Conservative Scientists & its Consequences

[Neven]

Your argument overall are the mirror image of Nic Lewis.  He finds that climate sensitivity is lower than the IPCC range.  The heart of his argument is to pick the observation based estimates as the true estimates, find a fault or two with the observation estimates at the higher end, point out a few issues and uncertainties with the higher model and paleo estimates and uses this as an excuse to ignore those estimates all together so that he can pretend that all the evidence points to a lower estimate.  Some more at Skeptical Science

Your arguments are very much the mirror image of Nic Lewis

The difference is that Lewis risks not enough mitigation and adaptation, whereas the reverse approach stressing worst-case scenario's of AGW risks too much mitigation and adaptation, which on balance is a lesser risk, according to IPCC and most risks analists, it seems.

Again, as Rahmstorf said: "Of course, if you are facing a threat to civilization, and you have underestimated that, from a point of view of avoiding  dangerous risk and the precautionary principle, it would actually be better to have overestimated the threat, rather than underestimated it."

So, placing yourself between Nic Lewis and the mirror of Nic Lewis will not only show you two Nic Lewis', but might turn out to still be too conservative. The logical and responsible thing to do is to turn away from Nic Lewis and have a look in the mirror. 

[jai mitchell]

(graphic with commitments)

An eyeball estimation of the second from bottom curve (previous pledges plus U.S. and China commitments) shows a cumulative emission of 4,875 GT of CO2 by 2100.
 

[AbruptSLR]

The following quote from the linked cnbc article indicates that crude oil prices keep dropping; which to me means that the fossil fuel industry is not going down without a fight:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102183148#.

"Brent futures Thursday tumbled more than 3.4 percent to $78. Brent was off more than 3.4 percent, and West Texas Intermediate slumped $2.97 to $74.21 per barrel. Brent has fallen nearly 7 percent so far this week."

Furthermore, the linked Guardian article discusses tactics that the new Republican Congress can use to frustrate Obama's new climate agreement with China:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/12/how-republican-led-congress-could-kill-climate-change-deal

[AbruptSLR]

Per the linked article, Obama's "Clean Power Plan" may be insufficient to meet his commitments in the US-China climate pact:

Meredith Fowlie, Lawrence Goulder, Matthew Kotchen, Severin Borenstein, James Bushnell, Lucas Davis, Michael Greenstone, Charles Kolstad, Christopher Knittel, Robert Stavins, Michael Wara, Frank Wolak, Catherine Wolfram, (2014), "An economic perspective on the EPA's Clean Power Plan", Science 14 November 2014: Vol. 346 no. 6211 pp. 815-816, DOI: 10.1126/science.1261349

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6211/815.summary

Summary: "In June, the Obama Administration unveiled its proposal for a Clean Power Plan, which it estimates would reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from existing U.S. power plants 30% below 2005 levels by 2030 (see the chart). Power plant emissions have declined substantially since 2005, so the plan is seeking reductions of about 18% from current levels. Electricity generation accounts for about 40% of U.S. CO2 emissions."

See also:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/economists-epa-co2-plan-may-be-too-weak-18325
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/on-eve-of-climate-pact-iea-warns-fossil-fuel-trends-dire-18320

[TeaPotty]

Challenge, Don't Worship, The Chiefs and High Priestesses of Science
http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/may/17/science-policy1


Quotes

When I was looking into the Big Bang Fair last term, I learned that volunteers were briefed not to get pulled into debating "politics" of arms dealing or the fossil fuel industry, lest it distracted from the science. I've since heard similar briefings have been issued for science events running over the summer. It's also a line I heard all too often when I worked at Imperial College.

It's bullshit. Simple bullshit. Politics doesn't distract from the science. An over-emphasis on decontextualised science is used to distract from the politics.

It is often assumed science is somehow above political issues, but just because disinterestedness is an aspiration doesn't mean it's true in practice. It can be hard to spot ideologies you're part of, so decent public engagement – which is honest about the uncertainties and arguments in science and actively invites questioning – can help science uncover itself more clearly. This is vitally important, because if you don't recognize how routinely political science is, you just get played by those who do.







Climate Change Talk Scarce At Science Institutions
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/technology/article3556889.html


Quotes

Michael Mann, a leading climate-change expert, said exhibits must address the issue: "They are perhaps the greatest source of informal education the public receives about science and nature."

Mann gave the zoo display "a solid B+", but noted an ongoing debate over energy sources like ethanol, clean coal and natural gas. Because those are, or rely on, fossil fuels, he said, "Some of their solutions may not be solutions at all."

Marks said that the zoo "felt we had to have a mixture" of energy sources.

"We're in the coal belt," she added, "so for us to think coal is going away is probably not going to happen."

It's wrong for museums that celebrate science and nature to have relationships with the fossil-fuel industry... There's a chill that happens, subconsciously, where you don't want to critique the practices of donors... And extracting fossil fuels causes environmental devastation. So why are you providing them a clean image?"

I wouldn't be so quick to judge them. We live in the real world. We're all using fossil fuels.

The Carnegie had planned to address climate change in an exhibit called "Earth, Energy and the Environment." The exhibit is currently shelved, partly due to changes in museum leadership. But Shreckengast said it will give viewers — including those who disbelieve climate science — a chance to provide input on the subject.

[Steven]

The "small wave" in the fast feedback that Hansen & Sato 2012 are referring to is the bump in their Figure 7 that shows that that as the increase in radiative forcing (above pre-industrial) approaches 3 W/sq m [...]

This is a misunderstanding.  Here is Hansen and Sato's quote regarding a "small wave":
 

The fast-feedback climate sensitivity is a reasonably smooth curve, because the principal fast-feedback mechanisms (water vapor, clouds, aerosols, sea ice) do not have sharp threshold changes.  Minor exceptions, such as the fact that Arctic sea ice may disappear with a relatively small increase of climate forcing above the Holocene level, might put a small wave in the fast-feedback curve.

This quote has nothing to do with the large bump (peak) in the center of the Fast Feedback + Surface Albedo curve (just to the right of the Holocene conditions).  In fact, the latter bump is due to the "possibility of a hysteresis effect that makes demise of the Antarctic ice sheet difficult, thus stretching out toward larger forcing the ice sheet addition to the fast-feedback sensitivity". 

See also the following SkepticalScience comment by Tom Curtis:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/hansen-and-sato-2012-climate-sensitivity.html#80362
 

[jai mitchell]

How does one reconcile the apparent nonlinear contribution of Arctic sea ice loss to radiative forcing over the last 20 years to H&S fast feedback curve that remains linear (mostly) to the PETM threshold?

I think it is clear that they are hindcasting from paleo records and do not have sufficient scale of resolution to include short scale jump in arctic sea ice loss during the relatively instantaneous interstadials.  (even though they mention it in the body of the paper, it is not diagrammed on their curve projections.)

If a full 25% of forcing from CO2 (since 1979) can be attributed to albedo loss, and over 65% of that additional forcing has occurred over the last 10 years, then this would be an additional forcing of almost .5 W/m^2 since 2004.  This is enough to show a rise in the Hansen & Sato curve.

Reference:  http://eisenman.ucsd.edu/papers/Pistone-Eisenman-Ramanathan-2014.pdf

Since the Caldeira paper showed a 3W/m^2 increase in forcing under ice free conditions (and we know that this is most likely underestimated, since they did not include the more recent determination of ice/water far infrared emissivity differences, then the curve should have a rise somewhere after the Holocene that is nearly double the current value on the fast feedback curve.

I think that this curve should be redone, thrown out, or simply relegated to a good first effort but not considered too closely. . .I mean, how can one possibly justify that fast feedback ECS is constant between the LGM and 2W/m^2 above the Holocene? (while there is so much ice in the arctic providing a potential 3w/m^2 non-linear forcing potential???)

[AbruptSLR]

The "small wave" in the fast feedback that Hansen & Sato 2012 are referring to is the bump in their Figure 7 that shows that that as the increase in radiative forcing (above pre-industrial) approaches 3 W/sq m [...]

This is a misunderstanding.  Here is Hansen and Sato's quote regarding a "small wave":
 

The fast-feedback climate sensitivity is a reasonably smooth curve, because the principal fast-feedback mechanisms (water vapor, clouds, aerosols, sea ice) do not have sharp threshold changes.  Minor exceptions, such as the fact that Arctic sea ice may disappear with a relatively small increase of climate forcing above the Holocene level, might put a small wave in the fast-feedback curve.

This quote has nothing to do with the large bump (peak) in the center of the Fast Feedback + Surface Albedo curve (just to the right of the Holocene conditions).  In fact, the latter bump is due to the "possibility of a hysteresis effect that makes demise of the Antarctic ice sheet difficult, thus stretching out toward larger forcing the ice sheet addition to the fast-feedback sensitivity". 

