Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Author Topic: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"  (Read 3200 times)

FishOutofWater

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #50 on: July 15, 2017, 06:46:43 PM »
I found the Wallace-Wells article to be sloppy on the science, hard to read, and hard to review because it was a sprawling mess. I have no doubt that the worst case emissions scenarios will be absolutely catastrophic but I'm not going to use a piece that is so poorly constructed to make my case.

One thing that infuriates me in the discussion of the effects of climate change is the economists' models that show single digit percentage economic impacts of going over the 1.5 to 2 degree C temperature "limit". The economists apparently ignore disasters like Syria that were precipitated by climate change linked drought. Growing human populations combined with droughts and crop failures caused by climate change will lead to resource wars and massive human migrations. Indeed they have begun. We are already beginning to see the severe impacts of climate change now. The tiny impacts calculated by most economists bear little relationship to reality.

I would like to see a popular article take down the economists' ridiculously rosy forecasts . Because economic forecasts have a political impact that is greater than the impact of hard science, the economic forecasts need to be dissected.

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1637
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #51 on: July 15, 2017, 07:25:09 PM »
Eric Holthaus:  After critiques by climate scientists, @NYMag just added 149 footnotes to this week's climate cover story.
Good for them.
https://twitter.com/ericholthaus/status/885935753011789824

David Wallace-Wells:  It has been a sprint to put this together, but here is the fully annotated and footnoted version of my climate story   
The Uninhabitable Earth, Annotated Edition
The facts, research, and science behind the climate-change article that explored our planet’s worst-case scenarios.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans-annotated.html
https://twitter.com/dwallacewells/status/885923947925168135


I recommend that anyone who suggests this article is sloppy on science or, in any way, refers to a 'methane bomb' potential read the updated annotated piece with footnotes and references.  'Sloppy' on the science does not describe this work in any way, shape or form. 

If anything, 'sloppy' should be referred to Mann's and Holthause's critique of the piece where they attributed a false assertion to the article about 'methane bomb' when it clearly is talking about a long-term release from Arctic permafrost on a worst-case scenario.

The distinction is clear but the mischaracterization is either intentional and therefore deceiving, or unintentional and therefore sloppiness on the brink of dereliction.
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1637
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #52 on: July 15, 2017, 07:33:08 PM »
To the point,

here is the paragraph in the original piece that was first attacked by Michael Mann in his facebook post, in which he asserts that the article declared a 'methane bomb'

In other words, we have, trapped in Arctic permafrost, twice as much carbon as is currently wrecking the atmosphere of the planet, all of it scheduled to be released at a date that keeps getting moved up, partially in the form of a gas that multiplies its warming power 86 times over.

here is David Wallace-Wells' lengthy response to the 'methane bomb' critique by Michael Mann and others.

There has been a fair amount of criticism of my use of this material. Michael Mann in particular has faulted me for it; in his initial Facebook post about the story, he wrote that “the science doesn’t support the notion of a game-changing, planet-melting methane bomb.” At Climate Feedback, several other scientists took issue with various aspects of my characterization as well. ¶ There is little doubt that this permafrost is melting quickly.

According to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment, by 2100, “it is virtually certain that near-surface permafrost extent at high northern latitudes will be reduced as global mean surface temperature increases, with the area of permafrost near the surface (upper 3.5 m) projected to decrease by 37% (RCP2.6) to 81% (RCP8.5) for the multi-model average.” But there is some important context I did not include here: Few scientists believe there is a substantial risk of methane release from permafrost happening suddenly, or all at once.

Also, most of the carbon will likely escape as C02, not methane. In retrospect, I sympathize with those who find misleading the phrase “all of it scheduled to be released at a date that keeps getting moved up.” The schedule I was referring to was the melting, which will take decades; the thawing is a process, not an event. ¶ I believe that my original description of the possibility of the methane release lacked some relevant (reassuring) context.

But I do not believe the science was fundamentally misrepresented here: There is that much carbon in the permafrost; the permafrost is melting at accelerating rates; some of the carbon will be released as methane; and methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. ¶ My intention in referencing the permafrost was to illustrate, for readers unfamiliar with the particulars of projection models, how many uncertain factors were at play — how many forces we don’t understand, and how possibly significant those forces could be in the warming of the planet. As Joseph Romm writes, “The thawing tundra or permafrost may well be the single most important amplifying carbon-cycle feedback. Yet, none of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s climate models include carbon dioxide or methane emissions from warming tundra as a feedback.” He also writes, “A 2011 study by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Snow and Ice Data Center found that thawing permafrost will turn the Arctic from a place that stores carbon (a sink) to a place that generates carbon (a source) in the 2020s—and release a hundred billion tons of carbon by 2100.” That study, he says, assumes none of the carbon will be released as methane, and yet still predicts a release “equivalent to half the amount of carbon that has been released into the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial age.” ¶ To be additionally clear, none of the warming scenarios described in the remainder of this article are built on the premise of a methane release from permafrost. They all extrapolate from the median and high-end IPCC projections for business-as-usual warming.

Even if you take issue with my characterization of the threat from permafrost melt, it does not affect my discussion of any of the risks that follow. The permafrost melt is a wild card which could add to those IPCC projections. (Romm calculates it could add a degree of warming by 2100 all on its own.) ¶ For those who are really interested in reading about methane, there are also the clathrates to consider — bubbles of methane at the bottom of the ocean, which many energy companies are now hoping to mine. Speaking about those with me, Lee Kump, a Penn State geoscientist, had this to say: “We haven’t really anticipated these positive feedbacks — for instance, these pockets of methane. That methane starts bubbling out, that’s a potent greenhouse gas. As that spreads throughout the globe, there’s a tremendous potential there for methane hydrates release.” He went on: “As you move towards the poles, we’re already seeing the consequences of warming there in terms of methane release"
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

TeaPotty

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #53 on: July 15, 2017, 08:19:16 PM »
I'm going to frame this argument in simple terms.

Its like a patient who has cancer. The correct approach is to lay out exactly how dire his situation is, along with the possible treatment courses and their chances for success. Fear and hope go hand in hand to lead one to make the best decisions.

In our case though, most our scientific elite have spent decades essentially trying to downplay the risk, to frame the dangers in a way that doesnt threaten the patient's worldview and daily lifestyle as much. Is it really so surprising then, that the patient isnt properly treating himself? The patient is intentionally led to believe that he has more time than he does, and that the consequences are less dire than they are.

Those criticizing this article (and others before it) are less concerned with humanity's future, and more concerned with their egos and feelings. It is a corruption of science to feel that you must constantly frame scientific research in a way that minimizes the risks. An insignificant percentage of humanity is informed that we are literally heading towards catastrophe. Its no longer a question of "if" we are, and more of how many will survive, and what portions of Earth will remain habitable?

I am disgusted by those who use their expertise and influence to criticize the "tone" of this article, without highlighting the reality it is trying to push in people's faces. We must face reality. We don't need the hand-holding and coddling.

Its also time to stop talking about climate deniers. Who cares what they say? They lost the argument long ago, and in recent years their view is little more than a joke. We give them life the more we engage them. We waste our time arguing them instead of pushing for action that might actually make a difference.

Worse, we corrupt the whole argument when we defend the actions of Democrats over Republicans, or when we defend the Paris Climate Agreement.  The actions taken or proposed till now cannot be described statistically as anything more than insignificant. I've said for years, they have only placated those who have been at least somewhat worried about our crisis. The difference in climate projections between what either side of the political aisles have proposed is laughable. If anything, the political Left has only taken on the climate change mantra to buy your votes and cheerleading. They are just as much a problem as the political Right, with a denialist "all-of-the-above" energy policy that ignores our crisis.

