Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences  (Read 663400 times)

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17389
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 569
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2350 on: October 08, 2018, 04:08:35 PM »
Consensus climate scientists have decided to err on the side of least drama and thus ignore the Precautionary Principle in order to extend the period for the 66% confidence level carbon budget from the AR5 estimated 3-year period to 10-years to be committed to a 1.5C increase in GMSTA above pre-industrial (whatever those words mean).  If they are wrong, mankind will suffer what it must because it doesn't have the strength to face the reality of our current situation:

Title: "Analysis: Why the IPCC 1.5C report expanded the carbon budget"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-the-ipcc-1-5c-report-expanded-the-carbon-budget

Extract: "The newly published Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) special report on 1.5C (SR15) significantly expands the budget for a 66% chance of avoiding 1.5C to the equivalent of 10 years of current emissions. This compares to the IPCC’s fifth assessment report (AR5), which put it at around three years.

Based on estimates made in the IPCC’s fifth assessment report (AR5), there would be around 120 gigatonnes of CO2 (GtCO2) remaining from the beginning of 2018 – or around three years of current emissions – for a 66% chance of avoiding 1.5C warming. For a 50/50 chance of exceeding 1.5C, the remaining budget was a modestly larger 268GtCO2 – or around seven years of current emissions.

The IPCC’s new SR15 significantly revises these numbers. It raises the budget for a 66% of avoiding 1.5C to 420GtCO2 – or 10 years of current emissions. Similarly, the budget for a 50/50 chance of exceeding 1.5C is increased to 580GtCO2 – 14 years of current emissions.

Even with the revised 1.5C carbon budget is unlikely to be the end of the debate, however, given a number of large remaining uncertainties. These include:

•   The precise meaning of the 1.5C target.
•   Disagreement about what “surface temperature” actually refers to.
•   The definition of the “pre-industrial” period.
•   What observational temperature datasets should be used.
•   What happens to non-CO2 factors that influencing the climate.
•   Whether Earth-system feedbacks like melting permafrost are taken into account.

Finally, the emission scenarios considered in the new SR15 also tend to emit far more than the budget would allow, but make up for it with the large-scale use of negative emissions in the future.

The carbon budgets featured in the IPCC AR5 were based on this subset of 20 climate models that could calculate both past temperature change and emissions, rather than on actual observations of temperature and emissions. Because some of these models had emissions and temperature changes that diverged significantly from observations, it caused a number of problems in calculating the carbon budget.

The main change in the way carbon budgets are calculated in the new IPCC SR15 report is the use of observations – rather than values from ESMs – to determine the amount of warming and emissions between the mid-1800s and present. The relationship between cumulative emissions and temperatures – based on ESMs and observational constraints from the IPCC AR5 – is then used to calculate the remaining budget from present.

This approach, originally proposed by Millar and colleagues in a 2017 paper, effectively eliminates the problems associated with ESMs underestimating historical cumulative CO2 emissions and projecting temperatures warmer than have been observed.

Correcting both of these issues is broadly accepted by the scientific community. There is no doubt that using observations rather than model estimates leads to a more accurate estimate of the remaining budget for the 1.5C and 2C targets."

See also:

http://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo3031
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Archimid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2306
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 269
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2351 on: October 08, 2018, 04:40:59 PM »
I have to think that a popular rationalization for such a fatal mistake is that they convince themselves that if more lenient targets are given they would be easier to accomplish. Of course that is the 100% opposite of reality. The more strict the target the more motivation to achieve it, generating will power, the ultimate superpower.

The sad part is that societies that are attempting to emitt less are successful and often they hit their self imposed targets before time, a clear sign that we are overestimating the time to completion of the task.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17389
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 569
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2352 on: October 08, 2018, 06:32:31 PM »
As a follow-on to my last post, the accompanying images shows that the IPCC's special report on 1.5C (SR15), decided to focus on Millar et al (2017)'s estimate of the remaining carbon budget rather than the estimate form AR5's Earth System Model projections:

Title: " Analysis: How much ‘carbon budget’ is left to limit global warming to 1.5C?"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-much-carbon-budget-is-left-to-limit-global-warming-to-1-5c

Figure caption: "Remaining carbon budgets in gigatonnes CO2 (GtCO2) from various studies that limit warming to a 66% chance of staying below 1.5C (see links at end of article), as well as equivalent years of current emissions using data from the Global Carbon Project. Ranges reflect reported budget uncertainties, while points show best-estimates. All studies have been normalised based on observed emissions to show the remaining budget as of January 2018. Integrated assessment models limit warming to well below 1.5C warming in the year 2100, while other approaches avoid any exceedance within the next century."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17389
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 569
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2353 on: October 12, 2018, 09:43:06 PM »
Consensus climate scientists had better stop clinging to the low end of AR5's ECS estimated range (also I note that with continued global warming ECS is projected to increase above its current value); before the discredit themselves:

Title: "Climate sensitivity uncertainties leading to more concern"

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2018/10/climate-sensitivity-uncertainties-offering-little-comfort/

Extract: "Pointing to research he conducted with scientist Ken Caldeira of Stanford, Brown says that the models best simulating the recent past “tend to produce more warming” than those low- or mid-range estimates. He says their research “cuts off the probability of these low estimates of warming” and instead indicates higher-end estimates “appear to be more likely.”

