturbing is the pulse of CH4 emissions circa 2050 from thermokarst lakes (TKLs) under RCP8.5, as indicated in the first attached image.  I find this thermokarst lake CH4 emissions disturbing because the researchers' 2015 RCP 8.5 run did not consider the increase in Arctic rainfall that will occur as the sea ice extent retreats; thus the 2050 date likely errs (considerably) on the side of least drama:

Schneider von Deimling, T., Grosse, G., Strauss, J., Schirrmeister, L., Morgenstern, A., Schaphoff, S., Meinshausen, M., and Boike, J.: Observation-based modelling of permafrost carbon fluxes with accounting for deep carbon deposits and thermokarst activity, Biogeosciences, 12, 3469-3488, doi:10.5194/bg-12-3469-2015, 2015.

http://www.biogeosciences.net/12/3469/2015/bg-12-3469-2015.html

Second, the second attached image focuses on the observed Arctic Amplification thru 2012; however, the figure also shows warming at both 30N and 30S particularly; which is a clear indication of the deep atmospheric convective mixing the in the Equatorial Pacific as discussed by Sherwood et al (2014), which found that ECS cannot be less than 3C, and is likely currently in the 4.1C range.  Also, everyone should remember that the effective ECS is not a constant, and models project that following a BAU pathway will result in the effective ECS increasing this century:

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

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

Lastly, the third attached image is from Andrew's 2015 Ringberg presentation that indicates that if the Eastern Tropical Pacific SSTA increases due to a global warming driven increase in El Nino-like behavior, then ECS could be as high a 5C (see the middle panel in the third image) by the end of this century.
“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: 11180
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
« Reply #252 on: April 17, 2017, 07:58:02 PM »
The linked reference indicates that the remaining carbon budget from 2015 may be as low as 590 GtCO2; and as CO₂-e emissions are around 50GtCO2 (which exceeds RCP 8.5 50%CL), it is easy to see that assuming ECS is 3C we could readily exceed the 2C limit by around 2030, or if ECS is 4C then we could exceed 2.7C by around 2032 to 2035, if we continue on our current BAU pathway for another 16 to 19 years. 
 
Joeri Rogelj, Michiel Schaeffer, Pierre Friedlingstein, Nathan P. Gillett, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Keywan Riahi, Myles Allen & Reto Knutti (2016) "Differences between carbon budget estimates unravelled", Nature Climate Change, Volume: 6, Pages: 245–252, doi:10.1038/nclimate2868

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

However, I note that the estimate of exceeding 2.7C by 2032 to 2035, does consider lag-time after the carbon budget has been exceeded, but does not consider the risk of accelerating Arctic Amplification due the potential early seasonal loss of Arctic Sea Ice Extent, nor the fact that the GWP of methane is higher (see the attached image) than the authors of the reference assumed; so even considering aerosol impacts, it may be possible that GMSTA could reach 2.7C around 2028.

According to NOAA the CO₂ -equiv at the end of 2015 was 485 ppm; however, if one assumes that the GWP100 for methane is 35 instead of 25 (as assumed by NOAA), then NOAA's calculated value for the CO2-eq for 2015 would be 518ppm.
“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: 11180
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
« Reply #253 on: April 19, 2017, 12:36:20 AM »
The linked reference demonstrates for systems that can change abruptly, like Earth's climate (see the first attached image), why it is a bad idea for denialists to point at the large-noise in Earth's climate record to feel comfortable in the Holocene saddle-node that we have been resting in, as the second attached image shows that these large-noise fluctuations can kick us out of our comfortable saddle-node sooner, rather than later.

Corentin Herbert, and Freddy Bouchet (2017), "Predictability of escape for a stochastic saddle-node bifurcation: when rare events are typical", arXiv:1703.01450v1

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.01450.pdf

Abstract: "Transitions between multiple stable states of nonlinear systems are ubiquitous in physics, chemistry, and beyond. Two types of behaviors are usually seen as mutually exclusive: unpredictable noise-induced transitions and predictable bifurcations of the underlying vector field. Here, we report a new situation, corresponding to a fluctuating system approaching a bifurcation, where both effects collaborate. We show that the problem can be reduced to a single control parameter governing the competition between deterministic and stochastic effects. Two asymptotic regimes are identified: when the control parameter is small (e.g. small noise), deviations from the deterministic case are well described by the Freidlin-Wentzell theory. In particular, escapes over the potential barrier are very rare events. When the parameter is large (e.g. large noise), such events become typical. Unlike pure noise-induced transitions, the distribution of the escape time is peaked around a value which is asymptotically predicted by an adiabatic approximation. We show that the two regimes are characterized by qualitatively different reacting trajectories, with algebraic and exponential divergence, respectively."