Trump isn't the problem. Deniers arent the problem. WE are the problem, we are the deniers. We are the ones brushing aside the scientific reality every day in order to go on with our daily lives and rituals, and feel better about ourselves. Our descendants will not look at us kindly, and rightly so.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2017, 08:50:41 PM by TeaPotty »

magnamentis

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1116
    • 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: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #54 on: July 15, 2017, 08:37:01 PM »
generally very good points and a good read, just want to add a few small things:

about who cares what deniers say i disagree to the point that:

- if they are leaders of major enterprises or even POTUS it matters, whether we like it or not

- most people are prone to influence from their human environment, friends and business colleagues and cannot or don't want to think of their own which leeds to a still by far to great a number of people who "blindly" push the uncomfortable thoughts that would force them to take consequences out of their mind. the bad should never be underestimated, even though i strongly believe that reason will ultimately prevail, in this case perhaps too late to get away with out harm.

about the "on purpose thing" related to scientists. this i would not sign. i believe that most scientist are doing their best while they are dependent (funding etc.) on their masters and have to be careful not to overshoot. thinking a bit back and even now not all feedbacks and consequences were the kind of obvious that an employee could easily lean out of the window and offend his boss or paymaster. could even be counterproductive since less funds means less data means even more time lost. not just like that but at least a possible negative impact cannot be totally denied.

for the rest, independent of wording and details which i'm anyways not the best at LOL, i fully agree with you general direction of pushing things,

thanks for taking the time to put all this a bit into context and make it accessible as some kind of resume.
http://magnamentis.com
Knowledge, Understanding & Insight Are Among The Best Sources For Personal Freedom & Vitality !

TeaPotty

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #55 on: July 15, 2017, 10:33:19 PM »
about who cares what deniers say i disagree to the point that:

- if they are leaders of major enterprises or even POTUS it matters, whether we like it or not

You misunderstand. Collectively, we are all deniers. Both sides of the political aisle are deniers. Anything less than drastic war-scale action is denialism. Those are the facts shown to us by decades of scientific research.

The blatant "climate change deniers" many envision as the enemy is not some social movement. It's a marketing campaign pushed by the 1%. Engaging them only wasted time and gave them more power. This tool is historically well established in politics in controlling public discourse and shifting the Overton window. Politicians know that the best way to defeat an enemy is from within, to keep them busy fighting and arguing among themselves.

People who mock Trump's denialism while praising Obama are deniers, and worse hypocrites. I've written much on the facts of Obama's climate destruction, his missed opportunities, his expansion of the fossil fuel empire, and his desecration of the Paris Climate Agreement. Hillary wouldn't have been any better for fighting climate change, for veering us off a 4C future. The Climate Movement's elite were certainly busy discrediting a lifelong environmentalist Bernie Sanders and propping up fossil-fuel-shill Hillary Clinton. Chew on that.

about the "on purpose thing" related to scientists. this i would not sign. i believe that most scientist are doing their best while they are dependent (funding etc.) on their masters and have to be careful not to overshoot.

The academic and scientific community are corrupted by the influence of a system governed by profit, and the motivation and desires of those who wield the money and power.

In addition, it is established fact that the scientific elite have consistently erred on the side of least drama. Not because of the hard Science, and certainly not because of being "careful to overshoot". I think its impossible to dismiss the systemic corruption, a corruption of what is supposed to be hard science.

There are individual exceptions of course, but they are indeed the exception, and generally wield less power and influence than those who are part of the problem.

thinking a bit back and even now not all feedbacks and consequences were the kind of obvious that an employee could easily lean out of the window and offend his boss or paymaster. could even be counterproductive since less funds means less data means even more time lost.

This type of excuse could maybe have been made in the 90s. We are well past the stage of doubt in feedbacks. For example, the last IPCC report's dismissal and omissions of many well-established feedbacks at the time of publishing can be considered nothing less than deliberate. The way the scientific elite mocked, belittled, and dismissed "alarmists" for decades is nothing less than deliberate. Just look at how hastily so many well-known scientists jumped out of their seats to put down this article.

One may argue that scientists are just people like anyone else. However, this only further highlights how being a scientist has been reduced to just another profit-motivated "job" in the current system. Science has been reduced to a tool controlled by profit, and objectivity has become a crown worn by the elite, instead of a goal one strives to.

Its long past time to take a good look in the mirror.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2017, 10:40:06 PM by TeaPotty »

FishOutofWater

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #56 on: July 15, 2017, 11:42:11 PM »
My opinion of the article doesn't count for much. It has 663,100 shares as of this moment.

Permafrost methane will be a problem as will permafrost CO2. The amount of carbon stored in the polar regions is stunning. I've seen calculations that Siberian permafrost may add 0.5 C to warming and that once we cross 1.5 C warming the Siberian permafrost will kick it up to 2 degrees.

There's also a large carbon store in the sediments of the Siberian shelf.

Joe Romm, physicist, has calculated that complete permafrost degradation may add 1 degree C to warming.

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1720
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #57 on: July 15, 2017, 11:46:38 PM »
Mocking Mann and his contributions to our understanding of climate change is just wrong. I understand his motivation for attacking the NYMag's,(got it right this time), article and choose to disagree with him on this issue.
Dr. Mann believes that we must stay above the fray and always ensure that every T is crossed and every period is in place. I believe that lighting a fire in the cooling embers of the climate change battle is of primary importance. If I'd experienced what Dr. Mann has experienced since his famous hockey stick graphic rose from obscurity, I'd probably agree with him, but my life experiences were and are very different.
No one has attacked my life, my livelihood, my work, my legacy, claiming I didn't cross all of my T's, or dot all of my I's. Dr. Mann has faced all of this and more.


I think it's important at this time to be opening a new Overton Window. When I first came across the term I thought it a disgusting way to win an argument. I felt it was a disingenuous, deceitful ploy that others would use, not I, nor mine.
Then we came to the point where we'd basically won the AGW battle, but had exhausted ourselves in the effort. We've won, I'm tired, let's rest up for the next battle.
Then Wallace-Wells pops up saying we're all going to die!
Wow!


The battle's on again, except this time the battle isn't over the reality of AGW, the battle is now over whether AGW will be killing our children or our grandchildren. This is a brand new window to discuss global warming, climate change, or whatever we chose to call the fact that we're cooking ourselves.
If all of the T's had been crossed, and had all the I's been dotted, I'm not sure we'd have as much coverage. There is a fight going on, and no one can turn away from watching a fight. We're not fighting about whether AGW is real, this time we're fighting about the casualty rate, and how soon the body bags will swamp the airports.
I think Dr. Mann's correct in trying to keep the opponents fighting fair. Like the referee at a boxing match. I think I'm correct in trying to bring the rubes into the arena. Selling the conflict, beating the drum, getting everyone doing research so that they to can join the fray.


If it wasn't so damn important it would be fun.
Terry

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1637
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #58 on: July 16, 2017, 05:32:08 AM »
My opinion of the article doesn't count for much. It has 663,100 shares as of this moment.

Permafrost methane will be a problem as will permafrost CO2. The amount of carbon stored in the polar regions is stunning. I've seen calculations that Siberian permafrost may add 0.5 C to warming and that once we cross 1.5 C warming the Siberian permafrost will kick it up to 2 degrees.

There's also a large carbon store in the sediments of the Siberian shelf.

Joe Romm, physicist, has calculated that complete permafrost degradation may add 1 degree C to warming.

What is the timeline on Joe Romm's projection does warming end at 2100?  What if the arctic amplification occurs at a higher rate going forward than what we have seen so far (2X GMST) due to changes in Sea Ice albedo and global atmospheric circulations (as was witnessed last winter)?

What is the total Permafrost contribution to global warming under a +6C warmer world over the next 200 years?
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1927
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #59 on: July 16, 2017, 07:29:04 AM »
As I recall, there is estimated to be more carbon in permafrost than in all the rest of terrestrial life on earth. So I think the eventual contribution from this source would likely be a bit more than .5 C.