“Uncertainty is not our friend” in this case, Mann says, as the climate system may be “even more sensitive than we thought.”

Scientist Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University agrees with Mann’s point that “the evidence may indeed be pointing to the problem being worse than we had anticipated, not better.”
Dessler said his “best guess” currently, based on the evidence he’s seen, calls for an increase of 3 to 4 degrees C from a doubling of CO2 concentrations over pre-industrial levels."

“The idea that climate sensitivity from observations is a lot lower than the models, that the models are ‘running hot'” and showing more warming and not less … “that idea is headed for the junkyard,” Dessler concludes."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15409
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 403
  • Likes Given: 207
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2354 on: October 13, 2018, 03:30:44 AM »
Rolling Stone discusses Richard Alley’s recent talk on sea level rise.

Quote
Hurricane Michael, the third most intense storm on record to make landfall in the U.S., has caused widespread destruction, turning places like Mexico Beach, Florida, into a hellscape of broken homes and overturned cars. It will be a while before we learn the full extent of the damage — and the human suffering and death — caused by the storm’s 155 mph winds and the 14-foot storm surge that swamped the coastline.

Bad as the hurricane was, imagine the damage and destruction if that storm surge had been 15 feet or so higher. And if instead of receding, that wall of water never went away. That is what we could be facing in the not-so-distant future if we don’t dramatically cut fossil-fuel pollution.

If that sounds alarmist, watch this short video. In it, you’ll see a scientist named Richard Alley in a Skype discussion with students at Bard College, as well as with Eban Goodstein, director of the Graduate Programs in Sustainability at Bard. It would be just another nerdy Skype chat except Alley is talking frankly about something that few scientists have the courage to say in public: As bad as you think climate change might be in the coming decades, reality could be far worse. Within the lifetime of the students he’s talking with, Alley says, there’s some risk — small but not as small as you might hope — that the seas could rise as much as 15-to-20 feet. ...
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/climate-change-sea-level-rise-737012/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17389
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 569
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2355 on: October 20, 2018, 08:00:05 PM »
Kate Marvel has written a fairytale about climate change, which communicates the seriousness of our situation (we already have one climate dragon on the loose), hopefully without inspiring despair (hopefully we can prevent four or five dragons from being released):

Title: "Slaying the Climate Dragon"

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/hot-planet/slaying-the-climate-dragon/

Extract: "A fairy tale whose ending, still unwritten, is by no means guaranteed to be happy"

&

Title: "A Climate Scientist On 'Slaying The Climate Dragon'"

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/20/659122551/a-climate-scientist-on-slaying-the-climate-dragon

Extract: "Kate Marvel, a climate scientist at Columbia University and NASA, talks to NPR's Scott Simon about her fairy tale on climate change and reads passages from the story."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17389
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 569
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2356 on: October 23, 2018, 07:33:17 PM »
It might help to understand the linked article by Hansen (October 15, 2018) if one considers that the ENSO phenomenon behaves as a chaotic strange attractor, and the mathematics of Chaos Theory indicates that such strange attractors are better characterized by their nodes (La Nina events) rather than the intervening excited states (El Nino events).  Thus in the attached image from Hansen (October 15, 2018) the fact that the trend lines for La Nina events are becoming steeper faster than either the average trend line of the trend line for El Nino events; means that the Earth's climate state is likely shifting into one more dominated by more active ENSO behavior; which most climate models indicate will have a higher Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, ECS, than we have been recently experiencing.  Indeed, a warming rate of 0.38C per decade is much faster than most consensus climate scientists acknowledge:

Title: "Global Warming Acceleration Plus Miscellaneous"

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2018/20181015_GlobalWarmingAcceleration.pdf

Extract: "Global temperature minima associated with La Ninas are more uniform in depth than El Nino maxima. This provides an opportunity to check whether the global warming rate is accelerating.


La Nina minima probably provide a better estimate, and they provide more recent rates. As the figure shows, the most recent two La Ninas imply a warming rate of 0.38°C per decade, at least double the longer term rate! Such acceleration is predicted by climate models for continued high fossil fuel emissions as a result of amplifying climate feedbacks and is a cause for concern. We expect global temperature rise in the next few months to confirm our analysis."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

vox_mundi

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1507
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 548
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2357 on: October 25, 2018, 04:40:43 AM »
New York sues Exxon for misleading investors on climate change risk 
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1MY2IB

New York's attorney general sued Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N) on Wednesday, alleging that the world's largest oil company for years misled investors about the risks of climate change regulations on its business.

It alleges Exxon assured investors it had properly evaluated the impact of climate regulations on its business using a "proxy cost" for the likely effects of future events on its business. However, these proxy figures frequently were not used in its internal planning or cost assumptions, the suit claims.

The company also failed to properly account for such costs in determining its volume of oil and gas reserves, or whether to write down the value of its assets, a metric important to investors, the suit claims.

"The company claimed to be factoring the risk of increasing climate change regulation into its business decisions," Attorney General Barbara Underwood said in a statement. "Yet as our investigation found, Exxon often did no such thing."
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

Hefaistos

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 382
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 104
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2358 on: October 25, 2018, 07:04:25 AM »
New York sues Exxon for misleading investors on climate change risk 
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1MY2IB

New York's attorney general sued Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N) on Wednesday, alleging that the world's largest oil company for years misled investors about the risks of climate change regulations on its business.