Extract: "These results open new prospects for the analysis of time series exhibiting abrupt transitions such as those encountered in climate dynamics."
“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: 11180
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
« Reply #254 on: April 19, 2017, 11:39:52 PM »
The linked article is entitled: "SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills", and it (& the associated image) indicate that anthropogenic radiative forcing is occurring at a higher rate of change than the natural systems can adapt to; and as man is dependent on these natural systems, we are not behaving stupidly:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/SkS_Analogy_01_Speed_Kills.html

Extract: "It is not only the CO2 concentration that is important, but the annual rate of increase of CO2 concentration, because the rate of increase determines the rate at which natural systems must adapt … or go extinct."
“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: 11180
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
« Reply #255 on: April 19, 2017, 11:49:17 PM »
The first linked article is entitled: "3M-year-old sediment tells the story of today's climate", and it discusses research about Lake El'gygytgyn, in Siberia, that began in 2009.  Even through the findings of this research has been available for years (see the last two linked references and the associated attached image), ESMs have not been able to replicate that amount of Arctic Amplification documented by the Lake El'gygytgyn physical evidence.  This implies that the climate sensitivity of current ESMs need to be increased to appropriate capture the climate change risks (including Hansen's ice-climate feedback mechanism due to 'freshwater hosing' that we are collectively exposing ourselves to.

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060053182

Extract: "One of the "most astounding things" in the sediment, she said, was evidence that ancient summer temperatures in the region had spiked by as much as 14 degrees Fahrenheit higher than today, not just once, but several times in the past.

There is no direct way to measure the atmosphere of this ancient time, but repeated estimates from leaf stomata, ocean fossil studies and other remnants now put its carbon dioxide content at around 400 parts per million — about where it is today, largely due to the sharp rise of CO2 and other greenhouse gases since the Industrial Revolution began, literally gaining steam in the 1850s.

According to Brigham-Grette, that means the Earth is much more sensitive to climate change now, and it is speeding up as the planet tries to reach equilibrium from the new injection of heat.

The findings of the science team at Lake El'gygytgyn were also very hard for experts who use computer-driven climate models to understand. They pride themselves on being able to predict the speed of climate change in the future and also in the past by use of a technique called "hindcasting."

In the case of the late Pliocene, though, the models missed the ice melting. Yet the data collected from drilling in the Arctic and more recently from the Antarctic suggest it happened not just once, but repeatedly at both poles.

James White, a paleoclimatologist and climate modeler at the University of Colorado, Boulder, said Brigham-Grette's study is "one of the more important paleoclimate studies of the last 10 years."

"The fact that we don't get the Pliocene is a concern," he explained, because over the years, the modelers and the data gatherers have helped each other perfect their understanding of climate change and how to improve the models.

"We're not in equilibrium now, not even close," he asserted, as the planet's oceans struggle to distribute the new influx of heat.

A new Japanese study, published in February written by scientists from a team exploring ice cores drilled in Antarctica, found that ocean warming currents carrying heat from the tropics have become more unstable in the North Atlantic because of colder fresh water dripping from the melting ice of glaciers in Greenland. The phenomenon is called "freshwater hosing," which also appears to have happened in the ancient past.

"There's this attitude of 'Well, we're Americans, and we're going to tough it out and help people rebuild along our coastlines,'" she said. "Well, that's sort of stupid, because we're putting people and infrastructure back in harm's way.""



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

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

&

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

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


“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: 11180
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
« Reply #256 on: April 20, 2017, 12:15:04 AM »
The linked reference demonstrates for systems that can change abruptly, like Earth's climate (see the first attached image), why it is a bad idea for denialists to point at the large-noise in Earth's climate record to feel comfortable in the Holocene saddle-node that we have been resting in, as the second attached image shows that these large-noise fluctuations can kick us out of our comfortable saddle-node sooner, rather than later.