ETA: Oops, I understated it. The correct statement is:
...more carbon than currently exists in all living things.

Specifically: 1400–1700 Gt

(Including carbon in Tibetan permafrost kicks that figure up above 1800 gigatons.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permafrost
"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."

TeaPotty

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #60 on: July 16, 2017, 10:39:17 AM »
Mocking Mann and his contributions to our understanding of climate change is
just wrong.

I understand his motivation for attacking the NYMag's,(got it right this time), article and choose to disagree with him on this issue.

No, twisting facts is unscientific.

What motivation can be justified and defended when someone uses a position of influence/power to mislead & placate others? The world is heading towards collapse, unless drastic action is taken.

Dr. Mann believes that we must stay above the fray and always ensure that every T is crossed and every period is in place.

No, he believes in twisting facts. He believes that he and other academics are better suited to deal with the facts of reality, and that the public must be treated like children with soft minds. It is a perversion of Science into some vehicle for agendas.

This why the general public has a natural distrust of snotty academics. Politicians are much better liars.

I believe that lighting a fire in the cooling embers of the climate change battle is of primary importance.

That's a nice story that most of the public is unaware of. No battle, no cooling, no importance. The strategy to date has absolutely failed. Zero proof of any effective climate action to date. CO2 emissions have yet to stop accelerating.

If I'd experienced what Dr. Mann has experienced since his famous hockey stick graphic rose from obscurity, I'd probably agree with him

What do his personal experiences of being sued have to do with justifying his rotten attitude towards the public and shutting up of those who speak the truth? How do you reconcile that with continued endangering humanity's future? How do you wake up in the morning and tell yourself that this is OK?

I think it's important at this time to be opening a new Overton Window. When I first came across the term I thought it a disgusting way to win an argument. I felt it was a disingenuous, deceitful ploy that others would use, not I, nor mine.

This type of approach has a lot to do with the failure of the scientific community's communication on Climate Change. The manipulation of public discourse and opinion by politicians and the wealthy elite is well documented history. The US even has a special secret school where subversion is taught regularly.

Many scientists show a gross ignorance of how the world works outside their field of expertise, and approach it so naively. Why not investigate matters before reaching conclusions, like in any scientific field? I'm afraid this attitude can only come from the belief that they are somehow above human nature through their education. But if the climate movement's history continues to show, many scientists are played with and twisted very easily, just like the simplest of humans minds.

Keep patting yourselves on the backs, I'm sure the current strategy will start working someday, right?
« Last Edit: July 16, 2017, 10:51:35 AM by TeaPotty »

magnamentis

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1116
    • 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: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #61 on: July 16, 2017, 04:19:06 PM »
@TeaPotty

i don't see much major disagreement in our points, some wording perhaps, a minor misunderstanding from my side and then i'm an old man for whom the 90ie's are an integrated part of my life experience, hence  the "excuse" which indeed nowadays is not valid anymore as well as i think it's less frequent, means things have been slightly improving on the front IMO,

thanks for the additional explanations ;)
http://magnamentis.com
Knowledge, Understanding & Insight Are Among The Best Sources For Personal Freedom & Vitality !

pileus

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 247
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #62 on: July 16, 2017, 05:02:05 PM »
- "so how soon indeed?" to which I replied "it's not accurate science but certainly your children and mine are screwed". So it served its purpose after a fashion.
I rather think that anyone under 50 is going to have a lot of grief. After all, 25 years from now takes us (but not me, too old) into the 2040's. Large scale world-wide climate refugee problems, (sea level rise, droughts, floods, soil degradation, famine .......).

On bad days I think it is more likely that the 2030's may be the beginning of interesting times.

At least in the US there is going to be a big problem with all the geriatrics in the tail end of the Boomer generation.  Much more susceptible to heat, less mobile and able to adapt quickly and deal with disruption.  All generations will need to deal with what's coming, but as with most crisis situations, it's the most vulnerable and weakest that will struggle the most.

I recently completed a life expectancy calculator and it produced a value of 2058.  I've long had an informal goal of reaching 2050, just out of curiosity of what the world would be like mid century.  Based on personal factors I doubt I'll get past 2040.  And I'm not at all sad about that prospect in the least.

FishOutofWater

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #63 on: July 16, 2017, 06:18:52 PM »
Joe Romm's most recent post on permafrost degradation quotes several articles. He goes back to an old blog post here
https://thinkprogress.org/carbon-feedback-from-thawing-permafrost-will-likely-add-0-4-f-1-5-f-to-total-global-warming-by-2100-74976c8ea963

to report an estimate of permafrost degradation caused warming by 2100:

Yet one study found that the feedback from just the CO2 released by the thawing permafrost alone could add 1.5°F to total global warming by 2100, if we don’t sharply curtail carbon pollution as soon as possible. Worse, none of the models for the recent Fifth Assessment of the climate by the world’s top scientists incorporate loss of the permafrost in their warming assessments.

Higher up in that post at his Climate Progress blog he writes:
https://thinkprogress.org/global-warming-permafrost-thaw-97436404e353
based on article: PUBLISHED ONLINE: 10 APRIL 2017 | DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE3262
Global warming will defrost much more permafrost than we thought, a new study finds. Every 1°C (1.8°F) of additional warming would thaw one-quarter of the earth’s frozen tundra area — releasing staggering amounts of heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs).

Those GHGs would in turn warm the planet more, melting more permafrost, releasing more GHGs, and so on. This is perhaps the most dangerous amplifying carbon-cycle feedback humanity faces — considering permafrost contains twice as much carbon as the atmosphere does today.

That’s why it’s so vital the U.S. adheres to its commitments in the 2015 Paris climate agreement — a landmark accord in which the world unanimously committed to keep ratcheting down carbon pollution to ensure total warming stays “well below 2°C [3.6°F] above pre-industrial levels.” And that’s why President Donald Trump’s efforts to undermine the deal are so dangerous, since they may put the permafrost — and hence our livable climate — across a point of no return.


Different ways of telling the story reach different people. The NY Mag article reached a large audience. Mann's meticulous approach reaches another audience.

One thing I've learned from writing and commenting on Dailykos is that it's pointless to knock down a post that is popular unless that post is way off base. The NY Mag article clearly struck a chord with hundreds of thousands of people and its basic conclusions are in the ballpark of scientific reality. We're on the same team, so let's not fight over the details of how we reach our different audiences.

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1637
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #64 on: July 16, 2017, 07:23:55 PM »
Dr. Mann Posted in the Washington Post his critique.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/doomsday-scenarios-are-as-harmful-as-climate-change-denial/2017/07/12/880ed002-6714-11e7-a1d7-9a32c91c6f40_story.html

tidbits

he says:
The New York magazine article paints an overly bleak picture, arguing that climate change could render the Earth uninhabitable by the end of this century.


but the article he says:  http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html

Indeed, absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century.


Judgement: 
Dr. Mann is grossly mischaracterizing the article, even saying that it 'argues' (in the body of the text) that the whole earth could be uninhabitable.  This is clearly, and intentionally, deceiving his audience about the NY Magazine article.

--------------

Next Mann says,

Its opening story about the “flooding” of a seed vault in Norway leaves out that one of the vault’s creators told NPR “there was really no flood.”


The article says,

This past winter, a string of days 60 and 70 degrees warmer than normal baked the North Pole, melting the permafrost that encased Norway’s Svalbard seed vault — a global food bank nicknamed “Doomsday,” designed to ensure that our agriculture survives any catastrophe, and which appeared to have been flooded by climate change less than ten years after being built.