It alleges Exxon assured investors it had properly evaluated the impact of climate regulations on its business using a "proxy cost" for the likely effects of future events on its business. However, these proxy figures frequently were not used in its internal planning or cost assumptions, the suit claims.

The company also failed to properly account for such costs in determining its volume of oil and gas reserves, or whether to write down the value of its assets, a metric important to investors, the suit claims.

"The company claimed to be factoring the risk of increasing climate change regulation into its business decisions," Attorney General Barbara Underwood said in a statement. "Yet as our investigation found, Exxon often did no such thing."

Interesting! Legal action might be a good alternative to fight climate change, especially as the government isn't taking action in the US.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6337
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1362
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2359 on: October 25, 2018, 04:21:46 PM »
New York sues Exxon for misleading investors on climate change risk 
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1MY2IB

New York's attorney general sued Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N) on Wednesday, alleging that the world's largest oil company for years misled investors about the risks of climate change regulations on its business.

It alleges Exxon assured investors it had properly evaluated the impact of climate regulations on its business using a "proxy cost" for the likely effects of future events on its business. However, these proxy figures frequently were not used in its internal planning or cost assumptions, the suit claims.

The company also failed to properly account for such costs in determining its volume of oil and gas reserves, or whether to write down the value of its assets, a metric important to investors, the suit claims.

"The company claimed to be factoring the risk of increasing climate change regulation into its business decisions," Attorney General Barbara Underwood said in a statement. "Yet as our investigation found, Exxon often did no such thing."

Interesting! Legal action might be a good alternative to fight climate change, especially as the government isn't taking action in the US.

A lazy post from vox_mundi.

There is a  Topic: Legal Approach to Climate Change Resolutions  (only read 39,779 times)

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

where such matters are usually posted.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

vox_mundi

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1507
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 548
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2360 on: October 25, 2018, 05:53:32 PM »
Thanks for the encouragement gerontocrat. Sorry to ruin your day

There are 174701 Posts on 1986 Topics in this Forum. I've read many of them but not all.

I did a key word search before I posted but did not see the thread that you pointed to. Sorry.

You can call me tedious or many other things, but please don't call me lazy. Better yet, don't call me anything.

We're all here to keep informed of a world that's going to hell-in-a-handbasket at an ever accelerating pace. There are insults to the environment and the body politic everyday. There's little to be gained by adding to it.

By the way, I have appreciated your coverage & analysis of cryosphere over the years - and I still do.
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6337
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1362
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2361 on: October 25, 2018, 06:07:21 PM »
Hullo vox_mundi.

I think my post was somewhat lazier than yours. My excuse is that I had just been reading all about Greenland and long-term future of the ice cap, the Arctic, the World and the Universe etc on the "Mid-October 2018 PIOMAS update" thread" and was feeling irritated.

and thanks for the encouraging words.

G.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2036
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2362 on: October 28, 2018, 03:15:25 AM »
It might help to understand the linked article by Hansen (October 15, 2018) if one considers that the ENSO phenomenon behaves as a chaotic strange attractor, and the mathematics of Chaos Theory indicates that such strange attractors are better characterized by their nodes (La Nina events) rather than the intervening excited states (El Nino events).  Thus in the attached image from Hansen (October 15, 2018) the fact that the trend lines for La Nina events are becoming steeper faster than either the average trend line of the trend line for El Nino events; means that the Earth's climate state is likely shifting into one more dominated by more active ENSO behavior; which most climate models indicate will have a higher Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, ECS, than we have been recently experiencing.  Indeed, a warming rate of 0.38C per decade is much faster than most consensus climate scientists acknowledge:

Title: "Global Warming Acceleration Plus Miscellaneous"

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2018/20181015_GlobalWarmingAcceleration.pdf

Extract: "Global temperature minima associated with La Ninas are more uniform in depth than El Nino maxima. This provides an opportunity to check whether the global warming rate is accelerating.


La Nina minima probably provide a better estimate, and they provide more recent rates. As the figure shows, the most recent two La Ninas imply a warming rate of 0.38°C per decade, at least double the longer term rate! Such acceleration is predicted by climate models for continued high fossil fuel emissions as a result of amplifying climate feedbacks and is a cause for concern. We expect global temperature rise in the next few months to confirm our analysis."

Faero = -0.9
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17389
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 569
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2363 on: October 30, 2018, 10:04:27 PM »
The linked reference finds that the 'atmospheric dynamics feedback' is positive, rather than negative as some researchers had previously assumed.  This implies that TCR & ECS are higher than some researchers previously thought:

MICHAEL P. BYRNE and TAPIO SCHNEIDER (2018), "Atmospheric Dynamics Feedback: Concept, Simulations, and Climate Implications", Journal of Climate, 31 (8), DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0470.1

http://climate-dynamics.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Byrne-Schneider-2018.pdf