Corentin Herbert, and Freddy Bouchet (2017), "Predictability of escape for a stochastic saddle-node bifurcation: when rare events are typical", arXiv:1703.01450v1

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.01450.pdf



I note that the first attached image shows how the atmosphere can abruptly bifurcate from our current saddle-node into an equable atmospheric pattern; while the following reference (and the associated second attached image) indicate that such a bifurcation could occur as soon as the CO2-equiv concentration reaches about 680ppm.  I note that our current CO2-equiv well exceeds 520ppm.  Furthermore, if Hansen's ice-climate feedback due to the possible collapse of the WAIS were to occur in the next few decades then we might bifurcate into an equable climate pattern sooner rather than later (which would be stupid for us to allow to happen).

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


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

ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/reposit/2015/2015357.pdf

Edit: For those who do not know, it is easier to flip the northern hemisphere into an equable pattern (than the southern hemisphere), which is exactly what a collapse of the WAIS would do, due to the bipolar seesaw effect.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 03:25:25 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

mati

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 231
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
« Reply #257 on: April 20, 2017, 10:55:01 PM »
@AbruptSLR

wow
the world in in for a shit load of hurt...
you have echoed all my concerns.

there is unfort only one solution to humanities blight on our planet
major pandemics.

i predict, in my humble way, pandemics that will drop the world population by
over 50%.  maybe even more.  it is starting now with the old diseases:  tubuculosis, syphillis, ghonorreah, cholera,

followed by failing states with massive over population creating massive wars (syria e.g.)

sigh
oh well
we must all keep on trying to build a better world
and so it goes

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11180
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
« Reply #258 on: April 20, 2017, 11:10:42 PM »
@AbruptSLR

wow
the world in in for a shit load of hurt...
you have echoed all my concerns.


To learn more about  large-noise events such as ice-climate feedback due to the collapse of a marine ice sheet (like the WAIS) please review my posts in:

1. The "Hansen et al paper: 3+ meters SLR by 2100" thread at:
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1327.0.html

2. The "Potential Collapse Scenario for the WAIS" thread at:
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,31.0.html

3. The "Conservative Scientists & its Consequences" thread at:
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1053.0.html

While to see other discussions about existential risks see the "Anthropogenic Existential Risk" thread at:
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1307.0.html



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

prokaryotes

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 137
    • View Profile
    • ClimateState.com
Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
« Reply #259 on: April 21, 2017, 01:57:48 PM »
To learn more about  large-noise events such as ice-climate feedback due to the collapse of a marine ice sheet (like the WAIS) please review my posts
AbruptSLR, i currently plan a new video production where i want to summarize some of the most worrying research. Is it possible, can you summarize maybe what you think are the top 5 or top 10 findings in those regards? Or what you think should be communicated to a larger audience of laymen?
 Thank you.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11180
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
« Reply #260 on: April 21, 2017, 07:53:33 PM »
To learn more about  large-noise events such as ice-climate feedback due to the collapse of a marine ice sheet (like the WAIS) please review my posts

AbruptSLR, i currently plan a new video production where i want to summarize some of the most worrying research. Is it possible, can you summarize maybe what you think are the top 5 or top 10 findings in those regards? Or what you think should be communicated to a larger audience of laymen?
 Thank you.


prokaryotes,

As I am relatively busy, I will try to provide responses to your question in a series of posts; and I begin here by providing information related to the DeConto & Pollard's collective 2016 findings related to the implications of cliff failures and hydrofracting on marine glaciers.

The first linked refer indicates that to ensure that cliff failures and hydrofracturing (calving) of marine glaciers do not occur that the GMST departure above pre-industrial could be as low as 1C, but is not higher than 3C (and at the EGU conference DeConto said that the most likely range was between 2 and 2.7C, assuming the current consensus climate sensitivity).