Judgement. 
Just because someone, somewhere told someone that it 'wasn't really a flood' doesn't discount that the flooding was widely reported: 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/19/arctic-stronghold-of-worlds-seeds-flooded-after-permafrost-melts
Arctic stronghold of world’s seeds flooded after permafrost melts
https://www.wired.com/2017/05/arctic-doomsday-seed-vault-flooded-thanks-global-warming/
THE ARCTIC DOOMSDAY SEED VAULT FLOODED. THANKS, GLOBAL WARMING
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/810122/Doomsday-vault-Svalbard-Seed-bank-Norway-flooded-global-warming-climate-change
DON’T PANIC: Doomsday vault secured after seed bank flooded ‘thanks to global warming’

and Snopes:  http://www.snopes.com/doomsday-seed-vault-flooded/
Although melting permafrost did cause flooding in the access tunnel to the vault, the vault itself was not breached and the seeds were not threatened or harmed.

So flooding DID occur, it was caused by climate change and it was restricted to the entrance to the vault and not the actual vault itself.  A minor distinction, not worthy of Dr. Mann's critique.  This is an exercise on his part to use hyperbole to downplay the veracity of the NY Magazine article.

---------------

Dr Mann goes on to say,

It exaggerates the near-term threat of climate “feedbacks” involving the release of frozen methane.


The article says,

But Arctic permafrost contains 1.8 trillion tons of carbon, more than twice as much as is currently suspended in the Earth’s atmosphere. When it thaws and is released, that carbon may evaporate as methane, which is 34 times as powerful a greenhouse-gas warming blanket as carbon dioxide when judged on the timescale of a century; when judged on the timescale of two decades, it is 86 times as powerful. In other words, we have, trapped in Arctic permafrost, twice as much carbon as is currently wrecking the atmosphere of the planet, all of it scheduled to be released at a date that keeps getting moved up, partially in the form of a gas that multiplies its warming power 86 times over.


Judgement. 
Again, Dr. Mann attributes a very minor mention of a 'partial' release of frozen carbon (in the form of methane) and at a date that 'keeps getting moved up' as an exaggeration of the 'near-term' impacts.  There is no mention of the actual timeline (near-term or far-term) only that the 'date' keeps getting moved up. 

Obviously, this is a mis-attribution of the statement.  In Dr. Mann's first facebook post, he attributed this statement in NY Magazine as promoting the idea of a "methane bomb" but, since there is no body of science that predicts this methane bomb, and therefore, there is no 'date' that could be 'moved up' then it doesn't speak to this theory.  In addition, the current 'methane bomb' hypothesis does not include ALL carbon in the permafrost, so again, the 'date' that moves up in the NY Mag article does not speak to the methane bomb idea. 

Finally, the NY Mag article says "All" the frozen carbon in the permafrost will be released.  There ARE studies that look at this and the timelines are on the order of 2-300 years.  Therefore since the reference is clear, this is the 'date' that keeps getting 'moved up'. 

Dr. Mann's reference in his new article, is following along the theme that he promoted (quite erroneously) in his facebook post that the NY Mag is talking about a 'methane bomb'.  He has walked this back in his new article, because he cannot defend it, and so is instead using a 'dog whistle' technique to reinforce his previous, faulty, assertion without explicitly stating the term 'methane bomb'.

---------------

Dr. Mann Says,

It mischaracterizes one recent study as demonstrating that the globe is warming “more than twice as fast as scientists had thought,” when in fact the study in question simply showed that one dataset that had tended to show less warming than other datasets has now been brought in line with the others after some problems were corrected for.


The NY Magazine article says,

there are alarming stories in the news every day, like those, last month, that seemed to suggest satellite data showed the globe warming since 1998 more than twice as fast as scientists had thought (in fact, the underlying story was considerably less alarming than the headlines)


Judgement,

Obviously this is reporting on the 'stories' of climate change - about a specific satellite series - not the entire body of temperature records, and to take this as an assertion that (all) scientists thought that the earth was warming half as much as actual, is a false assertion and an intentional mischaracterization.

In addition, in the Climate Feedback response to the article, Carl Mears, the author of the study in question says,

Carl Mears, Senior Research Scientist, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS):
This sentence is true for RSS data, but it’s somewhat misleading due to lack of context. If you look at the two most recent versions of the RSS data and compute linear trends Jan 1998-Dec 2016, you find that the new version has a trend value for this period of about 2.6 times larger than the previous version.


---------------

Final Judgement,

enough!  whether Dr. Mann is using the moment to raise his own visibility in the discussion or to make his arguments appear 'more reasonable than the extremists' so that he can reach a wider audience, IS IN NO WAY A JUSTIFICATION, for the use of obvious deception and false framing of the article that he is criticizing. 

Who made Dr. Mann the referee in how we frame the Climate Catastrophe that we are all facing?  Did he mention at all in his article that NONE of the permafrost carbon is included in the IPCC models???  Why is he intentionally downplaying the actual threat, except for personal gain and one-upmanship?  Why is he resorting to intentional deception and strawman arguments?  who the hell does he think he is?

I have no respect of persons based on what they have done or endured in the past.  I only look at who they are TODAY and what they are doing now, and why they are doing it.  I do respect the work and the trials that anyone has done in their past and, to the extent that their work continues to be of value, I support them.

If in a private conversation, I would thank Dr. Mann for his intense work and that I loved his book on the climate wars.  I would also like to ask him why he thinks it is his job to act as referee and 'gate keeper' by using intentional deceptions to downplay the climate emergency.  I would challenge him on his hubris and whether his premise (doomsday scenarios don't help) is actually buying into the denialist narrative, and even is a direct result of his indoctrination as a 'measured voice of science' so that he is actually part of the problem of inaction and furthering the hard press toward eventual societal collapse in a >+4C environment.

« Last Edit: July 16, 2017, 07:44:22 PM by jai mitchell »
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1720
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #65 on: July 16, 2017, 11:59:18 PM »
jai


Good missive, but to be fair to Dr. Mann I believe it was I, not he, that suggested that he may be acting as a referee. We can't accuse him of hubris for something I wrote.


Terry

pileus

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 247
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #66 on: July 17, 2017, 03:48:18 AM »
It's legitimate to question Dr. Mann's response and positioning to the article.  But the dressing down of one of the foremost experts on climate change and longtime leading voice against the deniers is out of line. More purity nonsense from the usual suspects.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12040
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #67 on: July 17, 2017, 04:44:16 AM »
I think that we will all be unpleasantly surprised by how rapidly methane emissions from thermokarst lakes will increase in the coming decades:

Alex Matveev, Isabelle Laurion, Bethany N. Deshpande, Najat Bhiry & Warwick F. Vincent (2017), “High methane emissions from thermokarst lakes in subarctic peatlands”, Limnology and Oceanography, DOI: 10.1002/lno.10311

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lno.10311/abstract

Extract: “Peatland thermokarst lakes may be an increasingly important source of greenhouse gases as the southern permafrost limit continues to shift northwards.”
“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: 12040
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #68 on: July 17, 2017, 05:00:48 AM »
There are a lot of reasons to suspect that Arctic Amplification will be higher than assumed in AR5/CMIP5:

Hiroki Tokinagaa, Shang-Ping Xiec, and Hitoshi Mukougawa (2017), "Early 20th-century Arctic warming intensified by Pacific and Atlantic multidecadal variability,” PNAS, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1615880114 

http://www.pnas.org/content/114/24/6227

Abstract: “With amplified warming and record sea ice loss, the Arctic is the canary of global warming. The historical Arctic warming is poorly understood, limiting our confidence in model projections. Specifically, Arctic surface air temperature increased rapidly over the early 20th century, at rates comparable to those of recent decades despite much weaker greenhouse gas forcing. Here, we show that the concurrent phase shift of Pacific and Atlantic interdecadal variability modes is the major driver for the rapid early 20th-century Arctic warming. Atmospheric model simulations successfully reproduce the early Arctic warming when the interdecadal variability of sea surface temperature (SST) is properly prescribed. The early 20th-century Arctic warming is associated with positive SST anomalies over the tropical and North Atlantic and a Pacific SST pattern reminiscent of the positive phase of the Pacific decadal oscillation. Atmospheric circulation changes are important for the early 20th-century Arctic warming. The equatorial Pacific warming deepens the Aleutian low, advecting warm air into the North American Arctic. The extratropical North Atlantic and North Pacific SST warming strengthens surface westerly winds over northern Eurasia, intensifying the warming there. Coupled ocean–atmosphere simulations support the constructive intensification of Arctic warming by a concurrent, negative-to-positive phase shift of the Pacific and Atlantic interdecadal modes. Our results aid attributing the historical Arctic warming and thereby constrain the amplified warming projected for this important region.”