Abstract: "The regional climate response to radiative forcing is largely controlled by changes in the atmospheric circulation. It has been suggested that global climate sensitivity also depends on the circulation response, an effect called the ‘‘atmospheric dynamics feedback.’’ Using a technique to isolate the influence of changes in atmospheric circulation on top-of-the-atmosphere radiation, the authors calculate the atmospheric dynamics feedback in coupled climate models. Large-scale circulation changes contribute substantially to all-sky and cloud feedbacks in the tropics but are relatively less important at higher latitudes. Globally averaged, the atmospheric dynamics feedback is positive and amplifies the near-surface temperature response to climate change by an average of 8% in simulations with coupled models.  A constraint related to the atmospheric mass budget results in the dynamics feedback being small on large scales relative to feedbacks associated with thermodynamic processes. Idealized-forcing simulations suggest that circulation changes at high latitudes are potentially more effective at influencing global temperature than circulation changes at low latitudes, and the implications for past and future climate change are discussed."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17389
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 569
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2364 on: October 31, 2018, 09:31:50 PM »
With a hat-tip to vox_mundi, the findings of the linked research indicates that: a) the oceans have absorbed 60% heat than assumed by AR5; b) The carbon budget assumed by AR5 must be decreased by at least 25%; and c) the range of climate sensitivity is higher than assumed by AR5:

Title: "Earth's oceans have absorbed 60 percent more heat than previously thought"

https://m.phys.org/news/2018-10-earth-oceans-absorbed-percent-previously.html

Extract: "First author Laure Resplandy, an assistant professor of geosciences and the Princeton Environmental Institute, said that her and her co-authors' estimate is more than 60 percent higher than the figure in the 2014 Fifth Assessment Report on climate change from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Scientists know that the ocean takes up roughly 90 percent of all the excess energy produced as the Earth warms, so knowing the actual amount of energy makes it possible to estimate the surface warming we can expect, said co-author Ralph Keeling, a Scripps Oceanography geophysicist and Resplandy's former postdoctoral adviser.

"The result significantly increases the confidence we can place in estimates of ocean warming and therefore helps reduce uncertainty in the climate sensitivity, particularly closing off the possibility of very low climate sensitivity," Keeling said.

The researchers' findings suggest that if society is to prevent temperatures from rising above that mark, emissions of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas produced by human activities, must be reduced by 25 percent compared to what was previously estimated, Resplandy said."

See also:
 
Resplandy et al. (Oct 31 2018), "Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O₂ and CO₂ composition", Nature 563, 105-108, doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0651-8

http://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8

Edit: I note that Resplandy's calculation that the carbon budget should be reduced by 25% is essentially the same thing as saying that TCR is 25% larger than estimated by AR5.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2018, 09:40:49 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17389
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 569
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2365 on: October 31, 2018, 09:52:57 PM »
As a follow-on to my last post the linked article by Hausfather, indicates that new studies tend to support the concept that AR5 may have underestimated our remaining carbon budget (see also the attached image), but this article was written before the findings of Resplandy et al (2018) were available:

Title: "Analysis: How much ‘carbon budget’ is left to limit global warming to 1.5C?"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-much-carbon-budget-is-left-to-limit-global-warming-to-1-5c

Extract: "There have been a wealth of new studies on the remaining carbon budget to limit warming to below 1.5C published over the last two years. While they have generally reinforced the conclusion of Millar and colleagues that the IPCC’s models have underestimated the remaining carbon budget, sizable differences between the studies still remain and it is hard to pin down a precise number to use as the remaining allowable emissions."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17389
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 569
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2366 on: October 31, 2018, 10:49:48 PM »
While Michael Mann emphasizes the potentially positive side of his (& his co-author's) work on quasi-resonant amplification; his/their work also raises the specter that Arctic Amplification may increase faster than previously assumed (depending on the assumptions that one makes about the future):

Title: "Climate Change and Extreme Summer Weather Events – The Future is still in Our Hands"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/10/climate-change-and-extreme-summer-weather-events-the-future-is-still-in-our-hands/

Extract: "Something else happens in addition during summer, when the poleward temperature contrast is especially weak. The atmosphere can behave like a “wave guide”, trapping the shorter wavelength Rossby waves (those that that can fit 6 to 8 full wavelengths in a complete circuit around the Northern Hemisphere) to a relatively narrow range of latitudes centered in the mid-latitudes, preventing them from radiating energy away toward lower and higher latitudes. That allows the generally weak disturbances in this wavelength range to intensify through the physical process of resonance, yielding very large peaks and troughs at the sub-continental scale, i.e. unusually extreme regional weather anomalies.

The increase in the frequency of these events over time is seen to coincide with an index of Arctic amplification (the difference between warming in the Arctic and the rest of the Northern Hemisphere), suggestive of a connection (see Figure below).

See also:

Michael E. Mann et al (31 Oct 2018), "Projected changes in persistent extreme summer weather events: The role of quasi-resonant amplification", Science Advances, Vol. 4, no. 10, eaat3272, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aat3272

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/10/eaat3272

Abstract: "Persistent episodes of extreme weather in the Northern Hemisphere summer have been associated with high-amplitude quasi-stationary atmospheric Rossby waves, with zonal wave numbers 6 to 8 resulting from the phenomenon of quasi-resonant amplification (QRA). A fingerprint for the occurrence of QRA can be defined in terms of the zonally averaged surface temperature field. Examining state-of-the-art [Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5)] climate model projections, we find that QRA events are likely to increase by ~50% this century under business-as-usual carbon emissions, but there is considerable variation among climate models. Some predict a near tripling of QRA events by the end of the century, while others predict a potential decrease. Models with amplified Arctic warming yield the most pronounced increase in QRA events. The projections are strongly dependent on assumptions regarding the nature of changes in radiative forcing associated with anthropogenic aerosols over the next century. One implication of our findings is that a reduction in midlatitude aerosol loading could actually lead to Arctic de-amplification this century, ameliorating potential increases in persistent extreme weather events."