Robert DeConto and David Pollard (2016), "Commitments to future retreat of Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets",  EGU General Assembly, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 18, EGU2016-10930


http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2016/EGU2016-10930.pdf

Abstract: "The agreement reached at the COP21 United Nations Conference on Climate Change is aimed at limiting future increases in global mean temperature below 2ºC. Here, we use a continental ice sheet/shelf model with new treatments of meltwater-enhanced calving (hydrofracturing) and marine terminating ice-cliffs, to explore future commitments to sea-level rise given limits of global mean warming between 1 and 3ºC. In this case, ice-sheet model physics are calibrated against past ice-sheet response to temperatures warmer than today. The ice-sheet model is coupled to highly resolved atmosphere and ocean-model components, with imposed limits on future warming designed to mimic the idealized limits discussed at COP21. Both the short and long-term potential rise in global mean sea level are discussed in light of the range of allowances agreed in Paris. We also explore the sensitivity of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to plausible ranges of atmospheric versus ocean warming consistent with global mean temperatures between 1 and 3ºC; and the resulting long-term commitments to sea-level rise over the coming centuries and millennia."

Also see:

"At an EGU press conference DeConto said this work implied tipping points for major sea level rise occur between 2 and 2.7C above pre-industrial.

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

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

Also I note that the indicated DeConto & Pollard (2016) findings do not include considerations that I plan to address in subsequent posts such as Hansen et al (2016)'s ice-climate feedback, nor the current positive PDO phase, nor higher ECS values, nor the activation/acceleration of non-linear positive feedback mechanisms and thus errs on the side of least drama.

Also see:
Robert M. DeConto & David Pollard (31 March 2016), "Contribution of Antarctica to past and future sea-level rise", Nature, Volume: 531, Pages: 591–597, doi:10.1038/nature17145

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature17145.epdf?referrer_access_token=px-zRubs4M6aBBPl42_1GdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M-pvJMg7VLINRa2mnTNsvXfjbAFNU4M9sSVFBNmnefzinIWT5DIW6fVmmjzqPkWPG0EWAexculA_Dh1H0gVAzIYAUjdsj8uznmBvFk8_blNOM5-opyiSaKMyaJis4af48A0kgec2kZ8QcJLEQ0CKHzo1BxzQZ7aHlC6ggm5qLKPX8C4yz0OZ4SKpsmFZlbgUA%3D&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com
“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: 11180
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
« Reply #261 on: April 21, 2017, 08:31:14 PM »
prokaryotes,

In my last post I cited Hansen et. al. (2016)'s ice-climate feedback mechanism, and with my first two attached images both from Robert M. DeConto & David Pollard (Nature 31 March 2016), I note that the extended versions of the DeConto –Pollard (2016) analysis of the WAIS indicates that the ice-climate feedback (associated with freshwater hosing) will accelerate the collapse of the WAIS.

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

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.html

The green curve in panel (b) of the third attached image from Hansen et. al. (2016) shows that a collapse of the WAIS would contribute to a temporary planetary energy imbalance; which the fourth images (from Hansen & Sato 2012) indicates results in a temporary bump in the effective equilibrium climate sensitivity over the period of the ice-climate feedback mechanism.
“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: 11180
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
« Reply #262 on: April 21, 2017, 08:41:44 PM »
prokaryotes,

Next, with Hansen et al (2016)'s observation that ice sheet melting can temporarily reduce SSTA in the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic, it is important to consider parameters such a dynamical sensitivity and Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI).  The linked reference discusses the relationship of ECS and dynamical sensitivity of climate models.:

Kevin M. Grise & Lorenzo M. Polvani (28 April 2016), "Is climate sensitivity related to dynamical sensitivity?", Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, DOI: 10.1002/2015JD024687


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JD024687/abstract

Abstract: "The atmospheric response to increasing CO2 concentrations is often described in terms of the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). Yet, the response to CO2 forcing in global climate models is not limited to an increase in global-mean surface temperature: for example, the mid-latitude jets shift poleward, the Hadley circulation expands, and the subtropical dry zones are altered. These changes, which are referred to here as “dynamical sensitivity,” may be more important in practice than the global-mean surface temperature.

This study examines to what degree the inter-model spread in the dynamical sensitivity of 23 CMIP5 models is captured by ECS. In the Southern Hemisphere, inter-model differences in the value of ECS explain ~60% of the inter-model variance in the annual-mean Hadley cell expansion, but just ~20% of the variance in the annual-mean mid-latitude jet response. In the Northern Hemisphere (NH), models with larger values of ECS significantly expand the Hadley circulation more during winter months, but contract the Hadley circulation more during summer months. Inter-model differences in ECS provide little significant information about the behavior of the Northern Hemisphere subtropical dry zones or mid-latitude jets.