See also:

Title: “Arctic Clouds May Help Lock in Warmer Weather”

https://www.newsdeeply.com/arctic/articles/2017/06/02/arctic-clouds-may-help-lock-in-warmer-weather

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

vigilius

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #69 on: July 17, 2017, 06:02:05 AM »
...I think it's important at this time to be opening a new Overton Window...

Yeah, what Terry said. And I gotta say, I think it's a mistake to say that Obama was just as bad as the Republicans on climate policy. He did as much as he could given the limitations of the day and had not much choice but to pay lip service to "all of the above" and to let coal leasing go on. Remember the importance of the Recovery Act of 2009 in pumping money into renewables, and then the new gas mileage standards and the Clean Power Plan. Of course these steps were not enough, but every time we step in that direction everyone learns how doable all these things are.

So we gotta welcome every chance to push the window in the right direction. Makes me think of the famous FDR quote (okay sure it's probably apocryphal)  "You know, Mr. Randolph, I've heard everything you've said tonight, and I couldn't agree with you more. I agree with everything that you've said, including my capacity to be able to right many of these wrongs and to use my power and the bully pulpit. ... But I would ask one thing of you, Mr. Randolph, and that is go out and make me do it."

But please, everybody, please remember there really is a difference in the way the two parties approach this stuff and the difference really matters.

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1720
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #70 on: July 17, 2017, 07:05:46 AM »

But please, everybody, please remember there really is a difference in the way the two parties approach this stuff and the difference really matters.


Ramen !!
Terry

oren

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1377
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #71 on: July 17, 2017, 11:03:21 AM »
jai, I think you are somewhat harsh towards Dr. Mann, but still you are basically right. His criticism as quoted here stinks.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8108
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #72 on: July 17, 2017, 07:33:13 PM »
Eric Holthaus writes, in part:
My advice for climate journalists going forward:

1. Don't hold back. Readers can take it. (As long as it's rigorously grounded in the science, of course.)
2. The weird shit that climate change could cause—the tail risks, the megastorms, the blinking out of entire ecosystems—is compelling.
3. Climate journalists should find those stories—things scientists wouldn't bother with b/c they're unlikely—& report the hell out of them.
4. AND THEN (this is the most important part) you plant the seed of possibility at the end & invite the reader to become part of the story.

Because that's the reality: We are all part of this story. This is our story, we are shaping it every day.
http://tinyletter.com/sciencebyericholthaus/letters/today-in-weather-climate-final-thoughts-that-nymag-story-edition-monday-july-17th
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12040
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #73 on: July 17, 2017, 07:43:07 PM »
The linked article makes the case that the reason that people deny anthropogenic climate change is fear, and I believe that the same can be said about those who will not openly discuss the more dramatic impacts (i.e. those who prefer to err on the side of least drama) of continued global warming:

Title: "Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump"

https://www.skepticalscience.com/fear-brough-denial-trump.html

Extract: "So that raises the question - what is the reason people still discount the incontrovertible climate change evidence?

The reason isn’t religion, it isn’t political ideology, it isn’t lack of scientific knowledge, it isn’t politics, it isn’t tribal identification. It’s none of those things.

The reason is fear.

Whether people are reciting a litany of falsehoods about climate change or whether they are contorting themselves to justify support for this president, they are doing so because they have to. They have to, because they are afraid of what happens if they accept reality."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Ned W

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #74 on: July 17, 2017, 08:07:50 PM »
Personally, I'd prefer to take people at their word.  If someone says that they think the NY Mag article is realistic, I accept that they really do think that.  If someone else says the article is excessively alarmist and unrealistic, I likewise accept that they're telling the truth as they see it.


oren

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1377
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #75 on: July 17, 2017, 08:14:26 PM »
People I talk to move very fast from not knowing about the subject and ignoring it, to understanding/believing and still ignoring. Why? Not because of fear, but because evolution bred into us to ignore what we cannot change or do anything about. Each one personally accepts it and moves on. And continues contributing to the problem in his/her own tiny way. Disheartening.
As someone said here, if we discovered that a huge asteroid was headed to Earth and would hit on the year 2100, would we still ignore it ho hum? Of course not. And the real problem is quite similar in its risk.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2017, 01:23:17 AM by oren »

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1927
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #76 on: July 17, 2017, 08:28:18 PM »
oren said, "...continues contributing to the problem in his/her own tiny way"

Well, tiny compared to the whole entire effect perhaps. But  given that we are collectively unleashing the energy equivalent of about half a million Hiroshima-obliterating bombs onto the planet every day, and that the top 20% or so is responsible for some 80% of the problem...probably most of the people you talk to are responsible for something like one of those 'bombs' every decade or so (but others should check my maths, etc.).
"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: 12040
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #77 on: July 17, 2017, 09:34:19 PM »
People I talk to move very fast from not knowing about the subject and ignoring it, to understanding/believing and still ignoring. Why? Not because of fear, but because evolution bred into us to ignore what we cannot change or do anything about. Each one personally accepts it and moves on. And continues contributing to the problem in his/her own tiny way. Disheartening.
As someone said here, if we doscovered that a huge asteroid was headed to Earth and would hit on the year 2100, would we still ignore it ho hum? Of course not. And the real problem is quite similar in its risk.

Every one thinks of the matter of erring on the side of least drama, ESLD, in their own way.  But I note that James Hansen is an eminently qualified scientist who choose not to ESLD and conventional climate scientists choose to treat him like an 'outlier' that can be ignored, in my opinion because the conventional climate scientists were afraid of criticism and thus they relied primarily on direct logic rather than Bayesian indirect logic (which is also scientific).  Furthermore, I note that our tribalistic nature can be associated with our evolution in response to our need to deal with uncertain situations that we were afraid to deal with more directly.  Lastly I note that understanding one's motives and the language used to describe one's motives is a tricky business, and it can be difficult to see beyond one's pre-conditioned paradigm.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 10:19:16 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1637
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #78 on: July 17, 2017, 09:40:23 PM »
Personally, I'd prefer to take people at their word.  If someone says that they think the NY Mag article is realistic, I accept that they really do think that.  If someone else says the article is excessively alarmist and unrealistic, I likewise accept that they're telling the truth as they see it.

That is certainly true, with the exception that, upon further exploration of their reasoning/justification, if they use arguments that are perceived to be intentionally deceptive then you can clearly determine that they are either self-deceived, deceived by others or are intentionally misrepresenting their own position for (likely) personal gain.
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Ned W

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #79 on: July 17, 2017, 10:16:25 PM »
... if they use arguments that are perceived to be intentionally deceptive then you can clearly determine that ...

A bit of caution there is warranted, in my humble opinion. In the heat of argument it's very easy to ascribe bad motives to people one is arguing against.  It's quite possible that the other person thinks our points are intentionally deceptive, too.

I have also observed a ratcheting process whereby when one gets in the habit of questioning other people's motives, it gets easier and easier to do.  I may start out only saying that about hardcore denialists but after a while I'm saying the same things about lukewarmers and then about IPCC types and eventually about everybody who disagrees with my suggestion that AGW will destroy civilization by 2050.  (The evidence for my beliefs is so overwhelmingly obvious and unquestionable that anyone who disagrees must be lying or delusional or afraid to face the truth...)