See also the following SkepticalScience comment by Tom Curtis:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/hansen-and-sato-2012-climate-sensitivity.html#80362

While I agree with jai's response to Steven's post, that Hansen & Sato 2012 are hindcasting using approximate GCM projections that were calibrated primarily by paleo records, and that as H&S's Figure 7 does not adequately differentiate between various slow, intermediate and fast feedback factors, it is difficult to interpret exactly what they mean, and thus it would be good if the ACME Earth System Model project were to put out some early results of their findings (which includes any possible Antarctic hysteresis).  Unfortunately, as the final ACME ESM results may not be available for 10 years or so, we are left with commenting about the information at hand.  Therefore (not to beat H&S 2012 to death), I provide the addition quote from H&S 2012:


Quote form Hansen & Sato 2012: "The equilibrium climate sensitivity for a positive (warming) from the Holocene state depends on the magnitude of the forcing. Hansen et al. (2008) conclude that the mean sensitivity over the entire range from the Holocene to a climate just warm enough to lose the Antarctic ice sheet is almost 6°C for doubled CO2, but most of the surface albedo feedback in that range is caused by loss of the Antarctic ice sheet. The decreasing amplitude of glacial-interglacial temperature oscillations between the late Pleistocene and Pliocene (Fig. 4b) suggests that the sensitivity is smaller as climate warms from the Holocene toward a Pliocene-like climate."

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the 6 C "wave" on H&S Fig 7 is associated with the Antarctic ice sheet, and while I do agree with jai that Arctic amplification must contribute to this 6 C "wave"; all of my prior comments were predicated on polar amplification (both Arctic and Antarctic amplification), as Hansen and Sato project a sea-level rise of up to 5m by 2100; which in my book means that they must believe that a collapse of a significant portion of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, WAIS, is probably by 2100.  In this regards the National Research Council, NRC, (2013), "Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change Anticipating Surprises", The National Academies Press, Washington D.C. makes the following statements:

"However, a large part of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), representing 3-4 m of potential sea-level rise, is capable of flowing rapidly into deep ocean basins. Because the full suite of physical processes occurring where ice meets ocean is not included in comprehensive icesheet models, it remains possible that future rates of sea-level rise from the WAIS are underestimated, perhaps substantially. Improved understanding of key physical processes and inclusion of them in models, together with improved projections of changes in the surrounding ocean, are required to notably reduce uncertainties and to better quantify worst-case scenarios. Because large uncertainties remain, the Committee judges an abrupt change in the WAIS within this century to be plausible, with an unknown although probably low probability.
...

A retreat of Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica could give a much wider and deeper calving front than any observed today, so the "speed limits" suggested by Pfeffer et al. (2008) may not apply (Parizek et al., 2013)."

Furthermore, Eric Rignot (2014) makes the following statements on the topic of the WAIS stability:

"We announced that we had collected enough observations to conclude that the retreat of ice in the Amundsen sea sector of West Antarctica was unstoppable, with major consequences – it will mean that sea levels will rise one metre worldwide. What's more, its disappearance will likely trigger the collapse of the rest of the West Antarctic ice sheet, which comes with a sea level rise of between three and five metres. Such an event will displace millions of people worldwide.
Two centuries – if that is what it takes – may seem like a long time, but there is no red button to stop this process.

...

Thwaites glacier started to accelerate after 2006 and in 2011 we detected a huge retreat of the glacier grounding lines since 2000. Detailed reconstructions of the glacier bed further confirmed that no mountain or hill in the back of these glaciers could act as a barrier and hold them up; and 40 years of glacier flow evolution showed that the speed-up was a long story.
At the current rate, a large fraction of the basin will be gone in 200 years, but recent modelling studies indicate that the retreat rate will increase in the future.

...

Controlling climate warming may ultimately make a difference not only about how fast West Antarctic ice will melt to sea, but also whether other parts of Antarctica will take their turn. Several "candidates" are lined up, and we seem to have figured a way to push them out of equilibrium even before warming of air temperature is strong enough to melt snow and ice at the surface.
Unabated climate warming of several degrees over the next century is likely to speed up the collapse of West Antarctica, but it could also trigger irreversible retreat of marine-based sectors of East Antarctica. Whether we should do something about it is simply a matter of common sense. And the time to act is now; Antarctica is not waiting for us."

Furthermore, the first attached image of the Amundsen Sea Sector ice mass loss rates (from the European Space Agency - GOCE satellite 2014), shows that ice mass loss from this area has been (2009-2012) contributing an average of 0.51 mm/year (out of 3.2 mm/year) to global sea-level rise.  Furthermore, the second attached image (from Mouginot, J., E. Rignot, and B. Scheuchl, (2014), "Sustained increase in ice discharge from the Amundsen Sea Embayment, West Antarctica, from 1973 to 2013", Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, doi:10.1002/2013GL059069) shows the evolution of ice mass loss from the Amundsen Sea Embayment marine glaciers, that shows particularly that ice mass loss from the Thwaites Glacier is continuing to accelerate.  Therefore, if Rignot points-out that without the acceleration of ice mass loss from the WAIS glaciers that it could take as much as 200-years for the WAIS to partially collapse, then it is not unreasonable to assume that as the acceleration of ice mass loss from the WAIS is likely to continue, that the partial collapse of the WAIS is probable (or at least as the NRC states plausible) by 2100.

I will post more on the topic of significant polar amplification by 2100 shortly (or if you do not want to wait you can look at the threads in the Antarctic folder)

[TeaPotty]

DeSmogBlog has posted the most balanced (imho) assessment of the US-China Climate deal and its larger context: the good, the bad, and the ugly. (Posted in 2 threads)



China-U.S. Climate Deal Is Historic, But On Its Own Is Not Enough
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/11/14/u-s-china-climate-deal-historic-its-own-not-enough


Quotes
it is historic. For the first time ever, China has agreed to put a cap on the emissions produced by its rapid, voracious economic expansion. While it's certainly not true that the U.S. taking responsibility for its share of global warming pollution wouldn't have had a meaningful impact anyway, it also can't be ignored that averting runaway climate change would be nearly impossible if China's emissions keep growing unabated

...is not the same thing as saying that the deal President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping struck is enough to get the job done... the emissions targets themselves, which come nowhere near what climate scientists say are needed to prevent catastrophic warming. We must lower global warming pollution 80% below 1990 levels by mid-century, yet the US is still using 2005 as its baseline, and has only committed to lowering emissions 26-28% by 2025. China, meanwhile, needs to see its emissions peak by 2020, climate scientists say, but has only committed to doing so by 2030.

“The net result is not victory,” writes Peter Lee in Counterpunch, “it’s probably the recipe for a global temperature rise of 4 degrees which is much higher than the 2 degree rise that everybody said would be very, very bad.”

There's some fuzzy logic at work in how emissions will be tracked, too, according to DeSmog research fellow Steve Horn: “As the saying goes, read the fine print: nuclear energy will be accounted for as ‘zero emission’ and it looks like carbon capture and storage (CCS) will too, aka ‘clean coal,’ or ’21st Century Coal’ as the U.S. has preferred to call it in terms of its wheeling and dealing with China.”

Meanwhile, a major push to export the U.S.'s fracking boom to China is underway, which further complicates the matter. China is looking to exploit its vast shale gas resources as a means of lowering its reliance on coal and addressing its smog problem, at a time when the U.S. is only beginning to grapple with the true extent of emissions from its own fracking boom.

Another cause for concern: even the emissions reduction commitments in the deal, weak as they may be, are non-binding, so there are no legal or other mechanisms stipulated to actually hold both countries accountable. As Bill McKibben says, “In effect President Obama is writing an IOU to be cashed by future presidents and Congresses (and Xi is doing the same for future Politburos). If they take the actions to meet the targets, then it's meaningful, but for now it's a paper promise. And since physics is uninterested in spin, all the hard work lies ahead.”


Naomi Klein points out that, “by tying the emission reduction targets of both countries together in a bilateral deal, the President is making sure that his successor will have to weigh any desire to break these commitments against the risks of alienating America most important trading partner.”

The signal it sends to the international community could well be the most important aspect. It has already put pressure on the world's third-largest emitter, India, to develop its own strategy for lowering emissions... Another good sign is China's commitment to getting 20% of its energy from zero-emission sources by 2030... because they've revolutionized the production of solar energy, driving down the cost of panels by 90 percent or more in the last decade. Who knows how much cheaper this commitment will drive solar prices.


Naomi Klein's new book This Changes Everything makes the case that globalization based on neoliberal economic policies is essentially the antithesis of climate action, and she reiterated that point in her response to the China-U.S. deal:

As I argue in the book, free trade deals and World Trade Organization rules are increasingly being used to undercut important climate policies, by blocking subsidies for renewable energy and other supports for the clean energy sector. The mindless expansion of cross-border trade also fuels carbon-intensive consumption and emissions growth, and NAFTA-style pacts bestow corporations with outrageous powers to challenge national policies at international tribunals. Climate objectives could yet be undermined by the US-China deal on high-tech goods, which still has to be approved by the WTO, or by a massive new regional trade agreement like the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Republicans have already said they're gunning for the emissions standards in the Clean Power Plan, and have shown their willingness to shut down the entire federal government to get their way in the past.