The components of dynamical sensitivity correlated with ECS appear to be driven largely by increasing sea surface temperatures, whereas the components of dynamical sensitivity independent of ECS are related in part to changes in surface temperature gradients. These results suggest that efforts to narrow the spread in dynamical sensitivity across global climate models must also consider factors that are independent of global-mean surface temperature."

For anyone not aware of how the Hadley cell expansion effects the jet streams I attached an illustrative image.
“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: 11180
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
« Reply #263 on: April 21, 2017, 08:54:22 PM »
prokaryotes,

As my last post mentioned the dynamical sensitivity of climate models, I provide the following four references related to the calibration of such dynamical sensitivity of climate models using paleodata.

The first following linked reference (der Heydt et. al. 2016) concludes: "Such perturbations (illustrated in Fig. 1b,d) are not normally applied in climate models used for climate predictions [IPCC, 2013], where climate sensitivity is derived from model simulations considering prescribed, non-dynamic atmospheric CO2. In our conceptual model, we have derived climate sensitivities from both types of perturbations and find that the classical climate model approach (section 2.2, Fig. 4f) leads to significantly lower values of the climate sensitivity than the perturbations away from the attractor with dynamic CO2 (section 2.3, Fig. 11a). This emphasises the importance of including dynamic carbon cycle processes into climate prediction models. Moreover, it supports the idea that the real observed climate response may indeed be larger than the model predicted one, because those models never will include all feedback processes in the climate system.“

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


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

The second linked reference on the application of "dynamical systems theory" supports the position that the current effective ECS may be as high as 4.35C (but is masked both by lag times and by aerosol impacts):

Egbert H. van Nes, Marten Scheffer, Victor Brovkin, Timothy M. Lenton, Hao Ye, Ethan Deyle and George Sugihara (2015), "Causal feedbacks in climate change", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate2568

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n5/full/nclimate2568.html


The third linked reference examines the state dependency of ECS using paledata from the past 5 millions years and similarly finds that the effective ECS is higher than more CMIP5 models assume.

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


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


The fourth linked reference could not make it more clear that paleo-evidence from inter-glacial periods indicates that ECS is meaningfully higher than 3C and that climate models are commonly under predicting the magnitude of coming climate change.  Furthermore, these finding concur with those of Köhler et al (2015) which indicates that inter-glacial values for specific ECS was about 45% higher than during glacial periods.

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


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


For those who do not understand dynamical sensitivity, I note that it is related to the influence of climate attractors (from chaos theory), which can capture energy from radiative forcing and progressively ratchet-up climate states (see the two attached images).
“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: 11180
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
« Reply #264 on: April 21, 2017, 11:36:48 PM »
prokaryotes,

This brings us to the topic of how soon might we expect to reach the 2 to 3C GMSTA range cited by DeConto & Pollard (2016) for the WAIS to begin its main stage collapse.  In this regards, the first linked reference, Rogelj et.al. (2016), indicates that the remaining carbon budget from 2015 may be as low as 590 GtCO2; and as CO₂-e emissions are around 50GtCO2, it is easy to see that we could locked in to exceeding the 2C limit (sometime before 2100) if we continue BAU emissions thru 2030, assuming that ECS is close to 3C.  However, both my immediate prior post and the second linked reference, Sherwood et. al. (2014), find that ECS cannot be less than 3C, and is likely currently in the 4C to 4.5C range.  Per the third linked reference (and attached image), if we were to conservatively assume that the effective ECS is currently 4.0C then we passed the threshold to reach 3C GMSTA (circa 2100) when the CO₂-e was about 500ppm around the year 2010 [the current CO₂-e atmospheric concentration (with the GWP100 for methane assumed to be 35) is well over 520ppm, and climbing rapidly].