The same process occurs on lots of other topics, and lots of other aspects of human interaction, for that matter.

rboyd

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 438
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #80 on: July 17, 2017, 10:18:50 PM »
A continuing issue that I don't see any scientists directly challenging (even the likes of Kevin Anderson) is the conflation of CO2 and CO2e numbers. This is endemic, even in the recent Figueres et. al. paper. The UN IPCC report is very specific in stating that it is using a CO2e number for the 450ppm target.

Using the CO2e number, we are already in overshoot. The NOAA calculation puts us at 489ppm in 2016, using the old methane gwp of 25. Using the updated gwp of 35 (and recent research points to it being possibly higher than 35), the CO2e concentration is 521ppm for 2016 - already 71ppm over. Even offsetting this with a 60ppm dimming effect for aerosols, we are still in overshoot.

The CO2e concentrations are also increasing by at least 3.5ppm/year since 2010, much higher than CO2 alone. With aerosols probably stabilizing/falling as coal use falls, the increase in net positive forcing will accelerate. I don't see any scientists raising this very basic, and alarming, reality.


AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12040
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #81 on: July 17, 2017, 10:27:21 PM »
A continuing issue that I don't see any scientists directly challenging (even the likes of Kevin Anderson) is the conflation of CO2 and CO2e numbers. This is endemic, even in the recent Figueres et. al. paper. The UN IPCC report is very specific in stating that it is using a CO2e number for the 450ppm target.

Using the CO2e number, we are already in overshoot. The NOAA calculation puts us at 489ppm in 2016, using the old methane gwp of 25. Using the updated gwp of 35 (and recent research points to it being possibly higher than 35), the CO2e concentration is 521ppm for 2016 - already 71ppm over. Even offsetting this with a 60ppm dimming effect for aerosols, we are still in overshoot.

The CO2e concentrations are also increasing by at least 3.5ppm/year since 2010, much higher than CO2 alone. With aerosols probably stabilizing/falling as coal use falls, the increase in net positive forcing will accelerate.

Undoubtedly, that is why future iterations of the Paris Agreement are expected to rely on negative-emissions technology, so that we can eat our 'hamburger' (or Wimpy burger) today while promising to pay for it some decades in the future.  Unfortunately, it is likely the poor (particularly those near the equator) who will likely pay for this 'overshoot' with their livelihood/lives.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 10:35:54 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

oren

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1377
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #82 on: July 18, 2017, 01:26:29 AM »
oren said, "...continues contributing to the problem in his/her own tiny way"

Well, tiny compared to the whole entire effect perhaps. But  given that we are collectively unleashing the energy equivalent of about half a million Hiroshima-obliterating bombs onto the planet every day, and that the top 20% or so is responsible for some 80% of the problem...probably most of the people you talk to are responsible for something like one of those 'bombs' every decade or so (but others should check my maths, etc.).
Agreed.

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1637
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #83 on: July 18, 2017, 02:17:11 AM »
oren said, "...continues contributing to the problem in his/her own tiny way"

Well, tiny compared to the whole entire effect perhaps. But  given that we are collectively unleashing the energy equivalent of about half a million Hiroshima-obliterating bombs onto the planet every day, and that the top 20% or so is responsible for some 80% of the problem...probably most of the people you talk to are responsible for something like one of those 'bombs' every decade or so (but others should check my maths, etc.).
Agreed.

the 400,000 hiroshima's per day was at a top of atmosphere (TOA) radiative imbalance of 0.6 W/m^2.  This value was based on Leviticus ocean heat content (0-700 meter depth) and was an average value between 2002 and 2010 (I think, or something along those lines). 

Recent values indicate we are closer to 6-800,000 hiroshima bombs per day.
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1031
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #84 on: July 18, 2017, 02:39:01 AM »
From a focus on ocean acidification CO2 numbers are the numbers to watch but from an ECS perspective the CO2e numbers are the numbers to watch.
 How soon will the CO2e cross the 560 ppm threshold ? 
 If ECS is in the 4.5-6 range and we are crossing the 560ppm CO2e threshold within the next decade or two then even pessimists like me are probably still guilty of espousing some version of the
 Pollyanna syndrome . We hope we can offer up some advice for future generations that have to deal with a much hotter climate when indeed it might turn out we will need to live by our own advice.
 Thanks Rboyd , you made my day.
 

Archimid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 582
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #85 on: July 18, 2017, 02:41:00 AM »
Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/17/surrendering-to-fear-brought-us-climate-change-denial-and-president-trump

Why would people think things or repeat statements that are known to be false or irrelevant? I am convinced that for the vast majority of people, they are not intentionally being incorrect. Something must be forcing them to be wrong. What could that be? Why are people so willing to believe and repeat lies?

I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1720
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #86 on: July 18, 2017, 05:38:22 AM »
Fear can be a wonderful motivator. Sputnik gave us JFK, a short lived emphasis on STEM education, a winning effort to get to the moon, and possibly the earliest of the building blocks that would eventually be assembled into the internet.
Not a bad fear response to a tech win from our dreaded foe.


It's not fear that's holding us back, it's the energy companies & the politician's they've bought.
Terry


Archimid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 582
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #87 on: July 18, 2017, 01:12:17 PM »
Irational fear, bad. Rational fear, good.

There is plenty of reason to feel fear about climate change and that can be very good. Fear triggers a response. If the response is appropriate to the threat then fear helps us survive. If the response is  inappropriate it puts us in danger.


Remember a few years ago the Ebola scare?  People that succumb to their fear like Trump were calling for border closings. People that handle their fear appropriately like Obama called for a medical and educational response.  Because of this, the Ebola problem is under control. Imagine if we would have closed the borders and let Ebola spread around the world.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12040
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #88 on: July 18, 2017, 04:20:44 PM »
Irational fear, bad. Rational fear, good.

Facing fear (acknowledging fear and dealing with it) is good, while either becoming overwhelmed by fear or denying it is bad.  However, what many people do not stop to realize is that fear and greed (or aversion and craving) are two sides of the same coin, and it is greed (craving) material goods that is driving crony capitalism beyond sustainable limits, which then creates the fear that that greed causes people to deny.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

pileus

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 247
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #89 on: July 18, 2017, 04:58:35 PM »
Fear can be a wonderful motivator. Sputnik gave us JFK, a short lived emphasis on STEM education, a winning effort to get to the moon, and possibly the earliest of the building blocks that would eventually be assembled into the internet.
Not a bad fear response to a tech win from our dreaded foe.


It's not fear that's holding us back, it's the energy companies & the politician's they've bought.
Terry

One of the influencing variables wrt fear, if not the strongest, is proximity to the threat.  When the Russians announced Sputnik, people were literally afraid that Russia would be raining down nukes from the Moon within months or years, not just beating the West in technology advancements.  Less than two decades removed from Fat Man and Little Boy, it's easy to see how Sputnik created a lot of fear and motivation to act.

Similar dynamic with the Ebola example. That's a clear and present danger if you get close to it, with good odds of a fatal outcome.  And of course some people are going to react in a frenzied and irrational way to a horrid and mortal threat.

So much of the climate change impact discussion is framed up in 2100 terms and references uncertain ranges of sea level rise or more heat waves in some places, and this is really hard for the vast majority of adults to wrap their heads and hearts around, much less be afraid about it.  It's not as terrifying as a pandemic or enemy positioning nukes in orbit.

The NY Mag article represents more of what needs to be communicated about the potential impact scenarios, but it's still going to difficult to scare or motivate people (and hold their governments and corporations to account) since most have been conditioned to assume it's a far off distant threat.  It would benefit the cause to have more threat assessments for 2050, 2040, 2030, and more region specific analysis.  It's certainly out there to some degree, but the general public is not going to see it or learn about it unless they seek it. 