[AbruptSLR]

While my last post (Reply #307 ) showed that a significant portion of the WAIS is on track to collapse in less than 200-years without any further anthropogenic forcing (ie if anthropogenic GHG emissions dropped to zero today).  However, as has been discussed in this thread it is not unreasonable to consider the case that further anthropogenic forcing causes mean global temperatures to raise by about 5 C above pre-industrial levels by (or before) 2100.  Assuming such a BAU scenario, the linked reference indicates that changes in cloud cover/albedo for such conditions would rapidly induce the Equatorial Pacific Ocean into a permanent El Nino-like state.  As cloud albedo is a rapid response feedback mechanism, such a change could happen in as little as a few decades from now (say 2040-2050). Permanent El Nino-like conditions would telecommunicate large amounts of heat from the Equatorial Pacific directly to West Antarctica; which, could greatly accelerate (beyond the current rate of acceleration) ice mass loss from this area.

N. J. Burls and A. V. Fedorov, (2014), "Simulating Pliocene warmth and a permanent El Niño-like state: the role of cloud albedo", Paleoceanography, DOI: 10.1002/2014PA00264

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014PA002644/abstract

Also note that Feldmann & Levermann 2014 have demonstrated that an early partial collapse of the marine glaciers in the Amundsen Sea Sector could contribute to the acceleration of the collapse of the marine glaciers in the Weddell Sea Sector.  The partial collapse of the marine glaciers in these two sectors would eventually (and no one know just how quickly) form seaways that would allow for ocean currents to flow between these two sectors:

J. Feldmann and A. Levermann, (2014), "Interaction of marine ice-sheet instabilities in two drainage basins: simple scaling of geometry and transition time", The Cryosphere Discuss., 8, 4885–4912, doi:10.5194/tcd-8-4885-2014

Possible seaways through the current location of the WAIS are indicated by the attached image from Vaughan et al 2011:

Vaughan, D.G., Barnes, D.K.A., Fretwell, P.T., and Bingham, R.G., (2011), "Potential seaways across West Antarctica", Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems, Vol. 12, No. 10, 7 October 2011, doi: 10.1029/2011GC003688.

Worst, the following reference shows a large-scale climate response to a significant retreat of the WAIS, including associated feedbacks in the oceanic and atmospheric circulation patterns, would change the global circulation patterns and probably the "Antarctic hysteresis" that Hansen and Sato 2012 were referring to; which in my opinion could possibly occur by the end of this century:

F. Justino, A. S. Silva, M. P. Pereira, F. Stordal, D. Lindemann and F. Kucharski, (2014), "The large-scale climate in response to the retreat of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet", Journal of Climate; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00284.1

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00284.1

[AbruptSLR]

In the following free access reference Hansen et al (2013) clarify that: (a) the fast-feedback climate sensitivity is at the high end of the 3 +/- 1 C range; and (b) that ice sheet response time to radiative forcing is faster than earlier researchers thought and consequently that the Antarctic hysteresis was less than previously expected (see abstract and extract):

Hansen J, Sato M, Russell G, Kharecha P.,  (2013), "Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide", Phil Trans R Soc A 371: 20120294, http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0294

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294.full

Abstract: "Cenozoic temperature, sea level and CO2 covariations provide insights into climate sensitivity to external forcings and sea-level sensitivity to climate change.  Climate sensitivity depends on the initial climate state, but potentially can be accurately inferred from precise palaeo-climate data. Pleistocene climate oscillations yield a fast-feedback climate sensitivity of 3 ± 1◦C for a 4Wm−2 CO2 forcing if Holocene warming relative to the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) is used as calibration, but the error (uncertainty) is substantial and partly subjective because of poorly defined LGM global temperature and possible human influences in the Holocene. Glacial-to-interglacial climate change leading to the prior (Eemian) interglacial is less ambiguous and implies a sensitivity in the upper part of the above range, i.e. 3–4◦C for a 4Wm−2 CO2 forcing. Slow feedbacks, especially change of ice sheet size and atmospheric CO2, amplify the total Earth system sensitivity by an amount that depends on the time scale considered.  Ice sheet response time is poorly defined, but we show that the slow response and hysteresis in prevailing ice sheet models are exaggerated. We use a global model, simplified to essential processes, to investigate state dependence of climate sensitivity, finding an increased sensitivity towards warmer climates, as low cloud cover is diminished and increased water vapour elevates the tropopause. Burning all fossil fuels, we conclude, would make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans, thus calling into question strategies that emphasize adaptation to climate change."

Extract wrt Earth System Sensitivity: "We have shown that global temperature change over the Cenozoic era is consistent with CO2 change being the climate forcing that drove the long-term climate change. Proxy CO₂ measurements are so variable and uncertain that we only rely on the conclusion that the CO₂ amount was of the order of 1000ppm during peak Early Eocene warmth. That conclusion, in conjunction with a climate model incorporating only the most fundamental processes, constrains average fast-feedback climate sensitivity to be in the upper part of the sensitivity range that is normally quoted [1,48,99], i.e. the sensitivity is greater than 3◦C for 2 × CO2. Strictly this Cenozoic evaluation refers to the average fast-feedback sensitivity for the range of climates from ice ages to peak Cenozoic warmth and to the situation at the time of the PETM. However, it would be difficult to achieve that high average sensitivity if the current fast-feedback sensitivity were not at least in the upper half of the range of 3 ± 1◦C for 2 × CO2.  This climate sensitivity evaluation has implications for the atmospheric CO2 amount throughout the Cenozoic era, which can be checked as improved proxy CO2 measurements become available. The CO2 amount was only approximately 450–500ppm 34 Myr BP when large-scale glaciation first occurred on Antarctica. Perhaps more important, the amount of CO2 required to melt most of Antarctica in the MMCO was only approximately 450–500 ppm, conceivably only about 400 ppm. These CO2 amounts are smaller than suggested by ice sheet/climate models, providing further indication that the ice sheet models are excessively lethargic, i.e. resistant to climate change. The CO2 amount in the earliest Pliocene, averaged over astronomical cycles, was apparently only about 300 ppm, and decreased further during the Pliocene."

[jai mitchell]

ASLR,

While my last post (Reply #307 ) showed that a significant portion of the WAIS is on track to collapse in less than 200-years without any further anthropogenic forcing (ie if anthropogenic GHG emissions dropped to zero today).

I think you may have forgotten that we have yet to experience the full warming that has been incurred by our current CO2 concentration levels.  Currently, our Top of Atmosphere radiation levels indicate that we have between .4 and 1.2K of additional warming "locked in".

In addition, this additional warming will likely induce significantly more arctic sea ice loss, possibly even inducing an ice free summer AT CURRENT CONCENTRATION LEVELS. 

This fast feedback will produce significantly higher regional warming in the boreal summers, as well as produce significant permafrost decomposition as well as boreal peat and forest destruction (if what we have seen in the last decade is any indication).

so the likelihood of WAIS steady state loss rates over the near future is untenable.  just saying. . .

[AbruptSLR]

In the attached pdf, Hansen clarifies his belief that fast feedback climate sensitivity is somewhere between 3 and 4 C:

See:
James Hansen (15 April 2013) "Making Things Clearer: Exaggeration, Jumping the Gun, and The Venus Syndrome"
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/


edit: For those who do not know the back story, when the IPCC was first determining what range of ECS to use in their models, Hansen recommended the use of a value of 4 C; which some researchers felt was an exaggeration.  Thus, in the attached article Hansen is expressing some vindication that calibration of the Russell GCM to the paleo record requires the use of an ECS closer to 4 C than to 3 C, thus indicating that Hansen is not subject to exaggeration but that the critical researchers chose to error on the side of least drama rather than to error on the side of greatest public safety.

[AbruptSLR]

ASLR,

While my last post (Reply #307 ) showed that a significant portion of the WAIS is on track to collapse in less than 200-years without any further anthropogenic forcing (ie if anthropogenic GHG emissions dropped to zero today).

I think you may have forgotten that we have yet to experience the full warming that has been incurred by our current CO2 concentration levels.  Currently, our Top of Atmosphere radiation levels indicate that we have between .4 and 1.2K of additional warming "locked in".

In addition, this additional warming will likely induce significantly more arctic sea ice loss, possibly even inducing an ice free summer AT CURRENT CONCENTRATION LEVELS. 