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

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

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


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

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


Zhou Tianjun, Xiaolong Chen, 2015: Uncertainty in the 2C Warming Threshold Related to Climate Sensitivity and Climate Feedback. J. Meteor. Res., 29(6), 884-895, doi: 10.1007/s13351- 015-5036-4

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13351-015-5036-4
http://www.lasg.ac.cn/staff/ztj/group/files/201612292920438.pdf

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

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1831
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
« Reply #265 on: April 21, 2017, 11:41:57 PM »
ASLR and prok,

As a fly on the wall, I just wanted to say that I consider both of you to be giants in the field of collection and dissemination of info on CC, perhaps the most important activity any human can do at this point in the history of life on the planet.

Thanks for all your work, and nice to see you kinda collaborating here.

Best,
wili
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11180
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
« Reply #266 on: April 21, 2017, 11:44:16 PM »
prokaryotes,

For my 10th reference I provide Elliot A. et al. (2015), which I discussed in Reply #256, indicating that if we are not careful we might be locked into a Northern Hemisphere equable atmospheric pattern before the year 2100.


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


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

ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/reposit/2015/2015357.pdf

“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: 11180
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
« Reply #267 on: April 23, 2017, 12:51:55 AM »
As I previously noted (see also Melles et. al. 2012) currently the best ESMs cannot match the climate response during MIS 11c (the Holsteinian Peak), where MIS 11 extents from 424,000 to 374,000 years ago (see the first two attached images).  This likely means that feedback mechanisms treated by current ESMs as noise may actual be important from a dynamical sensitivity point-of-view of such considerations as climatic state, climate attractors (such as PDO/AMO/ENSO interactions), and 'short-term' feedback mechanisms (such as the collapse of marine ice sheets and/or GHG emissions from permafrost, and/or methane hydrate, degradation).  In this regards, I note that the first image indicates that the annual precipitation (PANN) in NE Siberia was much higher during MIS 11c than during MIS 5e (Eemian Peak) or MIS 1 (Holocene).  This higher annual precipitation likely fell as rainfall during MIS 11c; which may have contributed to a pulse of methane emissions from thermokarst lakes as indicated by the third attached image (of projections of such possible emissions this century).  Thus, it would be stupid to ignore the potential impacts of such un-correctly modeled dynamical factors; and hopefully ACME will continue to be improved beyond 2017, when its approved budget runs out (i.e. hopefully the Trump Administration is not so stupid as to kill future funding for ACME).


Martin Melles, Julie Brigham-Grette, Pavel S. Minyuk, Norbert R. Nowaczyk, Volker Wennrich, Robert M. DeConto, Patricia M. Anderson, Andrei A. Andreev, Anthony Coletti, Timothy L. Cook, Eeva Haltia-Hovi, Maaret Kukkonen, Anatoli V. Lozhkin, Peter Rosén, Pavel Tarasov, Hendrik Vogel & Bernd Wagner (20 July 2012), "2.8 Million Years of Arctic Climate Change from Lake El’gygytgyn, NE Russia", Science, Vol. 337 no. 6092 pp. 315-320, DOI: 10.1126/science.1222135

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/337/6092/315
&
https://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/papers2/Melles_Science2012.pdf


ABSTRACT: "The reliability of Arctic climate predictions is currently hampered by insufficient knowledge of natural climate variability in the past. A sediment core from Lake El’gygytgyn in northeastern (NE) Russia provides a continuous, high-resolution record from the Arctic, spanning the past 2.8 million years. This core reveals numerous “super interglacials” during the Quaternary; for marine benthic isotope stages (MIS) 11c and 31, maximum summer temperatures and annual precipitation values are ~4° to 5°C and ~300 millimeters higher than those of MIS 1 and 5e. Climate simulations show that these extreme warm conditions are difficult to explain with greenhouse gas and astronomical forcing alone, implying the importance of amplifying feedbacks and far field influences. The timing of Arctic warming relative to West Antarctic Ice Sheet retreats implies strong interhemispheric climate connectivity."