&

Mann et al (2017), "Influence of Anthropogenic Climate Change on Planetary Wave Resonance and Extreme Weather Events", Scientific Reports 7, No. 45242, doi: https//doi.org/10.1038/srep45242

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep45242
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17389
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 569
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2367 on: November 01, 2018, 10:08:07 PM »
The linked article cites research that has identified a new positive feedback between air travel and climate change.  As climate change increases upper atmospheric wind velocities, average air travel time per flight will increase; which will accelerate climate change.  This positive feedback was not considered in AR5.

Title: "Air travel and climate: A potential new feedback?"

https://phys.org/news/2015-07-air-climate-potential-feedback.html

Extract: "A new study by researchers at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and University of Wisconsin Madison found a connection between climate and airline flight times, suggesting a feedback loop could exist between the carbon emissions of airplanes and our changing climate. The study was published in this week's Nature Climate Change.

"Upper level wind circulation patterns are the major factor in influencing flight times," says lead author Kris Karnauskas, an associate scientist in WHOI's Geology and Geophysics Department. "Longer flight times mean increased fuel consumption by airliners. The consequent additional input of CO2 into the atmosphere can feed back and amplify emerging changes in atmospheric circulation.""
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17389
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 569
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2368 on: November 12, 2018, 09:39:33 PM »
Due to Neven's management style in this forum, I have decided to stop posting.

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

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2584
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 301
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2369 on: November 12, 2018, 09:44:31 PM »
Yikes!

You will be greatly missed! Is there another forum that you regularly post on?
"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."

Lennart van der Linde

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 740
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2370 on: November 12, 2018, 10:17:23 PM »
Did I miss something? What happened?
Is such an abrupt departure final, or can some form of diplomacy help to keep you on board of this exceptional forum, that is so valuable in no small part thanks to you.

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2371 on: November 13, 2018, 10:54:50 AM »
It was a series of events LvdL.
ASLR's posts around Antarctica was the reason I started reading here in late 2013. I don't follow the political threads but I did follow the reason for ASLR's opinion in the Forum Decorum thread about bothsideism in the science section/folder. Neven never responded.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1562.msg179649.html#msg179649

Later, this spillover popped up in the wildfires thread, which might explain the lack of response to ASLR's opinion about bothsideism in the science section?
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1368.msg180615.html#msg180615
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1368.msg180692.html#msg180692

Ultimately, this is Neven's forum:
So long and thanks for all the (science) fish.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • *****
  • Posts: 7139
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 461
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2372 on: November 13, 2018, 12:49:55 PM »
It was a series of events LvdL.
ASLR's posts around Antarctica was the reason I started reading here in late 2013. I don't follow the political threads but I did follow the reason for ASLR's opinion in the Forum Decorum thread about bothsideism in the science section/folder. Neven never responded.

I didn't know what to say to that. It seemed like a conflation of political discussions with scientific discussions. As if to say that because I don't allow for a political consensus (that ASLR endorses), I do the same with regards to scientific consensus. I mean, I interpret the term 'bothsideism' as 'Democrats do this, but the Republicans do it too'.

I don't follow these threads, so if someone is a bit too skeptical, bordering on climate risk denial, well, that's what the 'report to moderator' button is for. It's faster than cryptic remarks on a 'Forum decorum' thread that only tangentially relates to this potential problem.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2373 on: November 13, 2018, 02:30:51 PM »
Neven, the only reply to the first comment I linked to above was from sidd, to which ASLR responded:
While there are more examples than I care to cite, I find it an example of bothsidesism that this forum has a thread entitled "ECS is 2.5" in the science folder (see Reply #37 in that thread).  Having a thread with this title: a) promotes inaction on climate change which promotes consumption and b) as indicated by Reply #33 in that thread it is bothsidesism to compare calculation of ECS from a spreadsheet with calculations of ECS from state of the art climate models such as those presented by Andrew Dessler.

Edit: later ASLR replied to me, the next comment after this one was from you.
...
But I do think that threads that start with a clear condescending intent of shutting down discussions, should be moderated. AGW is no joke.

...

I couldn't agree more.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • *****
  • Posts: 7139
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 461
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2374 on: November 13, 2018, 02:50:44 PM »
Neven, the only reply to the first comment I linked to above was from sidd, to which ASLR responded:
While there are more examples than I care to cite, I find it an example of bothsidesism that this forum has a thread entitled "ECS is 2.5" in the science folder (see Reply #37 in that thread).  Having a thread with this title: a) promotes inaction on climate change which promotes consumption and b) as indicated by Reply #33 in that thread it is bothsidesism to compare calculation of ECS from a spreadsheet with calculations of ECS from state of the art climate models such as those presented by Andrew Dessler.

Edit: later ASLR replied to me, the next comment after this one was from you.
...
But I do think that threads that start with a clear condescending intent of shutting down discussions, should be moderated. AGW is no joke.

...

I couldn't agree more.

I've just scrolled through that post, and I - honest to God - don't understand what's so upsetting about it. Yes, if some guy came up with some BS to show that ECS is below 1, but this doesn't come even close to it. In fact, this thread hardly garners any attention and eventually disappears. I wouldn't even call it a controversy. It's nothing. It means nothing.

What is 'bothsideism' about this? What is 'bothsideism' in science anyhow? Both sides well within the IPCC ECS range?

I think ASLR's complaints ultimately stemmed from the pushback against his posting mainstream, establishment political opinions that are great for the underbelly and ratings, but very seriously distract from more urgent issues. As if 'this is the consensus, now shut up' convinces anyone, especially when it involves politics.

That's why I didn't even go into it (also because I was travelling for a week around that time). It's a molehill. It means absolutely nothing. I don't have time for this nonsense.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2375 on: November 13, 2018, 03:05:58 PM »
Sorry if I offended you Neven but why do you respond here then? I tried giving a reply to LvdL on how I saw this evolve because I do read the science section, obviously both you and Lurk was too busy with the political threads to notice, so my conclusion above was correct.

It was a series of events LvdL.
ASLR's posts around Antarctica was the reason I started reading here in late 2013. I don't follow the political threads but I did follow the reason for ASLR's opinion in the Forum Decorum thread about bothsideism in the science section/folder. Neven never responded.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1562.msg179649.html#msg179649

Later, this spillover popped up in the wildfires thread, which might explain the lack of response to ASLR's opinion about bothsideism in the science section?
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1368.msg180615.html#msg180615
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1368.msg180692.html#msg180692

Ultimately, this is Neven's forum:
So long and thanks for all the (science) fish.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Lennart van der Linde

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 740
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2376 on: November 13, 2018, 09:19:14 PM »
It was a series of events LvdL.
[...]

Thanks for the pointers, Sleepy.
Unfortunate chain of events (comments)...

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2377 on: November 13, 2018, 09:26:21 PM »
Yes LvdL, very unfortunate. As noted above this started earlier in the science section but there's no reason to dive further into it.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2018, 09:33:19 PM by Sleepy »
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6337
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1362
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2378 on: November 13, 2018, 09:40:16 PM »
Yes LvdL, very unfortunate. As noted above this started earlier in the science section but there's no reason to dive further into it.
A clue in our late(?) Emperor's moniker - ASLR - Abrupt Sea Level Rise, and his concentration on demonstrating the conservative nature of scientists and the consequences thereof ?

Many of us were with him on the inadequacy of the IPCC system and its built-in caution. Perhaps he felt that bothsideism was weakening the response to climate change. Being "reasonable" is sometimes unreasonable, and I think that is where we are now.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2379 on: November 13, 2018, 09:48:33 PM »
One clue is found with the one who started this thread.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Lugal

  • NewMembers
  • New ice
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2380 on: November 13, 2018, 10:42:22 PM »
I always admire people who take on thankless and difficult jobs like moderating forums. And I imagine that this is an extra difficult time. So I would just like to say, thank you Neven and keep your spirits up. That's all, back to lurking.

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4417
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 848
  • Likes Given: 1270
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2381 on: November 14, 2018, 03:30:57 AM »
Welcome Lugal... the first post is the hardest.

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2382 on: November 14, 2018, 06:03:33 AM »
Knö daj in fast dörra är trång för här är änna nåt på gång.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2383 on: November 15, 2018, 08:19:18 AM »
Report on NET's:
https://nas-sites.org/dels/studies/cdr/

A quote from the summary recommendation:
Quote
The nation should launch a substantial research initiative to advance negative emissions technologies (NETs) as soon as practicable. A substantial investment would (1) improve existing NETs (i.e., coastal blue carbon, afforestation/reforestation, changes in forest management, uptake and storage by agricultural soils, and biomass energy with carbon capture and sequestration) to increase the capacity and to reduce their negative impacts and costs; (2) make rapid progress on direct air capture and carbon mineralization technologies, which are underexplored, but would have essentially unlimited capacity if the high costs and many unknowns could be overcome; and (3) advance NET-enabling research on biofuels and CO 2 sequestration that should be undertaken anyway as part of an emissions mitigation research portfolio.

What this report really tells us in plain language, is that we are too late to the party.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2584
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 301
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2384 on: November 15, 2018, 05:38:28 PM »
Will this movement, that seems to see some scientists moving out of their usual, more comfortable conservative/least-drama orientation, will spread to other scientist? And will such a spread have any effect on the public and on the policy makers?


The Earth is in a death spiral. It will take radical action to save us

George Monbiot

Climate breakdown could be rapid and unpredictable. We can no longer tinker around the edges and hope minor changes will avert collapse

Quote
It was a moment of the kind that changes lives. At a press conference held by climate activists Extinction Rebellion last week, two of us journalists pressed the organisers on whether their aims were realistic. They have called, for example, for UK carbon emissions to be reduced to net zero by 2025. Wouldn’t it be better, we asked, to pursue some intermediate aims?

A young woman called Lizia Woolf stepped forward. She hadn’t spoken before, but the passion, grief and fury of her response was utterly compelling. “What is it that you are asking me as a 20-year-old to face and to accept about my future and my life? … This is an emergency. We are facing extinction. When you ask questions like that, what is it you want me to feel?” We had no answer.

Softer aims might be politically realistic, but they are physically unrealistic...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/14/earth-death-spiral-radical-action-climate-breakdown?fbclid=IwAR3IOBaQlj0UypjUsUthXLS2shVFN3DVLRxWbL2NAYj8ZsRMsufoUuLErjw
"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."

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2385 on: November 16, 2018, 12:23:53 AM »

The Earth is in a death spiral. It will take radical action to save us


the earth will do well,

it's humanity, fauna and flora that suffers while the latter will recover quickly. it's mostly mammals in danger including ourselves, at least as a mass phenomenon. i'm sure humanity will survive at least as a niche species till the next boom.

Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 733
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2386 on: November 16, 2018, 12:59:50 AM »

The Earth is in a death spiral. It will take radical action to save us


the earth will do well,

it's humanity, fauna and flora that suffers while the latter will recover quickly. it's mostly mammals in danger including ourselves, at least as a mass phenomenon. i'm sure humanity will survive at least as a niche species till the next boom.

I would agree.  The earth has been here long before us, and will remain long afterwards.

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2387 on: November 16, 2018, 06:11:49 AM »
Re: "Earth will do well". Yeah, had a geology teacher that told me that too...
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2388 on: December 22, 2018, 05:30:47 PM »
Cascading regime shifts within and across scales
https://www.stockholmresilience.org/publications/artiklar/2018-12-21-cascading-regime-shifts-within-and-across-scales.html
Quote
Regime shifts are large, abrupt, and persistent critical transitions in the function and structure of ecosystems. Yet, it is unknown how these transitions will interact, whether the occurrence of one will increase the likelihood of another or simply correlate at distant places. We explored two types of cascading effects: Domino effects create one-way dependencies, whereas hidden feedbacks produce two-way interactions. We compare them with the control case of driver sharing, which can induce correlations. Using 30 regime shifts described as networks, we show that 45% of regime shift pairwise combinations present at least one plausible structural interdependence. The likelihood of cascading effects depends on cross-scale interactions but differs for each type. Management of regime shifts should account for potential connections.

Adding the paper below and here's also an earlier (open access) preprint:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/07/07/364620
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

vox_mundi

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1507
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 548
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2389 on: February 19, 2019, 05:05:08 PM »
Scientist Who Popularized Term "Global Warming" Dies at 87
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-scientist-popularized-term-global-dies.html

A scientist who raised early alarms about climate change and popularized the term "global warming" has died. Wallace Smith Broecker was 87.

Broecker brought "global warming" into common use with a 1975 article that correctly predicted rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would lead to pronounced warming. He later became the first person to recognize what he called the Ocean Conveyor Belt, a global network of currents affecting everything from air temperature to rain patterns.

... "He wasn't fooled by the cooling of the 1970s. He saw clearly the unprecedented warming now playing out and made his views clear, even when few were willing to listen."

Broecker said his studies suggested that the conveyor is the "Achilles heel of the climate system" and a fragile phenomenon that can change rapidly for reasons not understood. It would take only a slight rise in temperature to keep water from sinking in the North Atlantic, he said, and that would bring the conveyor to a halt. Broecker said it is possible that warming caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases could be enough to affect the ocean currents dramatically.

"Broecker single-handedly popularized the notion that this could lead to a dramatic climate change 'tipping point' and, more generally, Broecker helped communicate to the public and policymakers the potential for abrupt climate changes and unwelcome 'surprises' as a result of climate change," said Penn State professor Michael Mann.

In 1984, Broecker told a House subcommittee that the buildup of greenhouse gases warranted a "bold, new national effort aimed at understanding the operation of the realms of the atmosphere, oceans, ice and terrestrial biosphere."

Quote
... "We live in a climate system that can jump abruptly from one state to another," ... By dumping into the atmosphere huge amounts of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, "we are conducting an experiment that could have devastating effects." ... "We're playing with an angry beast—a climate system that has been shown to be very sensitive"

- W.S. Broecker - Associated Press in 1997


RIP
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

vox_mundi

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1507
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 548
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2390 on: March 20, 2019, 10:38:09 AM »
Study Shows IPCC is Underselling Climate Change   
https://phys.org/news/2019-03-ipcc-underselling-climate.html

A new study has revealed that the language used by the global climate change watchdog, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is overly conservative – and therefore the threats are much greater than the Panel's reports suggest.

"We found that the main message from the reports—that our society is in climate emergency—is lost by overstatement of uncertainty and gets confused among the gigabytes of information,"
says lead author Dr. Salvador Herrando-Pérez, from the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute and Australian Centre for Ancient DNA.

"The accumulation of uncertainty across all elements of the climate-change complexity means that the IPCC tends to be conservative," says co-author Professor Corey Bradshaw, Matthew Flinders Fellow in Global Ecology at Flinders University. "The certainty is in reality much higher than even the IPCC implies, and the threats are much worse."

Salvador Herrando-Pérez et al. Statistical Language Backs Conservatism in Climate-Change Assessments, BioScience (2019)
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2036
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2391 on: March 22, 2019, 08:28:14 PM »
EARLY RESULTS OF CMIP6 MODELS INDICATE HIGHER CLIMATE SENSITIVITY

https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-results-from-the-next-generation-of-climate-models-matter

Quote
Early results suggest ECS values from some of the new CMIP6 climate models are higher than previous estimates, with early numbers being reported between 2.8C (pdf) and 5.8C. This compares with the previous coupled model intercomparison project (CMIP5), which reported values between 2.1C to 4.7C. The IPCC’s fifth assessment report (AR5) assessed ECS to be “likely” in the range 1.5C to 4.5C and “very unlikely” greater than 6C. (These terms are defined using the IPCC methodology.)
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 733
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2392 on: March 22, 2019, 10:47:20 PM »
We shall see if it pans out.  I am unimpressed.

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1121
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2393 on: March 23, 2019, 11:17:31 PM »
They will need to "tune" the ISAMs (Integrated Science Assessment Models) to include some more future technologies to suck carbon out of the air to offset the issue - just like they did for Paris. BECCS + DACS + maybe some accelerated rock weathering! When you can make up the future anything is possible. Then sprinkle some SRM as needed.

No need for much deeper cuts in emissions, the next meeting deemed to be a "great success" and onwards we travel to the cliff edge.

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2036
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2394 on: July 31, 2019, 08:26:39 PM »
bump
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5142
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 354
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2395 on: July 31, 2019, 09:28:42 PM »
I hope that with the US no longer involved the reports are allowed to have a little more bite to them.
Terry

nanning

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 752
  • 0Kg CO2, 35 KWh/wk,130L H2O/wk, No heating
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 107
  • Likes Given: 4916
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2396 on: August 01, 2019, 05:01:52 AM »
Browsing the "Anthropocene" article in wikipedia, I landed in "The Great Acceleration" and found some great quotes from a social scientist concerning "Conservative Scientists & its consequences":
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Bellamy_Foster
Some on topic quotes by John Bellamy Foster:
Quote
-   We are in an emergency situation in the Anthropocene epoch in which the disruption of the Earth system, particularly the climate, is threatening the planet as a place of human habitation. However, our political-economic system, capitalism, is geared primarily to the accumulation of capital, which prevents us from addressing this enormous challenge and accelerates the destruction. Natural scientists have done an excellent and courageous job of sounding the alarm on the enormous dangers of the continuation of business as usual with respect to carbon emissions and other planetary boundaries. But mainstream social science as it exists today has almost completely internalized capitalist ideology; so much so that conventional social scientists are completely unable to address the problem on the scale and in the historical terms that are necessary. They are accustomed to the view that society long ago “conquered” nature and that social science concerns only people-people relations, never people-nature relations. This feeds a denialism where Earth system-scale problems are concerned. Those mainstream social scientists who do address environmental issues more often than not do so as if we are dealing with fairly normal conditions, and not a planetary emergency, not a no-analogue situation. There can be no gradualist, ecomodernist answer to the dire ecological problems we face, because when looking at the human effect on the planet there is nothing gradual about it; it is a Great Acceleration and a rift in the Earth system. The problem is rising exponentially, while worsening even faster than that would suggest, because we are in the process of crossing all sorts critical thresholds and facing a bewildering number of tipping points.

-   Unless we change ourselves as individuals and our culture—the way we relate to the earth—we can’t expect to make the overall changes in society that our necessary.

-   It has been long understood that “consumer sovereignty” is a myth. To make fundamental changes in the commodity economy it is necessary to have power over production.

-   Socialists have all too often failed to take ecological issues seriously enough. However, this is not a fault of socialists alone, as the fault applies even more to the liberal tradition taken as a whole. But whatever we choose to say about socialism in the twentieth century, it has to be emphasized that no one can be truly socialist and indeed Marxist in the twenty-first century and fail to acknowledge the full severity of the planetary ecological crisis. We are either at the forefront of the struggle to protect the earth as a place of human habitation (and as a home for innumerable species) or we are on the side of the system’s creative exterminism of the Earth system as we know it.

-   With Trump neofascism has entered the White House—its aim is a different way of managing the capitalist economy. It is both a break with neoliberalism and at the same time its successor on the right—a sign of the deep crisis of our times. Not only does the administration stand for climate denialism and has declared environmentalist enemies of the people, it is also threatening to undermine liberal democracy, and is attacking the racially oppressed, immigrants, women, LGBTQ people, environmentalists, and workers. The resistance movement to this thus needs to be a defense of humanity itself in all of its aspects.
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
   Simple: minimize your possessions and be free and kind    It's just a mindset.       Refugees welcome

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2036
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2397 on: August 01, 2019, 10:36:31 PM »
https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2019/august/1566136800/jo-lle-gergis/terrible-truth-climate-change

Quote
Incredibly, at least eight of the latest models produced by leading research centres in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and France are showing climate sensitivity of 5°C or warmer.
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2398 on: August 23, 2019, 03:17:54 PM »
One funder of denying scientists down, one to go ?? Am I too dark?? Or good riddance is in order?

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1121
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #2399 on: August 23, 2019, 06:26:28 PM »
One funder of denying scientists down, one to go ?? Am I too dark?? Or good riddance is in order?

May his brother rapidly die of heartbreak, they will both go down in history as part of the criminal elements that enriched themselves at the cost of human civilization.