This fast feedback will produce significantly higher regional warming in the boreal summers, as well as produce significant permafrost decomposition as well as boreal peat and forest destruction (if what we have seen in the last decade is any indication).

so the likelihood of WAIS steady state loss rates over the near future is untenable.  just saying. . .

jai,

While I agree with the general nature of you comments (& I absolutely agree that even if all anthropogenic GHG emissions stopped today that the mean global surface temperatures would continue to rise), for the sake of clarity, the rate of growth of the acceleration of ice mass loss from the WAIS is not only related to the increase in mean global surface temperatures, but also to such factors as: (a) ENSO periodicity, (b) the possible SAM trend, (c) basal topology and basal friction, (d) local ocean currents, wind patterns and upwelling near marine glaciers, (e) buttressing action from ice shelves/ice tongues, etc, etc.  Therefore, while I agree that rate of ice mass loss from the WAIS is almost certain to continue accelerating for several more decades; without a beyond-the-state-of-the-art Earth System model like the ACME project, there will be a considerable amount of uncertainty as to how much faster than 200-years will it take for large parts of the WAIS to collapse (as such collapse is now unstoppable).

Best,
ASLR

[jai mitchell]

ASLR,

in my very unscientific estimation of current transitory states, I predict that the established trends of drought, ice loss, heatwaves and storm intensities (as well as the time rate change of those trends) will continue into the future for some time.

in my estimation of H&S I cannot help but wonder if they have also lulled us into a false sense of security as the millennial rate of temperature change that we witness from the Paleoclimate records of interstadials allows for a gradual increase in forests and other biomass accumulation of carbon that work as a semi-slow feedback (negative) parameter.  This feedback will not be present in todays biosphere due to time and baseline conditions. 

Compare, the Nordic forests of the 12th century to today, the bony fish biomass from then to now.

[mark]

I dont get what you mean there Jai - at present warming levels and with increasing CO2 there has already been an increase in green biomass of over 10% (I am being conservative as some estimations are 15%), this in itself means that 10% of the world is being fed by this increase in Biomass. The earths productivity has being increasing therefore there must be a considerable negative feedback against the CO2 increase otherwise there would have been a considerable increase in the rate of CO2 increase - something must be holding the curve at just a little past straight for such a long period - otherwise the rate of increase would be closer to 10 -15ppm/annum to accommodate a 5 fold increase in fossil fuel carbon emissions - it depends on when the tipping point where all mans emissions equalled the increase in CO2. A feedback of some sort must be happening or all that increase would be represented at Mauna Loa or we have only just arrived at that tipping point.

The rate is increasing and will continue to increase by the look of it to 2030 and well beyond, what the temperature will be then is open to debate but certainly 0.5 - 1 degree above now. What has to be determined is when this will have an adverse effect on green photosynthesising biomass the vast majority of which is contained in the oceans. At that particular tipping point the rate will really take off as the green biomass starts to decline. Are you saying that point is already here because as far as photosynthesis is concerned I dont see the evidence yet.

[AbruptSLR]

jai,

I agree that biosphere is currently being shocked by the current BAU rate of climate change (which will likely only accelerate for at least several centuries); however, I doubt that H&S is the source of societal complacency.  Hansen has projected global mean sea-level rise on the order of 5 m by the end of the century and has cited the risk of climate sensitivity values of over 6 C before 2100 if we stay on the BAU pathway.

The real problem is the complexity of climate change, and the desire by humans to make simple decisions "on the margin".  Climate complexity creates uncertainty, which is like a "fog of war" that the enemy can hide behind.  I have read accounts that in the early 1960's, Lyndon Baines Johnson was advised about the risks of climate change but he felt that geoengineering could solve the problem without rocking the boat.  Therefore, policy makers have been aware of the climate change problem for a long time and they have chosen to take the easy route for at least the past five decades.  In other words, the reason that we are in this mess should not be pinned on scientists, but rather on society's unwillingness to make effective decisions in the face of uncertainty.

Best,
ASLR

[mark]

ASLR theres a lot of predicted shock to the biosphere at increasing temperature but very little now, in fact the opposite seems to be true at the moment. The critical thing will be to know when this critical point is reached where the biosphere starts to react negatively to warming rather than positively at the moment. Only at that point is our ecosystem in danger from warming with the exception of sea level rise and the loss of land based habitat. Where is that point (I have raised this before on this forum) is it in the cold pre industrial time, the relatively benign temperatures of now or in the future at +1, +2, +3 degrees C. The Sea Level rise is critical to low lying coastal populations - they will be reduced by migration, or depopulation - but that alone will not influence mankinds survival prospects and stretched over a generation or 2 may only be inconvenient (locally catastrophic as with the Netherlands I know but not insurmountable).

I have set out my viewpoint before on here, but you cannot convince me by speculation and hearsay. There is a large proportion of farmers out there who do not believe they are in any kind of biosphere shock - give them some real unmodelled experimentation that says their livelihoods are at stake and that will change

[viddaloo]

The critical thing will be to know when this critical point is reached where the biosphere starts to react negatively to warming rather than positively at the moment.

Den tause våren i fuglefjellet [The silent spring on the bird mountain]

[AbruptSLR]

ASLR theres a lot of predicted shock to the biosphere at increasing temperature but very little now, in fact the opposite seems to be true at the moment. The critical thing will be to know when this critical point is reached where the biosphere starts to react negatively to warming rather than positively at the moment. Only at that point is our ecosystem in danger from warming with the exception of sea level rise and the loss of land based habitat. Where is that point (I have raised this before on this forum) is it in the cold pre industrial time, the relatively benign temperatures of now or in the future at +1, +2, +3 degrees C. The Sea Level rise is critical to low lying coastal populations - they will be reduced by migration, or depopulation - but that alone will not influence mankinds survival prospects and stretched over a generation or 2 may only be inconvenient (locally catastrophic as with the Netherlands I know but not insurmountable).

I have set out my viewpoint before on here, but you cannot convince me by speculation and hearsay. There is a large proportion of farmers out there who do not believe they are in any kind of biosphere shock - give them some real unmodelled experimentation that says their livelihoods are at stake and that will change

mark,
Your comments remind me of the old joke that goes: "A French Foreign Legionnaire came across a tent in the desert with a long line of camels entering at one end and exiting with great tears in their eyes out of the opposite end.  As the legionnaire approach the tent he read a sign that said: "Pain free camel castrations".  Outraged the legionnaire marched-up to the  Arab sitting in front of the tent and demanded:  "Sir how can you say that these castrations are pain free, just look at these animals they are suffering greatly.  How do you perform these castrations?" as he pointed to the camels exiting the tent.  So the Arab pulled two stones from his pockets and said: "See it is simple" as he banged the rocks together.  The legionnaire growled at him: "How can you say that is pain free?", and the Arab answered: "I hold my thumbs to the sides!"
Just because plant growth is temporarily absorbing more CO₂ than previously, and just because the majority of farmers are not in shock yet; does not mean that the biosphere as a whole is not already being shocked and will certainly suffer still greater shocks.  The NRC (2013) Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change Anticipating Surprises (see the reference & link below) cites many examples of both the current and future shocks on the biosphere from our current BAU pathway including the following statement:

"Increases in Extinction Threat for Marine and Terrestrial Species

The rate of climate change now underway is probably as fast as any warming event in the past 65 million years, and it is projected that its pace over the next 30 to 80 years will continue to be faster and more intense. These rapidly changing conditions make survival difficult for many species. Biologically important climatic attributes—such as number of frost-free days, length and timing of growing seasons, and the frequency and intensity of extreme events (such as number of extremely hot days or severe storms)—are changing so rapidly that some species can neither move nor adapt fast enough (Figure S.2). 

Specific examples of species at risk for physiological reasons include mountain species such as pikas and endemic Hawaiian silverswords, which are restricted to cool temperatures at high altitudes. Species like polar bears are at risk because they depend on sea ice to facilitate their hunting of seals and Arctic sea ice conditions are changing rapidly.  Other species are prone to extinction as changing climate causes their habitats to alter such that growth, development, or reproduction of constituent individuals are inhibited. 

The distinct risks of climate change exacerbate other widely recognized and severe extinction pressures, especially habitat destruction, competition from invasive species, and unsustainable exploitation of species for economic gain, which have already elevated extinction rates to many times above background rates. If unchecked, habitat destruction, fragmentation, and over-exploitation, even without climate change, could result in a mass extinction within the next few centuries equivalent in magnitude to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. With the ongoing pressures of climate change, comparable levels of extinction conceivably could occur before the year 2100; indeed, some models show a crash of coral reefs from climate change alone as early as 2060 under certain scenarios. 

Loss of a species is permanent and irreversible, and has both economic impacts and ethical implications. The economic impacts derive from loss of ecosystem services, revenue, and jobs, for example in the fishing, forestry, and ecotourism industries. Ethical implications include the permanent loss of irreplaceable species and ecosystems as the current generation’s legacy to the next generation.