Captions for the first image: "Fig. 3. (A to H) (A) LR04 global marine isotope stack (12) and (B) mean July insolation for 67.5°N (13) for the past 2.8 My compared with (C) magnetostratigraphy, (D) facies, (E) magnetic susceptibility, (F) TOC contents, (G) Mn/Fe ratios, and (H) Si/Ti ratios in the sediment record from Lake El’gygytgyn (magnetic susceptibility and x-ray fluorescence data are smoothed using a 500-year weighted running mean to improve the signal-to-noise ratio). Super interglacials at Lake El’gygytgyn are highlighted with red bars. (I to L) Expanded views into the interglacials MIS 1, 5e, 11c, and 31 and adjoining glacials/ stadials. (I) Reconstructed MTWM and (J) PANN based on the pollen spectra and best modern analog approach [modern values from (56)]. (K) Mean July insolation for 67.5°N (13) compared with El’gygytgyn Si/Ti ratios, smoothed by five-point weighted running mean. (L) Tree and shrub pollen percentages compared with spruce pollen content. Simulated July surface air temperatures (red and green dots) at the location of the lake are shown for comparison. The location of the dots relative to the x axis corresponds with the GHG and orbital forcing used in each interglacial simulation (see supplementarymaterials). Simulated modern and preindustrial temperatures are close to observed values, so model temperatures are not corrected for bias. The green dot indicates the results derived with a deglaciated Greenland and increased heat flux under Arctic Ocean sea ice by 8Wm−2."  Where: PANN = annual precipitation and MTWM = the warmest month of the year (i.e. July).
“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: 11180
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
« Reply #268 on: April 23, 2017, 03:00:21 AM »
My previous post in this thread, focused on possible previously unrecognized/unappreciated possible natural feedback pathways that could have amplified natural radiative forcing in order to better account for some of the large past high sea level events (focused on MIS 11c, the Holsteinian Peak). I concluded that post with a suggestion that methane emission feedback mechanisms (like thermokarst lakes and/or methane hydrates) may have played an important role.  In this regards, the first two images come from Isaksen et al. (2011) who used computer models to estimate methane's atmospheric burden.  Isaksen et al (2011) found (see the first image) that as the assumed emission rate increased the chemistry of the atmosphere would change, resulting in increased lifetime for methane, thus increasing the associated radiative forcing (see the second image).  The last two images show how during periods slightly warmer than current conditions, relatively warm seawater can enter the Arctic Ocean from the Atlantic, which, might result in methane emissions from marine methane hydrates in the seafloors of Arctic Ocean continental shelves.

Edit: Isaksen, I. S. A., Gauss M., Myhre, G., Walter Anthony, K. M.  and Ruppel, C.,  (2011), "Strong atmospheric chemistry feedback to climate warming from Arctic methane emissions", Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 25, GB2002, doi:10.1029/2010GB003845.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GB003845/abstract
« Last Edit: April 23, 2017, 03:32:29 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

prokaryotes

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 137
    • View Profile
    • ClimateState.com
Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
« Reply #269 on: April 23, 2017, 02:23:27 PM »
My previous post in this thread..

Thanks Abrupt, it will take some time to make a video with the suggested science. Will post it here when ready, cheers.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 11180
    • View Profile
Re: Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)
« Reply #270 on: April 23, 2017, 05:27:43 PM »
My previous post in this thread..


Thanks Abrupt, it will take some time to make a video with the suggested science. Will post it here when ready, cheers.


Thanks prokaryotes, in the meantime I will continue consolidating some evidence here that ESMs need to be updated to include such dynamical sensitivity considerations as 'freshwater hosing' and warming induced rainfall on permafrost:

The first linked reference studies ice-climate feedback calibrated to 'freshwater hosing' events in the North Atlantic over the past 720,000 years, in order to study state dependence of climatic instabilities within a CMIP class of climate model.  Such research can help to calibrate models for such 'freshwater hosing' events such as the possible collapse of the WAIS this century:

Ayako Abe-Ouchi, et. al. (2017), "State dependence of climatic instability over the past 720,000 years from Antarctic ice cores and climate modeling", Science Advances, Vol. 3, no. 2, e1600446, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1600446

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/2/e1600446
&
http://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/218067/1/sciadv.1600446.pdf