It's just human nature for most people to prioritize what they believe to be more immediate and tangible threats.  Tough to afraid of something when the worst of it comes when you'll be dead and you have a full menu of problems and threats to handle in your day to day life.

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1720
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #90 on: July 18, 2017, 05:52:49 PM »
pileus


I'm in full agreement.


Personally I believe that rather than erring on the side of caution lest the public become fearful, we should be erring on the side of calamity in order to scare the populace into action. As you mention, specific regions, especially regions that resonate in peoples minds and that are facing problems near term should be heavily publicized.


Will New Orleans be irrecoverably inundated in the next climate change driven Hurricane. Is repairing HWY 1 near Big Sur worth while if it will be swept away in a few years or a decade?. Should the Thames River Gates be upgraded as London is again threatened by ever rising sea levels. Does Paris need protection from rising oceans? Will Miami become unlivable in 20 years? Should Toronto prepare for stronger, more violent tornadoes? Does Los Angeles need a new power source faced with Lake Mead's constant shrinkage? Will Las Vegas dry up & be blown away? Can we feed ourselves during the coming dust bowl?


Any of these discussions might scare the voters into demanding some kind of action from their politicians. People who attend Mardi Gras, vacation on the Pacific coast, or whose children spend Easter Holiday in Miami should be afraid. Why not help them.


Terry

magnamentis

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1116
    • 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: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #91 on: July 18, 2017, 05:58:54 PM »
@pileus

as i did not have a lucky (skilled) hand in communicating exactly that, the importance as to what and how we communicate to avoid giving to the "on purpose" deniers more "ammunition" to play their dirty game.

often i got angry replies because that was usually in reply to posts and the wording perhaps not so much sophisticated. hence i'm happy that you bring this up again and obviously in a perfect manner that is allows everyone to agree, since your post comes without offending anyone LOL.

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

rboyd

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 438
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #92 on: July 18, 2017, 07:20:41 PM »
How soon will the CO2e cross the 560 ppm threshold ? 
If ECS is in the 4.5-6 range and we are crossing the 560ppm CO2e threshold within the next decade or two then even pessimists like me are probably still guilty of espousing some version of the
Pollyanna syndrome . We hope we can offer up some advice for future generations that have to deal with a much hotter climate when indeed it might turn out we will need to live by our own advice.

The way that climate change is framed, even in the NYM article, its all about "the end of this century", which puts people to sleep - not in my lifetime, issue for kids/grandkids with decades yet left to fix it. When I explain things to people, so many get a real shock that we are talking about their lifetime.

As the article below explains, we should really be using the GWP20 number for methane when looking at when we will blow through 2 degrees etc. (accepting that 2 degrees is a safe limit). That's 86 of course, not 35. Using 86 gives an accurate representation of the current radiative forcing, and therefore the probable short-term (1-2 decades) speed of climate change.

If we use the methane gwp100 of 35 we are though 560ppm CO2e in about 12 years (going up 3.5ppm per year), if we use 86 we are already through 560ppm CO2e. Now add the CO2e forcing equivalent from the Arctic Sea Ice albedo changes.

I have to agree that the UN IPCC may just double down on carbon capture, with a "BECCS+DACS" maybe plus a bit of Solar Radiation Management thrown in. Anything so that we don't have to accept that we may have to give up on economic growth for a while and make some hard economic policy choices.

It is interesting, even in the article below, how they do not present the gwp100 and gwp20 numbers, perhaps because they would be forced to address the reality of the situation.

Current climate change measurements mask trade-offs necessary for policy debates

"The researchers argue in the May 5 issue of Science that because global warming potential calculates the warming effects of greenhouse gases over 100 years, they discount the effects of any greenhouse gas that disappears from the atmosphere after a decade or two. This masks the trade-offs between short- and long-term policies at the heart of today's political and ethical debates.

What is needed, the researchers conclude, is a standardized approach that recognizes both commonly utilized timescales -- 20 and 100 years -- as a ubiquitous pair. This two-valued approach would provide clarity to climate change policy analyses, which often result in misleading debates about policy trade-offs."

https://wws.princeton.edu/system/files/research/documents/Science%20356.%20pg492.full_.pdf




« Last Edit: July 18, 2017, 07:33:54 PM by rboyd »

pileus

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 247
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #93 on: July 18, 2017, 08:04:35 PM »
pileus


I'm in full agreement.


Personally I believe that rather than erring on the side of caution lest the public become fearful, we should be erring on the side of calamity in order to scare the populace into action. As you mention, specific regions, especially regions that resonate in peoples minds and that are facing problems near term should be heavily publicized.


Will New Orleans be irrecoverably inundated in the next climate change driven Hurricane. Is repairing HWY 1 near Big Sur worth while if it will be swept away in a few years or a decade?. Should the Thames River Gates be upgraded as London is again threatened by ever rising sea levels. Does Paris need protection from rising oceans? Will Miami become unlivable in 20 years? Should Toronto prepare for stronger, more violent tornadoes? Does Los Angeles need a new power source faced with Lake Mead's constant shrinkage? Will Las Vegas dry up & be blown away? Can we feed ourselves during the coming dust bowl?

Any of these discussions might scare the voters into demanding some kind of action from their politicians. People who attend Mardi Gras, vacation on the Pacific coast, or whose children spend Easter Holiday in Miami should be afraid. Why not help them.


Terry

You touch on another variable in that getting people to "think local" or at a micro level first can often be the path to influence (and scare them) to care or take action.  If your beloved beach/city/vacation destination is in the cross hairs of climate change or some other existential threat for you or your kids, then you might pay attention or want to do something directly or via pressuring those in charge.

Seems most people can't easily wrap their heads around the global aspect of global warming and catastrophic impacts far out in the future.  "Boiling the ocean" is always a hard concept to manage, whether used as a metaphor in tackling organizational problems, or in the literal sense of global oceans overheating and threatening species and civilization.  But you sure can get somebody's attention if a red tide from hot SST's repeats year after year, and ruins their leisure time or livelihood.

It's really humbling to go to some of the places you mention, and others, and realize that in coming years they will be radically transformed, or even be gone forever over decades to centuries.  I feel more sadness than fear, mostly because of the impact on non-human innocents, the coming loss of magnificent places, and the hardships for the young and future generations.

It might be wrong, but I have no fear, partly because I'll be dead before the worst arrives, and by having the simple awareness that earth has gone through these hothouse and mass extinction events previously, and will return with a new version in the distant future, ideally with less or no Homo sapiens.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12040
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #94 on: July 18, 2017, 09:17:51 PM »
It's just human nature for most people to prioritize what they believe to be more immediate and tangible threats.  Tough to afraid of something when the worst of it comes when you'll be dead and you have a full menu of problems and threats to handle in your day to day life.


In my opinion it is cowardly for boomers to pass on such a heavy burden to younger generations (see the linked information of Hansen et. al. (2017)'s ESLD estimate of this future burden), just because they may (or may not) be dead before the worst consequences hit.  The last linked article on the Stanford Marshmallow Experiment put such greedy boomer behavior into perspective, in that children who cannot delay their gratification by even 15 minutes grew up to have less fulling lives.  In other words when the boomers fail to appreciate the wellbeing of younger people they are condemning themselves to live less fulling lives:

Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P., von Schuckmann, K., Beerling, D. J., Cao, J., Marcott, S., Masson-Delmotte, V., Prather, M. J., Rohling, E. J., Shakun, J., Smith, P., Lacis, A., Russell, G., and Ruedy, R.: Young people's burden: requirement of negative CO2 emissions, Earth Syst. Dynam., 8, 577-616, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-577-2017, 2017.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/577/2017/
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/577/2017/esd-8-577-2017.pdf

Abstract. Global temperature is a fundamental climate metric highly correlated with sea level, which implies that keeping shorelines near their present location requires keeping global temperature within or close to its preindustrial Holocene range. However, global temperature excluding short-term variability now exceeds +1 °C relative to the 1880–1920 mean and annual 2016 global temperature was almost +1.3 °C. We show that global temperature has risen well out of the Holocene range and Earth is now as warm as it was during the prior (Eemian) interglacial period, when sea level reached 6–9 m higher than today. Further, Earth is out of energy balance with present atmospheric composition, implying that more warming is in the pipeline, and we show that the growth rate of greenhouse gas climate forcing has accelerated markedly in the past decade. The rapidity of ice sheet and sea level response to global temperature is difficult to predict, but is dependent on the magnitude of warming. Targets for limiting global warming thus, at minimum, should aim to avoid leaving global temperature at Eemian or higher levels for centuries. Such targets now require negative emissions, i.e., extraction of CO2 from the air. If phasedown of fossil fuel emissions begins soon, improved agricultural and forestry practices, including reforestation and steps to improve soil fertility and increase its carbon content, may provide much of the necessary CO2 extraction. In that case, the magnitude and duration of global temperature excursion above the natural range of the current interglacial (Holocene) could be limited and irreversible climate impacts could be minimized. In contrast, continued high fossil fuel emissions today place a burden on young people to undertake massive technological CO2 extraction if they are to limit climate change and its consequences. Proposed methods of extraction such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) or air capture of CO2 have minimal estimated costs of USD 89–535 trillion this century and also have large risks and uncertain feasibility. Continued high fossil fuel emissions unarguably sentences young people to either a massive, implausible cleanup or growing deleterious climate impacts or both.

See also: "Fixing the planet could cost younger generations $530 trillion if nothing is done about climate change"

http://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-will-cost-future-generations-trillions-2017-7

Extract: "By delaying significant carbon emission reductions we risk handing both an impossible financial and technological burden to future generations. Our children and grandchildren may be unable to understand how we negotiated such an arrangement on their behalf."


The last linked article is entitled: "Stanford Marshmallow Experiment"

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

Extract: "The Stanford marshmallow experiment was a series of studies on delayed gratification in the late 1960s and early 1970s led by psychologist Walter Mischel, then a professor at Stanford University. In these studies, a child was offered a choice between one small reward provided immediately or two small rewards (i.e., a larger later reward) if they waited for a short period, approximately 15 minutes, during which the tester left the room and then returned.

In follow-up studies, Mischel found unexpected correlations between the results of the marshmallow test and the success of the children many years later."
“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: 12040
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #95 on: July 18, 2017, 09:42:54 PM »
As the article below explains, we should really be using the GWP20 number for methane when looking at when we will blow through 2 degrees etc. (accepting that 2 degrees is a safe limit). That's 86 of course, not 35. Using 86 gives an accurate representation of the current radiative forcing, and therefore the probable short-term (1-2 decades) speed of climate change.

If we use the methane gwp100 of 35 we are though 560ppm CO2e in about 12 years (going up 3.5ppm per year), if we use 86 we are already through 560ppm CO2e. Now add the CO2e forcing equivalent from the Arctic Sea Ice albedo changes.

rboyd,

I appreciate your many posts; however, per the first attached image the GWP20 for methane per Shindell (2009) is 105 not 86.

Furthermore, the second 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 third attached image) indicate that such a bifurcation could occur as soon as the CO2-equiv concentration reaches about 680ppm.  Furthermore, if Hansen's ice-climate feedback due to the possible collapse of the WAIS in the next few decades (see Reply #31) then we might bifurcate into an equable climate pattern shortly after 2050.

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

Finally, 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.

Best,
ASLR
« Last Edit: July 18, 2017, 09:56:46 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: 12040
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #96 on: July 18, 2017, 09:47:21 PM »
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: 12040
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #97 on: July 18, 2017, 10:04:08 PM »
Here is some evidence that Earth System Models, ESMs, need to be updated to include such dynamical sensitivity considerations as 'freshwater hosing' and warming induced rainfall on permafrost (particularly in Siberia):

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, which most likely leads to enhanced emissions of terrestrial methane (a powerful greenhouse gas), more direct runoff (a smaller seasonal delay) and concurrent freshening of the Arctic Ocean. Rainfall also diminishes snow cover extent and considerably lowers the surface albedo of seasonal snow, ice sheets and sea ice, 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

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12040
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #98 on: July 18, 2017, 10:10:42 PM »
My last post addressed the impacts of future rainfall in the Arctic, while the linked reference finds that: "The increase in the number of extreme El Niño events projected for the twenty-first century could expose the WAIS to more frequent major melt events."  Such an increase in major rainfall events could lead to hydrofracturing of key West Antarctic ice shelves in the coming decades, that could contribute to the potential collapse of the WAIS in the following decades:

Julien P. Nicolas et. al. (2017, "January 2016 extensive summer melt in West Antarctica favoured by strong El Niño", Nature Communications 8, Article number: 15799, doi:10.1038/ncomms15799

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15799

Abstract: "Over the past two decades the primary driver of mass loss from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) has been warm ocean water underneath coastal ice shelves, not a warmer atmosphere. Yet, surface melt occurs sporadically over low-lying areas of the WAIS and is not fully understood. Here we report on an episode of extensive and prolonged surface melting observed in the Ross Sea sector of the WAIS in January 2016. A comprehensive cloud and radiation experiment at the WAIS ice divide, downwind of the melt region, provided detailed insight into the physical processes at play during the event. The unusual extent and duration of the melting are linked to strong and sustained advection of warm marine air toward the area, likely favoured by the concurrent strong El Niño event. The increase in the number of extreme El Niño events projected for the twenty-first century could expose the WAIS to more frequent major melt events."

Edit, also see: "Scientists stunned by Antarctic rainfall and a melt area bigger than Texas"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/06/15/scientists-just-documented-a-massive-melt-event-on-the-surface-of-antarctica/?utm_term=.526054dc4fdf

Extract: "Scientists have documented a recent, massive melt event on the surface of highly vulnerable West Antarctica that, they fear, could be a harbinger of future events as the planet continues to warm.

In the Antarctic summer of 2016, the surface of the Ross Ice Shelf, the largest floating ice platform on Earth, developed a sheet of meltwater that lasted for as long as 15 days in some places. The total area affected by melt was 300,000 square miles, or larger than the state of Texas, the scientists report."
« Last Edit: July 18, 2017, 10:18:24 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

rboyd

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 438
    • View Profile
Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« Reply #99 on: July 18, 2017, 10:11:25 PM »
per the first attached image the GWP20 for methane per Shindell (2009) is 105 not 86.

Furthermore, the second 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 third attached image) indicate that such a bifurcation could occur as soon as the CO2-equiv concentration reaches about 680ppm.  Furthermore, if Hansen's ice-climate feedback due to the possible collapse of the WAIS in the next few decades (see Reply #31) then we might bifurcate into an equable climate pattern shortly after 2050.

I don't see the 105 number used very often, a lot of references to the 86 number - I am not debating your point, more an issue of the media/scientific press coverage. 105 just makes things even worse of course, completely destroys the "natural gas as a bridge fuel" story.

e.g. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-bad-of-a-greenhouse-gas-is-methane/

The Northern Hemisphere equable climate issue is a huge one, with CO2e, arctic albedo and possible WAIS collapse all pushing toward it. I have to assume that the bifurcation will be chaotic, with extreme climate changes possible at the local level. It would also change many of the assumptions over "winners" and "losers" from climate change, with places like Canada not being the relative "winners" that they currently assume.

I have seen some paleoclimate research showing that the Northern Hemisphere can flip to a hot state independent of the Southern Hemisphere.

All of these possibilities make the NYM article look quite tame.