Research on species extinctions is in many ways still at a nascent stage of discovery. Prominent research questions at this time include identifying which species in which ecosystems are most at risk, identifying which species extinctions would precipitate inordinately large ecological cascades that would lead to further extinctions, and assessing the impact of climate-induced changes in seasonal timing and species interactions on extinction rates."

See the first attached image of Figure S.2 of the Velocity of Climate Change, with its caption in the second attached image; which shows that animals will have a difficult time moving fast enough to keep-up with climate change this century.

I could go on, but based on your post it seems like only seeing climate shock that effects your personal food supplies will convince you (say when your chocolate or coffee costs go through the roof in a few decades).

National Research Council, NRC, (2013), Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change Anticipating Surprises, The National Academies Press, Washington D.C.

http://serppas.org/Files/Climate/NAS.Abrupt%20Impacts%20of%20Climate%20Change.Anticipating%20Suprises.pdf

Best,
ASLR

[jai mitchell]

mark, aslr,

consider the following.

the conditions used by Hansen and Soto to determine ECS response include carbon cycle feedbacks in the Eemian.

now imagine the Eemian, with a very slow growth of temperatures from below current by 1.5C to well above current (2C) over the course of 5,000 years or so.

During this time, the majority of northern hemisphere land surface was covered in old-growth forests.  By the time the temperatures reached their maximum, old growth Nordic pines stretched all the way to the arctic circle. 

In addition, the oceans teemed with shoals of fish in a pristine primordial environment.

In this scenario, the slowly increased temperature, and associated carbon cycle feedbacks of soil and ocean warming, were mitigated with extreme efficiency, due to the baseline carbon biomass available to spread and grow and reproduce and expand in territory further northward.

Compare this scenario of (relatively) slow growth in temperature to today.

Even if we were able to somehow slow down our growth in temperatures, the deforestation that has occurred in the northern hemisphere is so vast that it would take over 1,000 years of hands-off growth for these forests to repopulate their numbers.

Now consider if we DON'T slow down our temperature rise?  Now we have massively shocked these ecosystems that will inevitably find new champions that will master the system, but during that time a huge increase in the carbon cycle contributions of CO2, as well as a continual reduction in natural carbon sinks as the oceans warm, will lead to a higher ECS value today than that of the Eemian.

[mark]

The RCP8.5 is a more extreme point of view and I completely get that you and others are completely behind this projection and are concerned that noone is listening and therefore little is being done. I dont believe it, I am more closely aligned with the IPCC view but even then I dont believe that it will continue indefinitely at this rate of CO2 increase or even slightly higher. I believe the temperature increase that is coming will tail off exponentially with the logarithmically reducing effect of increasing CO2 - my view I know but not entirely unreasonable. My point being I take a lower perspective of the same problem but the more extreme version is not convincing me at all - in fact it sounds increasingly desperate as the hiatus lengthens - how then do you convince the likes of me and others whose livelihood depends on 'green' matters, by necessity I am conservative in my outlook.

You ask the question repeatedly (implied anyhow) 'why arent people listening'. Personally I think they were, but extreme views in the light of little recent trending is switching people off - just like the comet analogy - they know that a comet could hit this planet just as they know given the circumstances we may become another Venus - it is too extreme to want to consider it and is based on conjecture and modelling that is not backed by current trends. Psychology has it that the majority want to think positively rather than negatively so will always respond better to a positive point of view - its why cold callers trying to sell you something always try to get you to say yes before they ask anything pertinent to a sale.

The joke I appreciated (LOL) and I assume I am supposed to be the man with the bricks - only worried about his own welfare - you dont know me so please dont pretend to know what I think or the lengths I would go to to support others. I am incredibly concerned about the future of this world and worry for the sake of my kids - CO2 increase is not even in my top 3 however - but my priorities are not a topic of debate here - CO2 and its effects on the biosphere (currently) and why the more extreme possible outcomes are not being taken onboard - is. I am a farmer by education and still involved in growing things so the points of view of farmers does interest me. A recent poll of farmers in America had just 8% believing man is responsible for global warming and 66% believing there is any warming going on at all.

My point is that they are not convinced and some may scientifically naive but frightening them (and me) with unproven models isnt working either so in answer to the question I posed above perhaps another approach is needed

[mark]

Thanks Jai - I am not trying to get a rise out of anybody even though I know I am not on the same wavelength. But as in my post in reply to ASLR. I am not yet convinced of the scenario of RCP8.5.

I have much greater faith in the adaptability of the earths Biosphere especially as it has run at considerably higher CO2 levels and temperatures. So I appreciate what both of you are saying but I am just giving another viewpoint as to why the argument isnt working IMO

[mark]

The critical thing will be to know when this critical point is reached where the biosphere starts to react negatively to warming rather than positively at the moment.

Den tause våren i fuglefjellet [The silent spring on the bird mountain]

Mange takk for det Viddaloo men hva mener du

[mark]

I have a bit of a norwegian ability but not much but I would say that as in Scotland the stocks of sild and torsk (herring and cod) are overfished and I dont believe that the ocean has warmed by 1.5C even if the climate has. I loved being in Norway and spent some time in Stokmarknes and would be equally horrified if the wildlife there was threatened anywhere like as much as it has been ravaged by fishing and overpopulation in the UK but I reckon you as a country are along way behind. Even if we were to reverse the CO2 trend it will  be a century or so  before the oceans are likely to respond, far better to reverse the overfishing of the North Sea. Perhaps then some of the norwegian fishing communities that have been lost in the last 50 years will return!

[AbruptSLR]

Thanks Jai - I am not trying to get a rise out of anybody even though I know I am not on the same wavelength. But as in my post in reply to ASLR. I am not yet convinced of the scenario of RCP8.5.

I have much greater faith in the adaptability of the earths Biosphere especially as it has run at considerably higher CO2 levels and temperatures. So I appreciate what both of you are saying but I am just giving another viewpoint as to why the argument isnt working IMO

mark,

I think that jai's main point is that there are many positive feedback factors (or alternately negative feedback factors that are being weakened like CO2 absorption by the land and ocean biospheres) that are currently being activated by global warming that even if society could manage to lower its radiative forcing footprint down to that of RCP 4.5 (while currently it is following RCP 8.5 and after agreed to USA, China and EU cuts would get close to RCP 6), that since the IPCC has decided in its optimistic way (or alternately Pollyanna manner) to calibrate its models to an ECS of about 3 C; that if the effective climate sensitivity (averaged over the coming century) turns out to be closer to 6 C, then in effect we will be following the global temperature increase pathway of RCP 8.5 even if we are following the anthropogenic radiative forcing scenario for RCP 4.5.

As to whether I think that mankind has the wisdom to adequately reduce its radiative footprint in time to avoid the worst aspects of climate change, my answer would be no, but at least I am learning something while I make posts that some seem to interpret as efforts to frighten them.

[jai mitchell]

WRT ocean biomass as a carbon sequestration feedback

http://climateandcapitalism.com/2013/10/14/oceans-brink-ecological-collapse/

“We are entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change, and exposing organisms to intolerable evolutionary pressure. The next mass extinction event may have already begun. Developed, industrialised human society is living above the carrying capacity of the Earth, and the implications for the ocean, and thus for all humans, are huge.”

Report co-author, Professor Alex Rogers of SomervilleCollege, Oxford, said on October 3:


“The health of the ocean is spiralling downwards far more rapidly than we had thought. We are seeing greater change, happening faster, and the effects are more imminent than previously anticipated. The situation should be of the gravest concern to everyone since everyone will be affected by changes in the ability of the ocean to support life on Earth.”

The ocean is by far the Earth’s largest carbon sink and has absorbed most of the excess carbon pollution put into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels. The State of the Ocean 2013 report warned that this is making decisive changes to the ocean itself, causing a “deadly trio of impacts” – acidification, ocean warming and deoxygenation (a fall in ocean oxygen levels).

The report said:


“Most, if not all, of the Earth’s five past mass extinction events have involved at least one of these three main symptoms of global carbon perturbations [or disruptions], all of which are present in the ocean today.”

Mark,

I want you to understand right here, right now that the amount of heat accumulation measured by the ARGO buoy network in the last 10 years is more than enough to raise the temperature of the atmosphere by over 20C.

So where is your "hiatus" now?

I appreciate that you think that you know better than the IPCC on what future temperature responses will look like based on emission patterns.  The fact is that they understand it a whole lot better than you do.  I suggest you try to figure out why their temperature projection curves don't follow the logarithmic function.  (hint, it has to do with heat capacity and radiative balances)

for the record, I have stated on several occasions that if we attempt to follow the RCP 8.5 curve we will run into resource depletion and societal collapse long before the 2100 emissions scenario is completed.

HOWEVER,

My understanding of the underrepresentation of Carbon Cycle and frozen soil feedbacks, the increase in atmospheric fraction (loss of natural carbon sinks) and the underestimate of ECS and polar amplification under ice free summer states in the arctic, show that even if we only follow RCP 8.5 for another 20 years and then attempt to decarbonize we will unleash these forces and they will mimic the RCP 8.5 curve and even exceed them by 2200.

[mark]

Jai, I do appreciate what you are saying and it is a reasonable hypothesis. I dont want to argue each point because that can be done elsewhere and becomes a bit off topic.

I'm a difficult cuss at the best of times but I am putting forward my view and the view of others because it may be a minority view but it is widespread and puts me at odds with the extreme. I can be convinced and perhaps if you are going to make policy then I might be a good sounding board. But I and I think a large part of the public are going to need rather more proof that this is an abnormal and catastrophic departure from sustainable life.

If it comes to aerosols, population, pollution or disease I am there right with you but CO2 just does not do it for me or a lot of others. I think it needs to be sidelined to 'a' feedback mechanism not the feedback mechanism. When that is properly packaged as a more robust hypothesis I will be there with anybody.

The ARGO buoys are a case in point - we now know how much we didnt know about stored temperature in the oceans - what we dont know is how that has changed over big El Nino/La Nina events or during the colder 70s. How much is held there normally, how unusual is any heat fluctuation now, how does that heat work its way out, how long is a deep ocean heat cycle and how far does it travel? 10 years wont tell us much but at least now we have a mechanism for measuring it accurately and more regularly so it can be studied and understood.

There are just too many questions and the general present system of shouting questions down/ ignoring them or attacking the authenticity or even sanity of the questioner has lead to this awful impasse where there are two such distinct 'sides'. Thank you so much for not doing so here. ASLR perhaps has it right - I think he understands human nature better but works hard on his belief alongside this knowledge rather than against it

[AbruptSLR]

mark,

The linked discussion about the IPCC's Assessment Report 5, AR5, at Skeptical Science points out that many American reject climate change not because they do not believe the science but because they believe that climate policies will slow economic growth (and thus will hurt their pocketbooks), even though good climate policies (like carbon fees with dividends) can actually promote the public's economic wellbeing.  The following extract and associated figure show that within 15 years food production around the world will likely be hit very hard, so in my opinion: "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."  If we wait until Earth System Models advance to the point where we can better answer all of your doubts about how the Earth systems work, then the price for the cure will be a pound of fresh.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-AR5-synthesis-risk-management.html

Extract: "Conversely, policies to slow global warming are reversible. A new study by scientists at Duke University found that the widespread rejection of climate science by American political conservatives is in large part due to their distaste for the proposed solutions. Climate contrarians are afraid that climate policies will slow economic growth, despite evidence to the contrary.
However, if it turns out that the sceptics are right in their optimism that the best case climate scenario will occur, and if we go too far in our efforts to reduce carbon pollution, we can easily scale those efforts back. We can’t reanimate extinct species, but we can adjust climate policies as needed.
Speaking of species extinctions, the IPCC discussed that serious threat as well,
A large fraction of species face increased extinction risk due to climate change during and beyond the 21st century, especially as climate change interacts with other stressors (high confidence). Most plant species cannot naturally shift their geographical ranges sufficiently fast to keep up with current and high projected rates of climate change in most landscapes; most small mammals and freshwater molluscs will not be able to keep up at the rates projected under RCP4.5 and above in flat landscapes in this century (high confidence).
Marine species are also at risk due to the dual threats of warming oceans and ocean acidification, both of which are caused by carbon pollution from burning fossil fuels.
Since the beginning of the industrial era, oceanic uptake of CO2 has resulted in acidification of the ocean; the pH of ocean surface water has decreased by 0.1 (high confidence), corresponding to a 26% increase in acidity
The IPCC concluded that if we take serious action to reduce fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, we can limit the future increase in ocean acidity to about 16%. If we continue on a business-as-usual fossil fuel dependent path, ocean acidity will increase by around 100%, with dire consequences for marine ecosystems. This will also hurt our fisheries and contribute to food insecurity.
Climate change is projected to undermine food security (Figure SPM.9). Due to projected climate change by the mid-21st century and beyond, global marine species redistribution and marine biodiversity reduction in sensitive regions will challenge the sustained provision of fisheries productivity and other ecosystem services (high confidence) ... Global temperature increases of ~4°C or more above late-20th century levels, combined with increasing food demand, would pose large risks to food security globally (high confidence).
As the figure below from the report also illustrates, about 70% of studies indicate that crop yields will decline as the Earth continues to warm after 2030, with a high chance that yields could decline by 25% or more by the end of the century if we continue on our current path.
Climate contrarians often argue that we should continue with business as usual and try to adapt to the consequences of global warming. We will have to adapt to some inevitable climate change, but as the IPCC concluded, we must also prevent as much global warming as possible to minimize the associated impacts enough that we will be able to adapt to them."

[mark]

I have to gree with a lot of what you have to say and I read the shorter of the references in your previous post which outlines exactly the problem we are both really alluding to - the difficulty in portraying the evidence in a robust manor that will measure the need for action. That is probably impossible to achieve at the rate required. We only have a peaking of carbon emissions from China in 2030 and not a particularly arduous target from America. I think you are absolutely right that people are much more worried about their personal circumstances than the global environment, and  a painful prod is probably needed before that will change.

As for the Ph, as you want to go there - there has been a lot of reports on the shellfish farms in the estuaries in and around Washington State in the US. This is probably an area of the highest oceanic fluctuation in Ph in the world and so shellfish farming is susceptible to the problems associated with the current upwelling in that area. The Ph of the deeper ocean water is considerably less alkaline than the surface, so upwelling areas, especially when impacting coastlines, tend to be less alkaline (I would only use more acidic if the Ph dropped into the sub 7 zone and actually became acidic) to a factor that can be as great as 0.5 - 0.7. Coupled with agricultural run off of nutrients directly into the water courses feeding the estuaries leads to a recipe for disaster. So not really climate change or Ph change per se, just inconvenient weather, causing natural  events. The 0.1 drop I completely concur with and believe it to be inline with the current temperature increase, I dont expect it to be much more though as the oceans are very unlikely to have moved in Ph that much through our efforts alone - it is far to massive a shift. Much more likely and as alluded to by Jai and the Argo Buoys we are presently seeing a period of increased overturning/upwelling to release the stored heat deeper in the oceans

The modelled IPCC Ar5 representation of crop yield failure, and indeed there is a higher knowledge base than mine, does not however ring true at all, the 2010 - 2029 is not trending that way at all and I expect this particular model to need a complete rethink before it has any credibility with the people it most effects - food producers. But, hey ho, I am back on opinion again.

<snip N.>

[Bruce Steele]

Mark, As much as I would like to ignore you as I do most uninformed people with self-serving opinions I will take the bait and weigh in.
 Deep waters are not less alkaline than surface waters they are more alkaline ... As shell material from plants and animals sink they are dissolved at depth - increasing alkalinity . Organic matter is ballasted in the process, bacterial decomposition ( releases Co2 ) and increases acidity. Yes it increases acidity just like water going from 32 to 33 is getting warmer although if you put your foot in it you'd still call it cold.  Rivers do supply alkalinity as rain dissolves both terrestrial calcium carbonates and their mineral forms as well as dissolving silicate minerals like serpentine ... This process is only effective at delivering alkalinity for watersheds that traverse landscapes that actually have these minerals in abundance so not every river supplies alkalinity at the same rate. Bottom line is this process that is necessary to counter the Co2 uptake and consequent acidification of the oceans takes tens to hundreds of thousands of years to stabilize large carbon spikes like the one we are currently supplying to the atmosphere.
 I don't have a clue about how you conflate temperature and acidity using earths increased temperature to explain away the current drop in the pH of the worlds ocean but you are simply confused and as usual wrong.
 Your opinions on what is responsible for the oyster hatchery problems on the U.S. northwest coast are as usual incorrect but i think you are rationalizing rather than studying up on acidification and no amount of arguing will dissuade a devout troll.
   

[jai mitchell]

Mark,

I have gone through your posts, you don't back up any of your assertions with links.  You tend to post denialist talking points and display a very light breadth of understanding of the science.  In all of your posts, you did post a single link:   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html   Which was an attempt to smear Britain's wind power supply with Chinese pollution practices.

Your scientific assertions are so off base that they border on disinformation.  (for instance would you like to back up your 10-15% increase in plant biomass claim with some actual evidence?)

I believe in seeking out truth and gathering understanding and would be glad to discuss these things on a separate post, if you were to display an actual desire to learn and debate.  However, you have only, so far, displayed a disruptive role, providing banal "assertions" without evidence and recycled talking points from the denialist propaganda machine.  A machine that is well funded and designed to promote practices that will lead to a holocaust of unprecedented proportions in the next 40 years.

keep your "opinions" to yourself, if you have "facts" or "evidence" to bring to the table, by all means. . .

[jai mitchell]

no amount of arguing will dissuade a devout troll.
 

or an intentional disinformer.

[AbruptSLR]

mark,

I agree with all that Bruce Steele has to say about pH; however, if facts are not sufficient to convince you then consider national security.

The linked Forbes article entitled "Does Our Military Know Something We Don't About Global Warming?", indicates that the BAU pathway that you are supporting (until we have 100 percent certainty based on "conservative science" before we take meaningful action) is actually a national security threat (see extracts below).  There are numerous reports linking the current round of unrest in the Middle East to climate change induced drought that is hurting the local farmers and promoting radical groups (such as ISIS/ISIL).  I submit that using the "Fog of War" to ignore what the military has been warning about for years is not prudent, and that coming generations will pay a high price for this generation's complacency: 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/11/14/does-our-military-know-something-we-dont-about-global-warming/

Extracts: "General Gordon Sullivan put the issue of uncertainty where it should be: “People are saying they want to be perfectly convinced about climate science projections…But speaking as a soldier, we never have 100 percent certainty. If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield.”
…
The Military Advisory Board is dismayed that discussions of climate change have become so polarizing and have receded from the arena of informed public discourse and debate.
“While the causes of climate change and its impacts continue to be argued or ignored in our nation, the linkage between changes in our climate and national security has been obscured. Political concerns and budgetary limitations cannot be allowed to dominate what is essentially a salient national security concern for our nation. Our Congress, the administration, and all who are charged with planning and assuring our security should take up the challenge of confronting the coming changes to our environment.”
…
Our Military Advisory Board concluded that “coordinated and well-executed actions to limit heat-trapping gases and increase resilience to help prevent and protect against the worst projected climate change impacts are required — now.”
Whatever your thoughts on the relative human and natural influences on climate change, ignoring our military is not prudent. They understand the dangers of not being prepared."

[Laurent]

I did like this one : (From denyer to truth seeker)
TEDxPentagon - Rear Admiral David Titley, USN - Climate Change and National Security

[mark]

Jai if you happen to think that wind power is a carbon efficient and pollution free way of providing energy then I am definitely not going there. I have no time for expensive, enormous carbon footprint white elephants that pollute a third party environment, ruin the visual amenity of vast tracts of land and water now and endanger numerous migrating  birds - the Mail was not the only source but the first one I found when googled. To try to discredit me by flicking through my posts does you a disservice and I am disappointed. The way out of fossil fuels is not to burn more of them to build things that ultimately dont pay back on the energy they have consumed in the making and need alternatives as back up when not working.

The post title is not about proving GW facts but about consequences of conservative scientists, I do try to get on point but get waylaid the whole time. I read the biomass increase recently, ignore it if you wish, I was making a point about the facts you presented and why there is a disconnect. For weeks you have been posting about all sorts of extremes on this and other threads and I find your opinions interesting and worth following as I do ASLRs and the convesrsation regularly gets unsubstantiated but I trust that your sources are robust.

 The negative CO2 feedback scenario is from Hansen s Fossil fuel C tonnage in the article I was directed to on here and the Mauna Loa CO2 graph both of which are common knowledge here and I didnt think would need a reference. This post subject is not asking for specific scientific fact it is a fairly rhetorical debate subject. I dont get why you get so cross just because I throw up the conservative view - I have been entirely honest with my viewpoint as I assume are you. What is wrong with engaging and asking questions or offering a view. I dont believe a single one of my 'facts' to be erroneous or exaggerated but I am not trying to back up any science here I am trying to make a point about engaging the likes of me in your opinion. With your last post you have absolutely failed to convince me of anything and I am just less alarmist - it rather proves the point I am making. The way people go for the jugular in this debate just stops any debate and it becomes a game of mass back slapping.

Your post before I jumped in was:-

This is in my very unscientific estimation of current transitory states, I predict that the established trends of drought, ice loss, heatwaves and storm intensities (as well as the time rate change of those trends) will continue into the future for some time.

in my estimation of H&S I cannot help but wonder if they have also lulled us into a false sense of security as the millennial rate of temperature change that we witness from the Paleoclimate records of interstadials allows for a gradual increase in forests and other biomass accumulation of carbon that work as a semi-slow feedback (negative) parameter.  This feedback will not be present in todays biosphere due to time and baseline conditions. 

Compare, the Nordic forests of the 12th century to today, the bony fish biomass from then to now.what got me

Tell me this is not an opinion ('I predict' and 'in my estimation') - I disagreed and gave mine

Bruce its in wikipaedia here:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification#mediaviewer/File:Acidifiedupwelledwater.jpg - lots of other goodies there as well including the aragonite saturation levels crucial to shell production. My post said 'deeper' water not deep water which I hope implied that ph decreases with depth 8.1 - 8.3 at the surface and 7.4 - 7.6 below @250m which is why upwelling water decreases ph at the surface or when winds/ currents push waters up coastal shelves and into estuaries. I respectfully suspect you are remiss in my implication. Especially when you ask me for references ina debate that shouldnt need them on this point and then provide absolutely none yourself. However if Wikipedia is wrong I apologise and concede the point - reference please

ASLR - I respect your position and am enjoying the references please allow me to catch up with the references you gave in your last response. I apologise to you as well if my reference on Ph is wrong I was watching a video on u tube by Jim Steele on ocean acidification having read about the plight of oyster fisherman in Washington State and checked his unlisted sources, it is a skeptical video but relevant to the situation and I was just checking. The graphs on the 0.1 shift were also on the same original google page

[AbruptSLR]

mark,

If you are interested in learning about the actual serious situation about ocean acidification then you can review the following reference and attached image (with caption below):

Taro Takahashi, S.C. Sutherland, D.W. Chipman, J.G. Goddard, Cheng Ho, Timothy Newberger, Colm Sweeney, D.R. Munro, (2014), "Climatological distributions of pH, pCO2, total CO2, alkalinity, and CaCO3 saturation in the global surface ocean, and temporal changes at selected locations", Marine Chemistry Volume 164, Pages 95–125, DOI: 10.1016/j.marchem.2014.06.004

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304420314001042

Caption: "In northern winter, the Bering Sea, dividing Alaska and Siberia, becomes the most acidic region on earth (in purple) as shown in this February 2005 acidity map in pH scale. Temperate oceans are less acidic. The equatorial Pacific is left blank due to its high variability around El Niño and La Niña events. Courtesy: Taro Takahashi"

See also:

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/new-global-maps-detail-human-caused-ocean-acidification.html

Extract: ”Ocean acidification is already having an impact, especially in places where the seasonal upwelling of deep water has made seawater naturally more acidic. In a  recent study by researchers at NOAA, more than half of the pteropods sampled off the coast of Washington, Oregon and California showed badly dissolved shells. Ocean acidification has been linked to fish losing their ability to sniff out predators, and the die-off of baby oysters in hatcheries off Washington and Oregon, where more acidic deep water comes to the surface each spring and summer.   
By 2100, ocean acidification could cost the global economy $3 trillion a year in lost revenue from fishing, tourism and intangible ecosystem services, according to a recent United Nations report.  The U.S. Government Accountability Office, the watchdog arm of Congress, has reached similar findings and recommended that President Obama create a research and monitoring program dedicated to ocean acidification."

[jai mitchell]

Mark,

I dont get why you get so cross just because I throw up the conservative view

That is just it, You don't put up a "conservative view" you put up lies and disinformation.  The reason that I can assert the things that I believe is because I link significant numbers of peer reviewed studies that prove these views have scientific validity. 

While you, on the other hand, rely on lies, disinformation and wan assertions of mischaracterized information from 'something that you read", usually from easily discredited sources, which is why you don't post references. 

You are a troll and I will happily ignore you.

[viddaloo]

You are a troll and I will happily ignore you.

[mark]

<snip N.>

Thanks again for the references ASLR  I will get on to them now - from the caption and extract it would seem for the most part I was correct. As for predators smelling I definitely missed that one! and the dissolving of oyster shells - very interesting as the sea would need to be below PH7 which I wasnt aware was possible unless affected by acidic runoff, which is another issue .

I must admit I am confused now as your reference says that the deeper water is less alkaline and Bruce says its more Alkaline and shells are dissolving would indicate actually acidic - below 7 but buffering back to Ph8.1 at depth (Bruce). El Ninos are doing exactly what I said they were doing and then to cap it all I am called a troll and misinformed - thanks guys for the succinct and well integrated replies

[wili]

People, this is typical concern troll behavior--they show up claiming to have 'reasonable' doubts. After people bend over backwards to kindly and patiently point out faults in their logic and failures in their ability to support their points, people finally start to loose patience. Then the troll turns petulant and pouts that everyone is treating him (they almost always seem to be males) shabbily.

Please, can we all stop feeding this dweeblet?

[AbruptSLR]

Getting back to the main topic of this thread.  Not too many years ago most IPCC scientists thought that Antarctica would warm relatively slowly; however, the truth of the matter is that Antarctica is the region on Earth with the fastest rate of warming as indicated by the article at Robert Scribbler that references the first attached image for October 2014 warming in Antarctica compared to the rest of the world, and the second & third images (NH & SH respectively, see caption below) showing that polar amplification is indeed one of the strongest positive feedback mechanism, which will likely serve to increase climate sensitivity if BAU global warming is allowed to continue for a few more decades:

http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/


(Top frame shows North Pole to Equator temperature difference since 1948. Bottom frame shows South Pole to Equator temperature difference from 1948 to 2011. Note the approximate 3 C temperature swing indicating a faster warming at the poles in both graphs. Data is from the NCAR-NCEP reanalysis model.)

[AbruptSLR]

As the following reference has been in the news lately indicating that Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has demonstrated that the contiguous United States will experience a 50% increase in lighting strikes by 2100; I thought that I would state the obvious that this will ignite more wildfires, thus indicating yet another positive feedback factor that the IPCC has not accounted for:

Science 14 November 2014: Vol. 346 no. 6211 pp. 851-854DOI:10.1126/science.1259100

Abstract: "Lightning plays an important role in atmospheric chemistry and in the initiation of wildfires, but the impact of global warming on lightning rates is poorly constrained. Here we propose that the lightning flash rate is proportional to the convective available potential energy (CAPE) times the precipitation rate. Using observations, the product of CAPE and precipitation explains 77% of the variance in the time series of total cloud-to-ground lightning flashes over the contiguous United States (CONUS). Storms convert CAPE times precipitated water mass to discharged lightning energy with an efficiency of 1%. When this proxy is applied to 11 climate models, CONUS lightning strikes are predicted to increase 12 ± 5% per degree Celsius of global warming and about 50% over this century."

See also:

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2014/11/13/lightning-expected-to-increase-by-50-percent-with-global-warming/

[AbruptSLR]

The linked reference (with an open access pdf) indicates that two coupled climate models show that in response to an ozone depletion the Southern Ocean responded with two processes for sea ice extent change.  The first process based on a northward Ekman drift occurred relatively quickly and served to expand Antarctic sea ice extent about three decades ago.  The second process acted relatively more slowly (years to decades), results in a warming trend for the Southern Ocean leading to a reduction in projected sea ice extent (see attached figure).  Based on these findings we can expect Antarctic amplification to begin accelerating in the next decade or so.

David Ferreira, John Marshall, Cecilia M. Bitz, Susan Solomon, and Alan Plumb, (2014) "Antarctic ocean and sea ice response to ozone depletion: a two timescale problem", Journal of Climate, In press.

http://www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~gf905417/Publications_files/Twotimescale_final.pdf


Abstract: "The response of the Southern Ocean to a repeating seasonal cycle of ozone loss is studied in two coupled climate models and found to comprise both fast and slow processes. The fast response is similar to the inter-annual signature of the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) on Sea Surface Temperature (SST), on to which the ozone-hole forcing projects in the summer. It comprises enhanced northward Ekman drift inducing negative summertime SST anomalies around Antarctica, earlier sea ice freeze-up the following winter, and northward expansion of the sea ice edge year-round. The enhanced northward Ekman drift, however, results in upwelling of warm waters from below the mixed layer in the region of seasonal sea ice. With sustained bursts of westerly winds induced by ozone-hole depletion, this warming from below eventually dominates over the cooling from anomalous Ekman drift. The resulting slow-timescale response (years to decades) leads to warming of SSTs around Antarctica and ultimately a reduction in sea-ice cover year-round. This two-timescale behavior – rapid cooling followed by slow but persistent warming - is found in the two coupled models analysed, one with an idealized geometry, the other a complex global climate model with realistic geometry. Processes that control the timescale of the transition from cooling to warming, and their uncertainties are described. Finally we discuss the implications of our results for rationalizing previous studies of the effect of the ozone-hole on SST and sea-ice extent."

[mark]

<snip N.>

ASLR i found the pdf I read on the oyster farming concerning upwelling events in the hatchery areas. I couldnt get a full download of your first reference but the in depth study does compliment the second reference very well. Having reread it I have to say it makes my future 'balance much less likely!! Ref - http://marine.rutgers.edu/dmcs/ms606/2013%20spring/barton%20et%20al%202012%20lando.pdf

Bruce........I was asked for my references!

[mark]

<snip N.>

[sidd]

LCA for a smallish 1.65MW Vestas windturbine gives positive EROEI after 7.2 months. Larger is better. The Daily Mail article is a hit piece. Getting wind analysis from that rag is about as good as getting evolution theory from the bible.

If anyone is really interested in wind power, look at the series by Jerome a la Paris on eurotrib. Analyses there include financials, and many other interesting things.

On another note, I wish people would do their homework first before commenting. Especially the bit about oceanic ph decrease, the facts are trivially findable ... and trivially obvious to anyone with any chemistry.

sidd

[mark]

Fair enough Sidd - I stand corrected and Im glad finally someone can put a figure to it. I was however pointing out in a pollution thread the pollution being caused in China I didnt use it here. My comment - 'The Chinese seem to work on the principle that you build the business first and worry about the pollution later. There are far too many examples of environments toxic to life that are being lived in by human beings in China. Sooner or later there will be a humanitarian disaster - its inevitable.' So my comment has been cherry picked to demonise me!! I dont like the b***** things and their benefit when they need another source to back them up when becalmed dubious. Hopefully we will develop fusion power or some other continuous plentiful power source and do away with them. Darring your correction I stand by my comments

[mark]

Sorry barring not darring

[mark]

mark,

I agree with all that Bruce Steele has to say about pH; however, if facts are not sufficient to convince you then consider national security.

The linked Forbes article entitled "Does Our Military Know Something We Don't About Global Warming?", indicates that the BAU pathway that you are supporting (until we have 100 percent certainty based on "conservative science" before we take meaningful action) is actually a national security threat (see extracts below).  There are numerous reports linking the current round of unrest in the Middle East to climate change induced drought that is hurting the local farmers and promoting radical groups (such as ISIS/ISIL).  I submit that using the "Fog of War" to ignore what the military has been warning about for years is not prudent, and that coming generations will pay a high price for this generation's complacency: 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/11/14/does-our-military-know-something-we-dont-about-global-warming/

Extracts: "General Gordon Sullivan put the issue of uncertainty where it should be: “People are saying they want to be perfectly convinced about climate science projections…But speaking as a soldier, we never have 100 percent certainty. If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield.”
…
The Military Advisory Board is dismayed that discussions of climate change have become so polarizing and have receded from the arena of informed public discourse and debate.
“While the causes of climate change and its impacts continue to be argued or ignored in our nation, the linkage between changes in our climate and national security has been obscured. Political concerns and budgetary limitations cannot be allowed to dominate what is essentially a salient national security concern for our nation. Our Congress, the administration, and all who are charged with planning and assuring our security should take up the challenge of confronting the coming changes to our environment.”
…
Our Military Advisory Board concluded that “coordinated and well-executed actions to limit heat-trapping gases and increase resilience to help prevent and protect against the worst projected climate change impacts are required — now.”
Whatever your thoughts on the relative human and natural influences on climate change, ignoring our military is not prudent. They understand the dangers of not being prepared."

[/quote]

I've had a read of that ref now ASLR - that is chilling that the military take that view. what exactly are they proposing - it seems to me that by having a pact with China they are starting the process of carbon enforcement on the rest of the world that wont be able to argue. The point is well made but is from a militaristic problem solving point of view this would be one of many scenarios they would be planning (I was in the military - if just a small % of contingency planning was in public hands there would be a massive outcry but they must prepare for every possible scenario they can think of, to be effective). There is nothing wrong in what they say but to those countries in power poverty or not on the USA christmas card list - chilling.

You said yourself you cant see this happening anytime soon and I think that is the crux of this thread. How can you get the facts across to make this happen. I dont need 100% certainty I have never said that and I reckon hardly any of the worlds population need 100% certainty, but the mood out there is considerably less than the 97% scientific consensus. So how do you convince thise that will lose out. By frighteners - that hasnt worked and in some cases hasnt happened, by education - the 2 sides are too deeply entrenched to reach a consensus or even meet to discuss (look at the abuse I got!!)  - so that wont happen, wait until something bad happens - thats too late, wait for a politician to make the right decision with the worlds welfare as a priority, not the next election.....yeah right!!. Or perhaps create a new world order with enforcement in mind - any takers!!

So where does that leave consevative scientists and the consequences - you know what - I dont reckon it is making a blind bit of difference what they are saying anymore - the politicians will win the day one way or another and to hell with the consequences (sarc)