Abstract: "Climatic variabilities on millennial and longer time scales with a bipolar seesaw pattern have been documented in paleoclimatic records, but their frequencies, relationships with mean climatic state, and mechanisms remain unclear.  Understanding the processes and sensitivities that underlie these changes will underpin better understanding of the climate system and projections of its future change. We investigate the long-term characteristics of climatic variability using a new ice-core record from Dome Fuji, East Antarctica, combined with an existing long record from the Dome C ice core. Antarctic warming events over the past 720,000 years are most frequent when the Antarctic temperature is slightly below average on orbital time scales, equivalent to an intermediate climate during glacial periods, whereas interglacial and fully glaciated climates are unfavourable for a millennial-scale bipolar seesaw. Numerical experiments using a fully coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model with freshwater hosing in the northern North Atlantic showed that climate becomes most unstable in intermediate glacial conditions associated with large changes in sea ice and the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Model sensitivity experiments suggest that the prerequisite for the most frequent climate instability with bipolar seesaw pattern during the late Pleistocene era is associated with reduced atmospheric CO2 concentration via global cooling and sea ice formation in the North Atlantic, in addition to extended Northern Hemisphere ice sheets."


The Last Glacial Termination, LGT, occurred from 18,000 to 11,650 kya, and the following reference, reconstructs the dynamic response of the Antarctic ice sheets to warming in this period in order to better evaluate Hansen's ice-climate feedback mechanisms.  The abstract from the second linked reference concludes: "Given the anti-phase relationship between inter-hemispheric climate trends across the LGT our findings demonstrate that Southern Ocean-AIS feedbacks were controlled by global atmospheric teleconnections.  With increasing stratification of the Southern Ocean and intensification of mid-latitude westerly winds today, such teleconnections could amplify AIS mass loss and accelerate global sea-level rise."

Fogwill, et. al. (2017), "Antarctic ice sheet discharge driven by atmosphere-ocean feedbacks at the last Glacial Termination", Scientific Reports 7, Article number 39979, doi:10.1038/srep39979

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep39979


Finally (for this post), can you imagine how the timing of a rain-dominated Arctic will be affected by Hansen's ice-climate feedback mechanism driven by a WAIS collapse circa 2040-2060 (which almost all ESM projections currently ignore), and or pulses of methane emission from thermokarst lakes?  I also note that the third linked reference assumes that ECS is only around 3C.

Richard Bintanja and Olivier Andry (2017), “Towards a rain-dominated Arctic”, Geophysical Research Abstracts Vol. 19, EGU2017-4402

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/EGU2017-4402.pdf

Abstract: “Current climate models project a strong increase in Arctic precipitation over the coming century, which has been attributed primarily to enhanced surface evaporation associated with sea-ice retreat. Since the Arctic is still quite cold, especially in winter, it is often (implicitly) assumed that the additional precipitation will fall mostly as snow. However, very little is known about future changes in rain/snow distribution in the Arctic, notwithstanding the importance for hydrology and biology. Here we use 37 state-of-the-art climate models in standardised twenty-first century (2006–2100) simulations to show that 70◦ – 90◦N average annual Arctic snowfall will actually decrease, despite the strong increase in precipitation, and that most of the additional precipitation in the future (2091– 2100) will fall as rain. In fact, rain is even projected to become the dominant form of precipitation in the Arctic region. This is because Arctic atmospheric warming causes a greater fraction of snowfall to melt before it reaches the surface, in particular over the North Atlantic and the Barents Sea. The reduction in Arctic snowfall is most pronounced during summer and autumn when temperatures are close to the melting point, but also winter rainfall is found to intensify considerably. Projected (seasonal) trends in rain/snowfall will heavily impact Arctic hydrology (e.g. river discharge, permafrost melt), climatology (e.g. snow, sea ice albedo and melt) and ecology (e.g. water and food availability).”

See also the fourth linked reference:

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

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n4/full/nclimate3240.html

Extract: "Rain causes more (extensive) permafrost melt [Refs. 7,26], which most likely leads to enhanced emissions of terrestrial methane [Ref. 27] (a powerful greenhouse gas), more direct runoff (a smaller seasonal delay) and concurrent freshening of the Arctic Ocean [Ref 18]. Rainfall also diminishes snow cover extent and considerably lowers the surface albedo of seasonal snow, ice sheets and sea ice [Ref. 9] , reinforcing surface warming and amplifying the retreat of ice and snow; in fact, enhanced rainfall will most likely accelerate sea-ice retreat by lowering its albedo (compared with that of fresh snowfall) "
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson