Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences  (Read 1038063 times)

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2393
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #950 on: May 15, 2015, 10:35:30 PM »
Quote
We had this discussion about Arctic sea ice obs vs models on this thread earlier, and I'm pretty you participated.  I estimate the Arctic ice loss rate is about 10% faster than modelled.  The temperature gain is over 20% slower than modelled.

the previous discussion regarding arctic sea ice had the rare occurrence of you providing a linked paper.  As usual you did not understand or adequately contemplate the document before deciding what you chose to believe about it.

for review, the discussion of why you are severely misinformed regarding this issue can be found here: http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1053.msg51280.html#msg51280

However, even the premise of your discussion is a falsehood as the linked paper that supposedly supports your argument that the AR5 slightly underestimates arctic sea ice was SUBMITTED on December 2013 approximately 18 months AFTER the submission cut-off date for the AR5 WGI 

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5-cut-off-dates.pdf

similarly, your other arguments are just as flawed and riddled with falsehoods and poorly constrained arguments that appear to be derived from denialist talking point-memos.
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #951 on: May 15, 2015, 11:32:33 PM »

For Oliver Geden's article see:

http://phys.org/news/2015-05-german-climate-scientists-kowtow-politicians.html

That link below leads to a VOX discussion focused on Oliver Geden's article; which emphasizes how improbably that it is to achieve a 2C target let alone a 1.5C target; and the article does not even consider such matters as:

1.  CO2-equivalent is currently over 485ppm.
2.  ECS may already be 4.1C (rather than 3.1C), and the effective ECS could be 6C (or more) by 2100.
3.  Republican cuts in NASA, NSF, etc. budgets will make it very difficult to implement any possible geoengineering effort due to lack of available data.
4.  The non-Chinese developing world has the largest rate of economic growth; which will ensure increasing GHG emissions for many years to come.

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/15/8612113/truth-climate-change
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

TeaPotty

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 322
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #952 on: May 16, 2015, 01:02:09 AM »
The argument from the SED has two parts:
1) that the consequences of 1.5 degrees of warming are bad.
2) that the costs of preventing 1.5 degrees of warming are low.

A higher sensitivity has no impact on 1.  A higher sensitivity would make the costs under 2 higher and therefore weaken the SED argument.

Are your faculties really so lacking, or do you make such comments to troll this forum?

I see that you have no ability to rebut my argument and so rely on insults.  If the SED was concerned about a higher sensitivity they'd lower the target for Co2 emissions, not lower the target for temperature rise.

Michael, you don't have an argument. But I think you already know that.

Michael Hauber

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1132
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 178
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #953 on: May 16, 2015, 02:05:31 AM »

However, even the premise of your discussion is a falsehood as the linked paper that supposedly supports your argument that the AR5 slightly underestimates arctic sea ice was SUBMITTED on December 2013 approximately 18 months AFTER the submission cut-off date for the AR5 WGI 


So you are arguing that a comparison of IPCC predictions against observations is only valid if it is published before the IPCC predictions are finalised?  And you say I'm the one that doesn't understand the paper? 

So valid comparisons of IPCC predictions vs observations can only be made using psychic powers....

Climate change:  Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, expect the middle.

Michael Hauber

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1132
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 178
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #954 on: May 16, 2015, 02:15:01 AM »
The argument from the SED has two parts:
1) that the consequences of 1.5 degrees of warming are bad.
2) that the costs of preventing 1.5 degrees of warming are low.

A higher sensitivity has no impact on 1.  A higher sensitivity would make the costs under 2 higher and therefore weaken the SED argument.

Are your faculties really so lacking, or do you make such comments to troll this forum?

I see that you have no ability to rebut my argument and so rely on insults.  If the SED was concerned about a higher sensitivity they'd lower the target for Co2 emissions, not lower the target for temperature rise.

Michael, you don't have an argument. But I think you already know that.

My argument is there plain to see.  If you are having trouble understanding it tell me which bit you don't understand and I'll see if I can explain it clearer.  If you think its wrong then explain in which way you think it is wrong.

If all you can do is make abusive comments then you are nothing more than an internet bully with no arguments and nothing to contribute to this debate.  Considering what is at stake in terms of millions of lives, ecological disaster etc with climate change, such behaviour is abhorent.
Climate change:  Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, expect the middle.

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2393
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #955 on: May 16, 2015, 02:28:54 AM »

However, even the premise of your discussion is a falsehood as the linked paper that supposedly supports your argument that the AR5 slightly underestimates arctic sea ice was SUBMITTED on December 2013 approximately 18 months AFTER the submission cut-off date for the AR5 WGI 


So you are arguing that a comparison of IPCC predictions against observations is only valid if it is published before the IPCC predictions are finalised?  And you say I'm the one that doesn't understand the paper? 

So valid comparisons of IPCC predictions vs observations can only be made using psychic powers....

The Paper you cited here: http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/1195/2014/tc-8-1195-2014.pdf

is not referenced in the IPCC nor is there any reference TO the IPCC in the paper.

so how are these comparisons of IPCC predictions???

What I am saying is that this work was not included IN ANY WAY in the IPCC review of documents, nor does it IN ANY WAY relate to the IPCC predictions.

Do you even know what you are saying?
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2393
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #956 on: May 16, 2015, 02:32:30 AM »
It is really a shame that Neven has allowed you to pollute this thread and these boards with your noise/nonsense.
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Michael Hauber

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1132
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 178
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #957 on: May 16, 2015, 02:41:23 AM »


is not referenced in the IPCC nor is there any reference TO the IPCC in the paper.

so how are these comparisons of IPCC predictions???

What I am saying is that this work was not included IN ANY WAY in the IPCC review of documents, nor does it IN ANY WAY relate to the IPCC predictions.

Do you even know what you are saying?

The paper is an analysis of CMIP5 model runs under the various RCP scenarios.  The IPCC projections are CMIP5 model runs under the various RCP scenarios.
Climate change:  Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, expect the middle.

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2393
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #958 on: May 16, 2015, 02:49:52 AM »


is not referenced in the IPCC nor is there any reference TO the IPCC in the paper.

so how are these comparisons of IPCC predictions???

What I am saying is that this work was not included IN ANY WAY in the IPCC review of documents, nor does it IN ANY WAY relate to the IPCC predictions.

Do you even know what you are saying?

The paper is an analysis of CMIP5 model runs under the various RCP scenarios.  The IPCC projections are CMIP5 model runs under the various RCP scenarios.

Your paper shows a model ensemble mean dipping below 1,000 km^2 sometime around 2075.



The IPCC holds that the model ensemble mean will dip below 1,000 km^2 around 2050.



These are different things. 
« Last Edit: May 16, 2015, 03:00:20 AM by jai mitchell »
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Michael Hauber

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1132
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 178
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #959 on: May 16, 2015, 04:03:07 AM »
Thats a good and worthwhile point.  I'm surprised that there is a significant difference between the CMIP models quoted in that paper with what the IPCC quote and would love to know why this has happened.

I also note that the IPCC projection is for a faster decrease in sea ice then for the paper I quote.  My point that the IPCC projections have been revised between 4 and 5 to much more closely match reality is therefore strengthened.
Climate change:  Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, expect the middle.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9612
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1343
  • Likes Given: 618
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #960 on: May 17, 2015, 10:48:19 AM »
It is really a shame that Neven has allowed you to pollute this thread and these boards with your noise/nonsense.

Our criteria for pollution differ, jai. I'm willing to tolerate some non-alarmism (for want of a better word) to keep the forum dynamic. I will not allow trolling and denier memes. I don't believe Michael Hauber is engaging in the latter, although I don't agree with his position either. But believe me, I'm following this discussion.

In fact, I wish that this was the discussion that everyone was having, with IPCC-theory on one side, and those that do not want to risk erring on the side of least drama on the other side. That would be the best possible discussion to have for society at large, instead of the deniers vs the IPCC (which is then portrayed as alarmist), and the lukewarm, hypocrite assholes and cowardly journalists in the middle.

You know, instead of winding each other up continuously, you can also call it a day and come back to it at some other point. I don't mind a bit of name-calling, but I would advise everyone who gets agitated to the point there he/she loses his/her temper to go out for a walk. This is just a forum on the Internet.

But nevertheless, great discussion! I wish I could participate in it.  :)
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #961 on: May 17, 2015, 03:40:04 PM »
The linked study (with an open access pdf) by Sherwood & Nishant (2015) provides stronger evidence than previously available that the troposphere in the tropical atmosphere is warming on pace with our current BAU pathway. This contradicts skepticist  " … suggestions that atmospheric warming has slowed in recent decades or that it has not kept up with that at the surface. "

Steven C Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant (2015), "Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2)", Environ. Res. Lett. 10 054007 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007


http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007/pdf/1748-9326_10_5_054007.pdf


Abstract: "We present an updated version of the radiosonde dataset homogenized by Iterative Universal Kriging (IUKv2), now extended through February 2013, following the method used in the original version (Sherwood et al 2008 Robust tropospheric warming revealed by iteratively homogenized radiosonde data J. Clim. 21 5336–52). This method, in effect, performs a multiple linear regression of the data onto a structural model that includes both natural variability, trends, and time-changing instrument biases, thereby avoiding estimation biases inherent in traditional homogenization methods. One modification now enables homogenized winds to be provided for the first time. This, and several other small modifications made to the original method sometimes affect results at individual stations, but do not strongly affect broad-scale temperature trends. Temperature trends in the updated data show three noteworthy features. First, tropical warming is equally strong over both the 1959–2012 and 1979–2012 periods, increasing smoothly and almost moist-adiabatically from the surface (where it is roughly 0.14 K/decade) to 300 hPa (where it is about 0.25 K/decade over both periods), a pattern very close to that in climate model predictions. This contradicts suggestions that atmospheric warming has slowed in recent decades or that it has not kept up with that at the surface. Second, as shown in previous studies, tropospheric warming does not reach quite as high in the tropics and subtropics as predicted in typical models. Third, cooling has slackened in the stratosphere such that linear trends since 1979 are about half as strong as reported earlier for shorter periods. Wind trends over the period 1979–2012 confirm a strengthening, lifting and poleward shift of both subtropical westerly jets; the Northern one shows more displacement and the southern more intensification, but these details appear sensitive to the time period analysed. There is also a trend toward more easterly winds in the middle and upper troposphere of the deep tropics."

See also:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/may/15/new-study-finds-a-hot-spot-in-the-atmosphere

Indeed, denialist love to use misdirection to challenge sound evidence that climate change is advancing rapidly; so that they can go on fiddling while Rome (and the World) burns.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2393
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #962 on: May 17, 2015, 06:31:56 PM »
It is really a shame that Neven has allowed you to pollute this thread and these boards with your noise/nonsense.

Our criteria for pollution differ, jai. I'm willing to tolerate some non-alarmism (for want of a better word) to keep the forum dynamic.

. . .

But nevertheless, great discussion! I wish I could participate in it.  :)

Yes, I understand, HOWEVER

When someone equates two papers, one with entirely flawed methodology based on poorly constrained models (not properly accounting for anthropogenic and organic aerosols) vs. one using direct observational data and then accuses ASLR of being the "alarmist equivalent" of Nic Lewis for not agreeing with him, Then that is a kind of misinformtion and trolling

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1053.msg50721.html#msg50721

When he finally is shown why his equivalency argument is flawed he uses diversion to promote the original (discredited) denialist memes (Lindzen's IRIS) that he was originally trying to defend

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1053.msg50857.html#msg50857

When confronted by the fact that his assertions of equivalency are based on flawed understanding of the science he asserts that he has not the ability to understand the difference and so uses the "appeal to authority" defense.

and

when shown why the original study is flawed, he ignores that he was shown why it is flawed.

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1053.msg50887.html#msg50887

How much do you want to bet that he underestimated the impact of burning peat in Indonesia, a process that we already know puts more aerosols into the environment than other types of fires AND was responsible for 13% to 40% of ALL anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide emissions in the year 1998.

and

so tell me again how the CERES radiative budget indicates how warming temperature reduces tropical high cloud densities again?

to which he responds

If you dont' understand it don't ask me as I don't understand it either.  If you have a valid reason why this should not work (and I note that Andy Desler seems to have no problem with this aspect) then I would be interested in hearing it.

. . . as though tropical peat fires during the study period did not have a significant impact on CERES tropical radiation budgets used for the study.

he then goes on to say

No serious flaws have been pointed out in the Iris paper (yet)

Which is then just simple denial and a perpetuation of a lie after being shown valid criticism of the paper he is asserting false equivalency.

I am not latching onto anything.  My viewpoint is that there are both studies showing higher and lower climate sensitivity.  And that most of these studies are generally good science.  It is my view that the IPCC is correct in their estimate of climate sensitivity, and that many of the posters on this thread are cherry picking the papers that support higher sensitivity and dismissing other papers for nonsense reasons.

and once again we get back to the origin of the disinformation, misinformation denialist meme using (again) an appeal to authority and stating the original premise of his argument of false equivalency. 

so,

In this view then, does one clutter up the blogosphere by constantly addressing and re-addressing the zombie lies produced by a denialist meme spewing troll (who frames his arguments in crafty fashion but ultimately works to discount all arguments contrary to his meme, regardless of the obvious and overwhelming abundance of proof)?

and then the noise to info ratio goes through the roof and the value of the discourse is ultimate lost?

Or does one just let lying denialist troll spew clog up the thread space and let it go unopposed?

for example:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1053.msg51006.html#msg51006

There are 3 big lies in this post  it took over 2 pages of disinformation laden and redirecting spew to clarify the points.

the lies were:
1. the quote wasn't in the document (never acknowledged the point then that frozen soils were not included in ECS and simply redirected in classic troll fasion)
2. Arctic summer solstice ice free = Arctic summer minimum ice free
3. decreased albedo from arctic algae bloom, accelerated loss of permafrost due to microbial heating, reduced arctic IR longwave emissivity from ice-free conditions and the loss of boreal forest and boreal peat feedback effects are all constrained within the IPCC projections of arctic sea ice loss in their ECS analysis.


I think you are seriously dropping the ball on this Neven.  But hey, forum is good, I will do my best to not worry about this guy, you may have noticed though, we have lost a lot of posters since he started his disinformation campaign here.



« Last Edit: May 17, 2015, 06:39:24 PM by jai mitchell »
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

plinius

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 403
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #963 on: May 17, 2015, 06:34:40 PM »
would you mind elaborating on the "trollish"? I did not get your point.

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #964 on: May 17, 2015, 09:50:30 PM »
would you mind elaborating on the "trollish"? I did not get your point.

Whether you agree with the point or not, I believe it was effectively made. I try to  ignore the person myself.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #965 on: May 17, 2015, 09:54:53 PM »
Me too. He long ago basically stated that he was going to argue for (what he considered) a non-alarmist view, no matter what the evidence was. So I mostly ignored what he had to say after that.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

TeaPotty

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 322
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #966 on: May 17, 2015, 11:19:20 PM »
Thank you Jai, SH, and Willi.

Zombie lies is exactly Michael Hauber's tactics, and his positions are based solely on ideology. Prove him wrong, and he just starts the cycle of nonsense again.

Neven, I can understand and respect your desire to not get involved and babysit. It's not exactly a fun time. However, I agree with Jai that you are wrong for vindicating Michael as sincere. He is clearly not.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9612
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1343
  • Likes Given: 618
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #967 on: May 18, 2015, 12:17:17 AM »
Look, you've all had your say (multiple times). Michael Hauber leaves a door open for a positive look on things, you guys believe this is delusional. But here's the thing: the outcome of this discussion in this forum is not having any influence whatsoever outside of the forum, as not a lot of people are following this thread. So, if Michael Hauber is a denialist troll - which is something I'm still far from certain of - he's doing a really bad job at disrupting discourse on AGW. He'd better go and clog the New York Times comment threads or wherever sockpuppets, professional trolls and idiot zealots go to do their destructive thing.

Or if he's going to kill this forum Trojan-horse style, he better start expanding his portfolio, because it's mostly this thread and maybe one or two others where he is receiving flak for being too positive. I think you all (especially Jai and ASLR) convincingly make the case that scientists and the IPCC err on the side of least drama, but at some point you have to let go and ignore Michael's attempts at (sometimes) unfounded nuance.

It's not like I'm leaving some WUWT bozo on for too long. And I still don't think that Michael Hauber is some devious lukewarmer hypocrite troll of the Tom Fuller-kind. So I would like to urge you to not go overboard with the name-calling, and don't try to force me as a group to kick off single members.  I try to keep everyone on board, sometimes for too long (happened once or twice already), but those single members will be escorted to the exit sooner or later if they cross the line too often.

Let's all just love each other, 'kay?  ;)

No, but seriously, lay off the name-calling. It's not worth it.
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2393
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #968 on: May 18, 2015, 01:29:13 AM »
sounds good cutie!
 :-*
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #969 on: May 18, 2015, 07:13:52 AM »
Stating the obvious for some, we are already over the cliff.


And I still don't see any real action around me IRL, that's what really matters IMHO.
Someone needs to find that mitigation button.


Graph above from this article by Glen Peters at Cicero.
"The models that take us to a world where global warming is limited to 2°C, are much too optimistic, according to Glen Peters at CICERO. "
http://www.cicero.uio.no/en/posts/news/a-journey-from-5c-to-2c


« Last Edit: May 18, 2015, 07:22:43 AM by Sleepy »

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2393
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #970 on: May 18, 2015, 08:09:48 AM »
Michael Mann took great exception to this,

He claims that BECCS is not necessarily part of the picture (and I agree) however, the SCALE, THE SCALE!!!)  really, we are talking about Billions of Tons of CO2 needed per year!

Many good solutions found in the organic gardening realm though.

here is part of the conversation regarding the monumental task needed to limit below 2 C 

https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/599320486988779520

I think it odd that he took such exception when his own work in Sci Am last year showed that a 4.5 ECS was pretty much over the 2C limit already and that we would cross it within 11 years (or so).

Makes me wonder if he is feeling the heat (pun intended) for laboring within a collective group who knows that they have failed on the side of least drama.  He seems almost in denial of our actual circumstances.
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Michael Hauber

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1132
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 178
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #971 on: May 18, 2015, 10:45:33 AM »

There are 3 big lies in this post  it took over 2 pages of disinformation laden and redirecting spew to clarify the points.

the lies were:
1. the quote wasn't in the document (never acknowledged the point then that frozen soils were not included in ECS and simply redirected in classic troll fasion)
2. Arctic summer solstice ice free = Arctic summer minimum ice free
3. decreased albedo from arctic algae bloom, accelerated loss of permafrost due to microbial heating, reduced arctic IR longwave emissivity from ice-free conditions and the loss of boreal forest and boreal peat feedback effects are all constrained within the IPCC projections of arctic sea ice loss in their ECS analysis.


I think you are seriously dropping the ball on this Neven.  But hey, forum is good, I will do my best to not worry about this guy, you may have noticed though, we have lost a lot of posters since he started his disinformation campaign here.
1.  I apologised for this error as soon as it was pointed out.
2.  I corrected my stance on this as soon as you pointed it out.
3.  I pointed out that your original claim that these factors were not related was false.  I never made the claim that the IPCC projection of Arctic sea ice loss constrains these other factors. 

I correct and acknowledge my errors as they are made.  The two errors were correct within 8 posts of my original post, and did not take 2 pages as you stated.  You have never acknowledged or corrected an error in public (you did in pm quite a long time ago on an unrelated issues).  Either you are too smart to ever make any mistakes.  Or you are not smart enough to realise it when you make a mistake.  Or you are not honest enough to acknowledge and correct a mistake when you make it.
Climate change:  Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, expect the middle.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9612
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1343
  • Likes Given: 618
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #972 on: May 18, 2015, 10:56:14 AM »
Or we make mistakes because we fire up our brains with an emotion or passion we have (that's how progress is made, it starts with motivation).

So there we have it, we all make mistakes. Now all we have to say: Okay, let's agree to disagree, and I respect your position... asshole.  ;)

And then keep informing each other about the latest science that is rolling in. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

Michael Hauber

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1132
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 178
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #973 on: May 18, 2015, 11:06:59 AM »


When someone equates two papers, one with entirely flawed methodology based on poorly constrained models (not properly accounting for anthropogenic and organic aerosols) vs. one using direct observational data and then accuses ASLR of being the "alarmist equivalent" of Nic Lewis for not agreeing with him, Then that is a kind of misinformtion and trolling



Recipe for denying the consensus on climate change:

1) Pick a paper with a result you like
2) All papers have uncertainties
3) Point to the uncertainties in all papers with a result that disagrees with the result you like
4) Ignore the uncertainties behind the result you like.

Voila, you have 'proven' that the IPCC are biased.  This is the tactics used by Nic Lewis to try and support the claim that IPCC are overestimating climate change.  It is the same tactics used in this thread to try and support the claim that IPCC are underestimating climate change.

IPCC is the agreed consensus position of the world's best experts on the topic of climate change.
Climate change:  Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, expect the middle.

Michael Hauber

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1132
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 178
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #974 on: May 18, 2015, 11:34:38 AM »
Stating the obvious for some, we are already over the cliff.


And I still don't see any real action around me IRL, that's what really matters IMHO.
Someone needs to find that mitigation button.


Graph above from this article by Glen Peters at Cicero.
"The models that take us to a world where global warming is limited to 2°C, are much too optimistic, according to Glen Peters at CICERO. "
http://www.cicero.uio.no/en/posts/news/a-journey-from-5c-to-2c



I certainly agree with Glen Peters that 2 degrees is not particularly likely anymore.  I also agree with Glen's use of the IPCC projections as the best guidance for what may happen in the future.

I do not agree that nothing is being done.  Not enough is being done.  Much of the action is finding things to do to look like something is being done while avoiding taking any action which is actually going to have a real cost.  Action on climate change is a tough sell, and it is my belief that exaggerating the severity of climate change will only make it harder to convince people to take action.

And what is being done is having an effect.  Renewable energy is growing at a rapid rate and has been doing so for a decent number of years.  Current growth of renewable energy will put us a long way from the rcp8.5 path,as long as it continues.  I'm quite optimistic that it will, although my main fear is that as renewable energy approaches a substantial portion of the world energy supply issues of indeterminacy etc may provide one last hurdle to jump.

The situation with renewable energy is similar to the melting ice sheets.  Current growth of renewable energy has not gone far enough to have a significant impact on global trends amongst all the other factors that are happening.  In a similar way the melting ice caps have not had enough of an effect to have an obvious effect on sea level rise if you look at it only from a global and total sea level point of view.  However if you look at the growth rates for both ice sheet melting, and for renewable energy development it is obvious that both are poised to have a major impact in the near to mid term future.  I personally think that RCP 8.5 is even less likely than 2.6.

Climate change:  Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, expect the middle.

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #975 on: May 18, 2015, 12:44:45 PM »
In order to gain some perspective I have decided that after today, I will take a break from posting until sometime after the 4th of July.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2393
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #976 on: May 18, 2015, 03:56:00 PM »
1.  I apologised for this error as soon as it was pointed out.
2.  I corrected my stance on this as soon as you pointed it out.
3.  I pointed out that your original claim that these factors were not related was false.  I never made the claim that the IPCC projection of Arctic sea ice loss constrains these other factors. 

I correct and acknowledge my errors as they are made.  The two errors were correct within 8 posts of my original post, and did not take 2 pages as you stated.  You have never acknowledged or corrected an error in public (you did in pm quite a long time ago on an unrelated issues).  Either you are too smart to ever make any mistakes.  Or you are not smart enough to realise it when you make a mistake.  Or you are not honest enough to acknowledge and correct a mistake when you make it.

1.  Yes, you apologized, then in the same breath you asserted a criminally low frozen soils impact profile to downplay the effect.  using more recent parameters of sea ice loss, regional temperature increases and mircrobial heating impacts, not used by Shur, raises the temperature impacts in the Shur paper model by over 300%.  But you failed to consider that now didn't you?

2.  No, you immediately changed the subject to snow cover anomalies and were then shown how your assertion was patently false both in Albedo impact, surface area and incident solar radiation.

3.  No, you pretended to know what you were talking about and made a false statement (that the recently discovered reduction in heat energy lost to space in an ice-free arctic ocean state would somehow magically go away after the ice was completely gone.)

As always you assert falsehoods (lies), claiming to know what you are talking about, when proven you are wrong you deflect or ignore the impacts according to the subject being stated and then you attempt to reframe the discussion if you are called out on it.  It is as if you feign incompetence so that you can intentionally assert lies that you know are false. 




« Last Edit: May 18, 2015, 04:02:31 PM by jai mitchell »
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2393
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #977 on: May 18, 2015, 03:56:29 PM »
In order to gain some perspective I have decided that after today, I will take a break from posting until sometime after the 4th of July.

see you then
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Lennart van der Linde

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 785
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #978 on: May 18, 2015, 08:12:18 PM »
How certain can we be that IPCC errs on the side of least drama or not? To me it is enough to know there're indications of such erring, and therefore a risk of IPCC under-estimating climate risks. In addition IPCC itself points out that climate risks and risks of mitigation are asymmetrical, as AR5 Synthesis Report SPM says:

"Mitigation involves some level of co-benefits and risks, but these risks do not involve the same possibility of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change. Inertia in the economic and climate system and the possibility of irreversible impacts from climate change increase the benefits from near-term mitigation efforts (high confidence). Delays in additional mitigation or constraints on technological options increase the longer-term mitigation costs to hold climate change risks at a given level."

For a rational societal risk analysis it seems particularly relevant to stress worst-case climate risks ("of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts"), and therefore also potential under-estimation of such risks by IPCC. I think ASLR and Jai are right to stress those risks. To me Michael Hauber is not wrong in pointing out that maybe IPCC does not under-estimate (net) risks, but it just seems less relevant than the point of ASLR and Jai that we should reckon with the possibility that IPCC does under-estimate (some/many/net) climate risks.

Michael Hauber

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1132
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 178
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #979 on: May 19, 2015, 05:00:31 AM »

There are 3 big lies in this post  it took over 2 pages of disinformation laden and redirecting spew to clarify the points.

the lies were:
1. the quote wasn't in the document (never acknowledged the point then that frozen soils were not included in ECS and simply redirected in classic troll fasion)
2. Arctic summer solstice ice free = Arctic summer minimum ice free
3. decreased albedo from arctic algae bloom, accelerated loss of permafrost due to microbial heating, reduced arctic IR longwave emissivity from ice-free conditions and the loss of boreal forest and boreal peat feedback effects are all constrained within the IPCC projections of arctic sea ice loss in their ECS analysis.

1.  Yes, you apologized, then in the same breath you asserted a criminally low frozen soils impact profile to downplay the effect.  using more recent parameters of sea ice loss, regional temperature increases and mircrobial heating impacts, not used by Shur, raises the temperature impacts in the Shur paper model by over 300%.  But you failed to consider that now didn't you?

2.  No, you immediately changed the subject to snow cover anomalies and were then shown how your assertion was patently false both in Albedo impact, surface area and incident solar radiation.

3.  No, you pretended to know what you were talking about and made a false statement (that the recently discovered reduction in heat energy lost to space in an ice-free arctic ocean state would somehow magically go away after the ice was completely gone.)

As always you assert falsehoods (lies), claiming to know what you are talking about, when proven you are wrong you deflect or ignore the impacts according to the subject being stated and then you attempt to reframe the discussion if you are called out on it.  It is as if you feign incompetence so that you can intentionally assert lies that you know are false.
1.  So we agree that I corrected it as soon as pointed out.  Now you want to claim that the next thing I said was the big lie.  Obviously if I justify the next statement you will shift again, and this is a game that I can never win so I will not play and will stick with the original three statements you claim were so bad.
2.  The very first thing I said was 'There is about 9 million km2 of Arctic sea ice in June to be lost.'.  So yes I did correct my error from sea ice minimum to solistice in June as soon as it was pointed out.  It is then the next statement I make that you now want to complain about, and again that is not a game I want to play. 
3.  I stated right from the start that the factors did interact.  You imagined that I made a statement about a reduction due to this interaction which I had never made.  I then pointed out that several of the factors would interact to increase each other, and that one interaction would be a reduction.  And again you are playing the game of shifting to the next statement that you say is a big lie, and again I will not play that game.


Four of them all involve the loss of Arctic sea ice.  This is a clear interaction.

And they all work to compound that driving force, when you asserted that they might somehow reduce each other's impacts.  Well, that is a completely unfounded statement. 


All I said was that they will interact because four of them involve Arctic ice.  Obviously 7 is going to promote 6 and 4, but once all the ice is gone the effect of 2 will become 0, so at least one of these factors will counteract another factor.

Climate change:  Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, expect the middle.

Michael Hauber

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1132
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 178
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #980 on: May 19, 2015, 05:48:31 AM »
How certain can we be that IPCC errs on the side of least drama or not? To me it is enough to know there're indications of such erring, and therefore a risk of IPCC under-estimating climate risks. In addition IPCC itself points out that climate risks and risks of mitigation are asymmetrical, as AR5 Synthesis Report SPM says:

"Mitigation involves some level of co-benefits and risks, but these risks do not involve the same possibility of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change. Inertia in the economic and climate system and the possibility of irreversible impacts from climate change increase the benefits from near-term mitigation efforts (high confidence). Delays in additional mitigation or constraints on technological options increase the longer-term mitigation costs to hold climate change risks at a given level."

For a rational societal risk analysis it seems particularly relevant to stress worst-case climate risks ("of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts"), and therefore also potential under-estimation of such risks by IPCC. I think ASLR and Jai are right to stress those risks. To me Michael Hauber is not wrong in pointing out that maybe IPCC does not under-estimate (net) risks, but it just seems less relevant than the point of ASLR and Jai that we should reckon with the possibility that IPCC does under-estimate (some/many/net) climate risks.

I agree that the possibility that IPCC are underestimating climate change should be considered very seriously.  However when some present this is a certainty, or at the very least present it in terms where only studies that find an upper end sensitivity are any good, and anything finding a lower sensitivity is zombie denier science, then I disagree.  I believe that overstating the risks of high end climate sensitivity will only serve to destroy credibility and make it less likely that society in general will take these risks seriously.

Over the last 35 years the modelled projections show about 2.2 deg warming/century, and observations show we have warmed by about 1.7 deg/century.  Although this comparison is made from the latest CMIP5 multi-model mean, the projections from earlier IPCC reports were for about the same rate of warming.  If the IPCC in 1990 had believed that climate sensitivity was 50% higher, the projected warming rate might have been getting close to double what we have experienced, so I'm quite glad that past IPCC assessments have been 'conservative'.
Climate change:  Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, expect the middle.

Lennart van der Linde

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 785
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #981 on: May 19, 2015, 09:43:29 AM »
I agree that the possibility that IPCC are underestimating climate change should be considered very seriously.  However when some present this is a certainty, or at the very least present it in terms where only studies that find an upper end sensitivity are any good, and anything finding a lower sensitivity is zombie denier science, then I disagree.  I believe that overstating the risks of high end climate sensitivity will only serve to destroy credibility and make it less likely that society in general will take these risks seriously.

Over the last 35 years the modelled projections show about 2.2 deg warming/century, and observations show we have warmed by about 1.7 deg/century.  Although this comparison is made from the latest CMIP5 multi-model mean, the projections from earlier IPCC reports were for about the same rate of warming.  If the IPCC in 1990 had believed that climate sensitivity was 50% higher, the projected warming rate might have been getting close to double what we have experienced, so I'm quite glad that past IPCC assessments have been 'conservative'.

So we all agree on a potential risk of high climate sensitivity, just not on the exact probability distribution of various potential sensitivity-values, and probably also not on what risk level should be accepted/averted. I think IPCC reports and peer-reviewed science since are the best base for such risk analysis. And since in general in society climate risks seem to be underestimated, I think it's useful to stress those parts of IPCC and recent science that point this out. I don't think it's useful to draw conclusions from the science that this science does not support. When that happens it should be corrected by (preferably) quoting the science in question.

As for the model projections and observations over the past 35 years: what exactly is your source for the 2.2 and 1.7 C/century values (maybe you gave sources before, but I don't remember)? And what are possible explanations for the gap between projections and observations? What do these explanations imply for climate sensitivity? Those are interesting and relevant questions for an iterative risk analysis process.

As far as I know recent science still cannot exclude relatively high climate sensitivity. And even under RCP4.5 warming will probably only accelerate over the coming decades, according to Smith et al 2015:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/03/earth-entering-new-era-of-rapid-temperature-change-study-warns/?utm_source=Daily+Carbon+Briefing&utm_campaign=a1b6b65d88-cb_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_876aab4fd7-a1b6b65d88-303429069

See in particular their figure 3b (attached below):
http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/385643/smith-et-al-2015-fig3b.png

It would be interesting to see their results for higher and lower RCP-scenarios.

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #982 on: May 19, 2015, 10:46:38 AM »
Michael Hauber, as a reply to your comment #974, I used to maintain a positive attitude and used to refer to IPCC, unfortunately I can't claim that I was successful in convincing others to take action by that. I wrote IRL above, with that I meant Sweden and particularly the people I see around me, where I live. Seeing what people do, is better than hearing them say what they do. Either they are outright fools claiming the IPCC is the same as Al Qaida and terrorists, or they say yes there's global warming but IPCC is alarmistic, or the most common, they don't care. They are no way near discussing the uncertanties included in IPCC's statements.

One of the last denialist stongholds here is Lennart Bengtsson (mentioned in previous posts since he participated in Ringberg) who's thoughts regarding sea level rise is that it's nothing to worry about, we have a lot more time to play with and that future inventions will solve things. I have read a lot of his writings in different media here, but he doesn't provide an answer to what will happen if he's wrong.
There are many, many others, like James Hansen, Jerry Mitrovica or Jeremy Jackson, that have a slightly different take on sea level rise. Then add all of the other risks we might be facing.

Over the past twenty years, Swedish emissions in other countries caused by our consumption increased by fifty percent. During the same period, our domestic emissions decreased by thirty percent. And that is one of the greenest western nations in the world, repeatedly praised by people like James Hansen. But we have old nuclear plants and we are shutting down small scale hydro plants and old mills. We are far from Germany and a lot of other nations, when it comes to wind and solar.

A quote regarding Vattenfall.
Quote
Vattenfall is an internationally active company owned by the Swedish government. In 2012,
business operations carried out by the company generated a total of 85 million tons of CO2
emissions, of which nearly 71% (60.3 million tons) were produced by the use of German lignite.
The company’s operations in Germany focus predominantly on conventional methods of power
generation, which is unusual compared to its other operations and its own sustainability targets.
Vattenfall plans to shift this focus and make operations more sustainable in coming years. To this
end, it intends to reduce CO2 emissions by 2020 to 65 million tons, and reduce them to half of 1990
levels by 2030. The company aspires to be totally CO2 neutral by 2050 (Vattenfall 2009; Vattenfall
2014; Vattenfall 2013). As a state-owned company, Vattenfall is under no obligation to maximize
profits for other shareholders and therefore has more leeway than other energy companies to
achieve these targets.
The same company has argued for a very long time that they will succeed with CCS, they didn't. They also offer solar PV kits. They charge 61000SEK for a 2,2kW kit here...
If you or someone else is interested, here's a link to The Swedish National Audit Office and conclusions from their report last month.
http://www.riksrevisionen.se/sv/rapporter/Rapporter/EFF/2015/Vattenfall--konkurrenskraftigt-och-ledande-i-energiomstallningen/Rapporten-pa-fem-minuter/Slutsatser/
Unfortunately in Swedish, if you or someone else is interested please use giggle translate and do browse through the bold parts about our governments control over this company.

Over 2°C is too much and the glaciers on this planet are not equipped with emergency brakes. So no, I'm not positive anymore.

In general.
I understood your position a long time ago due to some of the comments you have recieved in here in other threads. But your opinions are not the reason for my post above.
Obviously there's a need to discuss and display those uncertanties due to the risks that our civilisation is facing, not just in here. And since TeaPotty started this thread and wrote.
Quote
I'd like this thread to be a collection of opinions and articles on this subject. The point is not to attack Science, but rather discuss the current culture controlling & shaping it for maximum profit, and the consequences of remaining obediently silent. Time is running out...
I think Vattenfall is a good example of a company only interested in short term profits.

I read TeaPottys inital post when he wrote it, but then ignored this thread for a while due to the arguing that started, then I jumped in again when I thought things cooled off. But I've said what I want to say, I can start ignoring it again. It's not a huge deal for me because it's more like Neven wrote above.
Quote
But here's the thing: the outcome of this discussion in this forum is not having any influence whatsoever outside of the forum, as not a lot of people are following this thread.
Instead of arguing, I'll simply resort to prepare for our next winter, we tend to have a lot of snow here during El Nino's and if it continues according to the models, it's better to be prepared than not. Our leaders don't prepare for winters (either), we saw that the last time in 2010.
Who knows, we might even have our own Inhofe this coming winter, throwing snowballs in the Swedish parliament...

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9612
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1343
  • Likes Given: 618
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #983 on: May 19, 2015, 11:36:04 AM »
Over the last 35 years the modelled projections show about 2.2 deg warming/century, and observations show we have warmed by about 1.7 deg/century.

I might be wrong, but 35 years is not a century, right? Why are models treated as some kind of a weather forecast? I believe all models show lulls in warming, and then periods or rapid acceleration, but that doesn't mean they will happen exactly in this or that period. They happen and in the end it all evens out.

The last decade has been dominated by solar inactivity (the lowest seen in centuries), a negative PDO, La Niña dominating the ENSO cycle, massive aerosol production from the BRIC countries, etc. Once one or more of these factors flip again, averages will start to go up. As we have been seeing for the past and coming two years.
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

Gray-Wolf

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 131
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #984 on: May 19, 2015, 05:39:35 PM »
And , to add into Nev's post, the last time we saw an augmented warming setup we did not have low Arctic Sea ice, melting permafrost ( at today's measured levels), Greenland albedo crash, 3 " 1 in a hundred year" drought across the Amazon basin etc., etc,.

For me I see ( however temporary) a flip positive in the PDO and IPO and a lot of ocean warmth to leach out into the atmosphere over the next few years. We also have the spectre of the return of the 'perfect melt storm' across the Arctic ( 2017).

What id the reverse of the impacts of the past decade or so of naturals is now settling in for its time in control? This is not 1996....... things are very altered.
KOYAANISQATSI

ko.yaa.nis.katsi (from the Hopi language), n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life disintegrating. 4. life out of balance. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.
 
VIRESCIT VULNERE VIRTUS

Lennart van der Linde

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 785
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #985 on: May 19, 2015, 07:34:42 PM »
Over the last 35 years the modelled projections show about 2.2 deg warming/century, and observations show we have warmed by about 1.7 deg/century. Although this comparison is made from the latest CMIP5 multi-model mean, the projections from earlier IPCC reports were for about the same rate of warming.

If we have look at Rahmstorf et al 2011 we find a warming trend for 1980-2011 of about 0.16 C/decade (my emphasis):
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article

"The removal of the known short-term variability components reduces the variance of the data without noticeably altering the overall warming trend [for 1980-2011]: it is 0.15 °C/decade in the unadjusted and 0.16 °C/decade in the adjusted data. From 1990–2011 the trends are 0.16 and 0.18 °C/decade and for 1990–2006 they are 0.22 and 0.20 °C/decade respectively. The relatively high trends for the latter period are thus simply due to short-term variability, as discussed in our previous publication (Rahmstorf et al 2007). During the last ten years, warming in the unadjusted data is less, due to recent La Niña conditions (ENSO causes a linear cooling trend of −0.09 °C over the past ten years in the surface data) and the transition from solar maximum to the recent prolonged solar minimum (responsible for a −0.05 °C cooling trend) (Foster and Rahmstorf 2011). Nevertheless, unadjusted observations lie within the spread of individual model projections, which is a different way of showing the consistency of data and projections (Schmidt 2012).

Figure 1 [attached below] shows that the adjusted observed global temperature evolution closely follows the central IPCC projections, while this is harder to judge for the unadjusted data due to their greater short-term variability. The IPCC temperature projections shown as solid lines here are produced using the six standard, illustrative SRES emissions scenarios discussed in the third and fourth IPCC reports, and do not use any observed forcing. The temperature evolution for each, including the uncertainty range, is computed with a simple emulation model, hence the temperature curves are smooth."

For sea level rise they find:
"Turning to sea level, the quasi linear trend measured by satellite altimeters since 1993 has continued essentially unchanged when extending the time series by five additional years. It continues to run near the upper limit of the projected uncertainty range given in the third and fourth IPCC assessment reports (figure 2 [attached below]). Here, the sea-level projections provided in figure 5 of the summary for policy makers of the third assessment and in table SPM.3 of the fourth assessment are shown. The satellite-based linear trend 1993–2011 is 3.2 ± 0.5 mm yr−1, which is 60% faster than the best IPCC estimate of 2.0 mm yr−1 for the same interval (blue lines). The two temporary sea-level minima in 2007/2008 and 2010/2011 may be linked to strong La Niña events (Llovel et al 2011). The tide gauges show much greater variability, most likely since their number is too limited to properly sample the global average (Rahmstorf et al 2012). For sea level the fourth IPCC report did not publish the model-based time series (green lines), but these were made available online in 2012 (CSIRO 2012). They do not differ significantly from the projections of the third IPCC report and thus continue to underestimate the observed upward trend."

Even if SLR for this period turns out to be between 2.6-2.9 mm/yr, as recent findings indicate, that would still be 30-45% higher than the best IPCC estimate of the third and fourth IPCC reports.

Rahmstorf et al add:
"Could this underestimation appear because the high observed rates since 1993 are due to internal multi-decadal variability, perhaps a temporary episode of ice discharge from one of the ice sheets, rather than a systematic effect of global warming? Two pieces of evidence make this very unlikely. First, the IPCC fourth assessment report (IPCC 2007) found a similar underestimation also for the time period 1961–2003: the models on average give a rise of 1.2 mm yr−1, while the best data-based estimate is 50% larger at 1.8 mm yr−1 (table 9.2 of the report; Hegerl et al 2007). This is despite using an observed value for ice sheet mass loss (0.19 mm yr−1) in the 'modelled' number in this comparison. Second, the observed rate of sea-level rise on multi-decadal timescales over the past 130 years shows a highly significant correlation with global temperature (Vermeer and Rahmstorf 2009) by which the increase in rate over the past three decades is linked to the warming since 1980, which is very unlikely to be a chance coincidence."

The first piece of evidence may be weakened somewhat by the recent indications that SLR between 1961-2003 was slower than previously thought. On the other hand the acceleration may than be faster than thought, so maybe sea level sensitivity to temperature is higher than Vermeer and Rahmstorf 2009 find.

Lennart van der Linde

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 785
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #986 on: May 19, 2015, 07:49:33 PM »
I don't know if or to what extent Rahmstorf et al 2011 has been superseded by more recent research, but the last part of their paper is interesting too. They say:

"It is instructive to analyse how the rate of sea-level rise changes over longer time periods (figure 3 [attached below]). The tide gauge data (though noisy, see above) show that the rate of sea-level rise was around 1 mm yr−1 in the early 20th century, around 1.5–2 mm yr−1 in mid-20th-century and increased to around 3 mm yr−1 since 1980 (orange curve). The satellite series is too short to meaningfully compute higher order terms beyond the linear trend, which is shown in red (including uncertainty range). Finally, the AR4 projections are shown in three bundles of six emissions scenarios: the 'mid' estimates in green, the 'low' estimates (5-percentile) in cyan and the 'high' estimates (95-percentile) in blue. These are the scenarios that comprise the often-cited AR4-range from 18 to 59 cm sea-level rise for the period 2090–99 relative to 1980–99 (IPCC 2007). For the period 2000–2100, this corresponds to a range of 17–60 cm sea-level rise.

Figure 3 shows that in all 'low' estimates, the rate of rise stays well below 3 mm yr−1 until the second half of the 21st century, in four of the six even throughout the 21st century. The six 'mid' estimates on average give a rise of 34 cm, very close to what would occur if the satellite-observed trend of the last two decades continued unchanged for the whole century. However, figure 3 shows that the reason for this relatively small projected rise is not an absence of acceleration. Rather, all these scenarios show an acceleration of sea-level rise in the 21st century, but from an initial value that is much lower than the observed recent rise.

Figure 3 further shows that only the 'high' models represented in the range of AR4 models validate when compared to the observational data and can in this regard be considered valid projection models for the future. These 'high' model scenarios represent a range of 21st century rise of 37–60 cm. Nevertheless, this range cannot be assumed to represent the full range of uncertainty of future sea-level rise, since the 95-percentile can only represent a very small number of models, given that 23 climate models were used in the AR4. The model(s) defining the upper 95-percentile might not get the right answer for the right reasons, but possibly by overestimating past temperature rise.

Note that the IPCC pointed out that its projections exclude 'future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow'. The projections now published online (CSIRO 2012) include an alternative version that includes 'scaled-up ice sheet discharge'. These projections validate equally well (or poorly) with the observed data, since they only differ substantially in the future, not in the past, from the standard projections. The sea-level rise over 2000–2100 of the 'high' bundle of these scenarios is 46–78 cm.

Alternative scalings of sea-level rise have been developed, which in essence postulate that the rate of sea-level rise increases in proportion to global warming (e.g. Grinsted et al 2009, Rahmstorf 2007). This approach can be calibrated with past sea-level data (Kemp et al 2011, Vermeer and Rahmstorf 2009) and leads to higher projections of future sea-level rise as compared to those of the IPCC. The latter is immediately plausible: if we consider the recently observed 3 mm yr−1 rise to be a result of 0.8 °C global warming since preindustrial times (Rahmstorf et al 2012), then a linear continuation of the observed warming of the past three decades (leading to a 21st century warming by 1.6 °C, or 2.4 °C relative to preindustrial times) would linearly raise the rate of sea-level rise to 9 mm yr−1, as in the highest scenario in figure 3—but already for a rather moderate warming scenario, not the 'worst case' emissions scenario."

In other words: IPCC AR5 may still underestimate SLR in this century. Beyond 2100 IPCC itself says it probably underestimates SLR.

Michael Hauber

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1132
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 178
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #987 on: May 20, 2015, 01:03:22 PM »

As for the model projections and observations over the past 35 years: what exactly is your source for the 2.2 and 1.7 C/century values (maybe you gave sources before, but I don't remember)? And what are possible explanations for the gap between projections and observations? What do these explanations imply for climate sensitivity? Those are interesting and relevant questions for an iterative risk analysis process.


Those were calculated by me using data downloaded from CMIP, and using woodfortrees, probably.  I previously discussed these in this thread which includes discussions on other time frames.

The link to the later Rahmstorf article is good and not something I was aware of.  I note a slight difference between the CMIP model data I downloaded and the IPCC projection in Rahmstorf.  In particular the CMIP model data includes the short term cooling of pinatubo and el chicon. 

What is the difference?  I don't know.  The mistake lukewarmers make is to automatically assume it must be a slower warming rate for Co2.  Plenty of research shows that the difference is likely explained by various issues.  Its just a question of what caused the difference?  Aerosol forcing means more warming as soon as aerosol's stop, although some lines of evidence seem to suggest aerosol's are unlikely to be high - in particular consider the relatively consistent rise in ocean heat content which suggests that the slower warming episodes from 40ish to 70ish and more recently were more likely to be internal variability.  Internal variability of course will go up and down.  Can it go up far enough to push the warming rate significantly higher than predicted?  Don't know.  Or is it that models underestimate the amount of heat going into the oceans.  My gut feel suspects this may be the issue, which means warming stays slow until we approach equilibrium, so no speed up in warming in the next decades or century or two, but warming may just keep coming over centuries following, which perhaps could be quite serious for the far off future.  I do note that some studies on energy balance models have claimed that they constrain the rate of ocean heat transfer, so perhaps this is not such an issue?  Finally perhaps there is a missing feedback such as the Iris effect?  If so it is quite elusive to have escaped detection so far, so I would be surprised if any such missing feedbacks are strong. 

And an important issue that I hasn't really been discussed is that the IRIS effect may be a double edged sword.  The Mauritsen version provides for roughly a 0.4 degree reduction in sensitivity.  Not a lot but its better than nothing.  But on the other hand it comes with changes to the hydrological cycle, in particular an increase in convective aggregation, which means more extremes in rainfall and potentially also for drought, hurricanes, severe storms etc depending on exactly how it would work.  So the Mauritsen IRIS effect may be a trade of that puts us no better off, or perhaps even worse off.  And then if you look at the Ringberg papers and one researcher investigates clouds and find evidence that the IRIS effect is happening, but that no negative feedback results due to short wave effects offseting the negative feedback effect.  So it might be bad news for the hydrological cycle with no offsetting benefit of reduced warming.  Or perhaps a little more searching will find evidence for a negative feedback, maybe even smaller than Mauritsen found.

Its also interesting to look at the Rahmstorf comparison on SSL and see that the recent downward revision of overall rate from 3.2 to 2.6 mm/year puts SSL just below the top end of the IPCC range if I estimate correctly from the charts.  SSL level range so far is more about heat content gain then about ice sheet loss as the heat content gain is the biggest contributor.  But that is expected to change in the future.  So a comparison of IPCC prediction vs actual for SSL is in some ways more relevant to heat content gain then it is to future predictions of SSL rise which are obviously problematic because IPCC do not include the dynamic ice sheet effects.

When Rahmstorf adjusts for known factors to push the observed warming rate up, and seeing a SSL revision that pushes the SSL rate down so that the gap in both cases is narrower, and considering that the SSL rise and heat content gains are reasonably steady I do wonder if the IPCC projections are more accurate and less risky then anyone is willing to claim.  I've also seen correlations between CO2 and temp for the recent ice ages that look reasonably nice and consistent.  I believe that one aspect of scientific conservatism is an inherent skepticism and so the uncertainty range may be overstated.  But considering the risks associated with being wrong, that while I suspect that the uncertainty range should be narrower, I would feel quite uncomfortable if someone was to argue strongly for a narrower range.
Climate change:  Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, expect the middle.

Lennart van der Linde

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 785
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #988 on: May 20, 2015, 02:28:08 PM »
It's also interesting to look at the Rahmstorf comparison on SSL and see that the recent downward revision of overall rate from 3.2 to 2.6 mm/year puts SSL just below the top end of the IPCC range if I estimate correctly from the charts...

I've also seen correlations between CO2 and temp for the recent ice ages that look reasonably nice and consistent. I believe that one aspect of scientific conservatism is an inherent skepticism and so the uncertainty range may be overstated...

The SLR-revision for 1993-2014, if it holds, is to 2.6-2.9 mm/yr, which compares to IPCC-projections of 2.0 mm/yr, according to Rahmstorf et al.

Correlation between CO2 and temp, or also between temp and SLR? Rahmstof et al are talking about the last, but on shorter timescales than ice ages. Their point is they suspect the current physical ice-sheet models are underestimating future ice mass loss with warming.

On scientific conservatism and skepticism Hansen & Sato give an interesting quote by Feynman on the so-called Millikan effect:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20121226_GreenlandIceSheetUpdate.pdf

"Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.  Why didn't they discover the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of - this history - because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong - and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard (Feynman, 1997)."

They suspect a similar process may be at play in the case of physical ice-sheet models and projections for potential future SLR. Maybe they're wrong, but what if they're right?

Michael Hauber

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1132
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 178
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #989 on: May 20, 2015, 11:28:44 PM »

I might be wrong, but 35 years is not a century, right? Why are models treated as some kind of a weather forecast? I believe all models show lulls in warming, and then periods or rapid acceleration, but that doesn't mean they will happen exactly in this or that period. They happen and in the end it all evens out.

The last decade has been dominated by solar inactivity (the lowest seen in centuries), a negative PDO, La Niña dominating the ENSO cycle, massive aerosol production from the BRIC countries, etc. Once one or more of these factors flip again, averages will start to go up. As we have been seeing for the past and coming two years.

Taking a 35 year average would hopefully even out some of the effects of the last century, but perhaps not all.  If Tamino is right and depending on how interpret his claim, the slow down doesn't really exist, so there shouldn't be much speed up when it reverses.  I believe there is some slowdown.  There is certainly scope for some increased warming, but how much?  Enough to push us into the highe end?  Or enough to push us nicely into the middle.  And I mean nicely from a scientific accuracy point of view, not so nice for human welfare.

Also on BRIC aerosol, is there any good evidence.  I've suspected this, and argued it in the past but can't recall ever finding any good evidence for it.  The discussions on aerosols and the hiatus that I've seen in the past were about volcanoes.
Climate change:  Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, expect the middle.

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2393
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #990 on: May 21, 2015, 02:46:28 AM »
Quote
Enough to push us into the highe end?

the two largest factors that neven listed are going into reversal at rapid rates.  If we go into a strong El Nino, one that is stronger than the 1997/1998 with an additional warming anomaly in the north east pacific (the 'blob') and China continues to aggressively reduce its aerosol emissions (having reduced coal usage by 8% in the first quarter of 2015) then

we may see a jump in temperatures for the first 6 months of 2016 that are 0.4C above the average of the last 4 years.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2011/mean:12
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Lennart van der Linde

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 785
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #991 on: June 10, 2015, 07:38:26 PM »
Rignot on conservative IPCC SLR projections:
http://climatestate.com/2015/06/09/eric-rignot-observations-suggest-that-ice-sheets-and-glaciers-can-change-faster-sooner-and-in-a-stronger-way-than-anticipated/

"Machens: As an ice sheet expert, how do you see the sea-level projections of the 5th IPCC report?

Rignot: The IPCC Report is a consensus and the projections are defined by numerical models. The results are very conservative because they exclude the possibility of rapid changes of the ice sheets as the numerical models do not yet know how to deal with those. The observations from the last 20+ years clearly suggest that ice sheets and glaciers can change faster, sooner and in a stronger way than anticipated but this information has not yet filtered into more realistic projections. I personally view the IPCC AR5 projections as unrealistically low."

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #992 on: July 05, 2015, 06:55:00 PM »
After a six week vacation from posting, I thought that I would re-start my blogging with a simple update on some recent progress in state-of-the-art Earth Systems Modeling, that may eventually (maybe by AR6) provide adequate evidence that the IPCC's AR5 is too conservative w.r.t. climate sensitivity:

While none of the following four linked JAMES articles are conclusive, they all provide new model findings that support the likelihood that Sherwood et.al. (2014)'s projection that tropical atmospheric convective mixing may significantly contribute a relatively high value (say 4 to 4.5C) equilibrium climate sensitivity, ECS. 

Zhun Guo, Minghuai Wang, Yun Qian, Vincent E. Larson, Steven Ghan, Mikhail Ovchinnikov, Peter A. Bogenschutz, Andrew Gettelman & Tianjun Zhou (July 2015), "Parametric behaviors of CLUBB in simulations of low clouds in the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM)", JAMES, DOI: 10.1002/2014MS000405


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014MS000405/full

Abstract: "In this study, we investigate the sensitivity of simulated low clouds to 14 selected tunable parameters of Cloud Layers Unified By Binormals (CLUBB), a higher-order closure (HOC) scheme, and four parameters of the Zhang-McFarlane (ZM) deep convection scheme in the Community Atmosphere Model version 5 (CAM5). A Quasi-Monte Carlo (QMC) sampling approach is adopted to effectively explore the high-dimensional parameter space and a generalized linear model is applied to study the responses of simulated cloud fields to tunable parameters. Our results show that the variance in simulated low-cloud properties (cloud fraction and liquid water path) can be explained by the selected tunable parameters in two different ways: macrophysics itself and its interaction with microphysics. First, the parameters related to dynamic and thermodynamic turbulent structure and double Gaussian closure are found to be the most influential parameters for simulating low clouds. The spatial distributions of the parameter contributions show clear cloud-regime dependence. Second, because of the coupling between cloud macrophysics and cloud microphysics, the coefficient of the dissipation term in the total water variance equation is influential. This parameter affects the variance of in-cloud cloud water, which further influences microphysical process rates, such as autoconversion, and eventually low-cloud fraction. This study improves understanding of HOC behavior associated with parameter uncertainties and provides valuable insights for the interaction of macrophysics and microphysics."

Extract: "In this study, we have applied an SA framework in CAM5 to analyze the parameter behaviors of Cloud Layers Unified By Binormals (CLUBB) and Zhang and McFarlane's deep convection scheme (ZM) on variation of simulated low-cloud faction. The analysis demonstrates the high sensitivity of cloud fraction, liquid water path (LWP), and shortwave cloud radiative forcing (SWCF) to 14 CLUBB parameters and 4 ZM parameters within the perturbed ranges."



A. A. Hill, B. J. Shipway & I. A. Boutle (July 2015), "How sensitive are aerosol-precipitation interactions to the warm rain representation?", JAMES, DOI: 10.1002/2014MS000422


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014MS000422/full

Abstract: "It is widely acknowledged that aerosol-cloud interactions are a major uncertainty in climate and numerical weather prediction. One of the sources of uncertainty is the sensitivity of the cloud microphysics parameterization to changes in aerosol, in particular the response of precipitation. In this work, we conduct an idealized, dynamically consistent, intercomparison of warm rain microphysics schemes to understand this source of uncertainty. The aims of this investigation are: (i) investigate how sensitive precipitation susceptibility (S0) is to cloud microphysics representation and (ii) use S0 to determine the minimum complexity of microphysics required to produce a consistent precipitation response to changes in cloud drop number concentration (Nd). The main results from this work are: (i) over a large range of liquid water path and Nd, all the bulk schemes, but particularly the single moment schemes, artificially produce rain too rapidly. Relative to a reference bin microphysics scheme, this leads to a low in-cloud S0 and impacts the evolution of S0 over time. (ii) Rain evaporation causes surface S0 from all schemes to be larger than the cloud base S0. The magnitude of the change in S0 with altitude is dependent on the scheme and the representation of the rain drop size distribution. Overall, we show that single-moment schemes produce the largest range in the sensitivity of precipitation to changes in Nd. Modifying rain production parameterization alone does not reduce this spread. Instead, increasing the complexity of the rain representation to double-moment significantly improves this behavior and the overall consistency between schemes."



S. N. Tulich (June 2015), "A strategy for representing the effects of convective momentum transport in multiscale models: Evaluation using a new superparameterized version of the Weather Research and Forecast model (SP-WRF)", JAMES, DOI: 10.1002/2014MS000417


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014MS000417/full


Abstract: "This paper describes a general method for the treatment of convective momentum transport (CMT) in large-scale dynamical solvers that use a cyclic, two-dimensional (2-D) cloud-resolving model (CRM) as a “superparameterization” of convective-system-scale processes. The approach is similar in concept to traditional parameterizations of CMT, but with the distinction that both the scalar transport and diagnostic pressure gradient force are calculated using information provided by the 2-D CRM. No assumptions are therefore made concerning the role of convection-induced pressure gradient forces in producing up or down-gradient CMT. The proposed method is evaluated using a new superparameterized version of the Weather Research and Forecast model (SP-WRF) that is described herein for the first time. Results show that the net effect of the formulation is to modestly reduce the overall strength of the large-scale circulation, via “cumulus friction.” This statement holds true for idealized simulations of two types of mesoscale convective systems, a squall line, and a tropical cyclone, in addition to real-world global simulations of seasonal (1 June to 31 August) climate. In the case of the latter, inclusion of the formulation is found to improve the depiction of key synoptic modes of tropical wave variability, in addition to some aspects of the simulated time-mean climate. The choice of CRM orientation is also found to importantly affect the simulated time-mean climate, apparently due to changes in the explicit representation of wide-spread shallow convective regions."


Liping Zhang & Chuanhu Zhao (2015), "Processes and mechanisms for the model SST biases in the North Atlantic and North Pacific: A link with the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation", JAMES, DOI: 10.1002/2014MS000415

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014MS000415/full

Abstract: "Almost all of CMIP5 climate models show cold SST biases in the extratropical North Atlantic (ENA) and tropical North Atlantic (TNA) as well as in the North Pacific which are commonly linked with the weak simulated Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC). A weak AMOC and its associated reduced northward oceanic heat transport are associated with a cooling of the ENA Ocean, whereas the TNA cooling is attributable to both weak AMOC and surface heat flux. The cold biases in the ENA and TNA have remote impacts on the SST bias in the North Pacific. Here we use coupled ocean-atmosphere model experiments to show the mechanisms and pathways by which the ENA and TNA affect the North Pacific. The model simulations demonstrate that the cooling SST bias in the North Pacific is largely due to the remote effect of the cooling SST bias in the ENA, while the remote impact of the TNA cooling SST bias is of secondary importance. The ENA cooling bias triggers the circumglobal teleconnection via the Northern Hemisphere annular mode, producing a strengthening of the Aleutian low, an enhancement of the southward Ekman and Oyashio cold advection, and thus a cooling SST in the North Pacific. In contrast, the TNA cooling produces a surface high extending to the eastern tropical North Pacific, inducing the northeasterly wind anomalies north, northerly cross-equatorial wind anomalies, and northwesterly wind anomalies south of the equator. This C-shape wind anomaly pattern generates an SST warming in the tropical southeastern Pacific, which eventually leads to an SST warming in the tropical central and western Pacific by the wind-evaporation-SST feedback. The tropical Pacific warming in turn leads to an SST cooling in the North Pacific by the Pacific North American teleconnection pattern."

“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: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #993 on: July 05, 2015, 07:07:17 PM »
While my last post cited modeling progress focused the atmosphere's contribution to climate sensitivity, the following two linked references focus on new modeling progress focused on clarifying the ocean's role in accounting for both recent and probable future climate trends:

Lee, S. K. et al (2015), "Pacific origin of the abrupt increase in Indian Ocean heat content during the warming hiatus", Nature Geoscience (2015) DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2438

http://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2438.epdf?referrer_access_token=9BJgiYXdhYH99_2ymUOCl9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0ObkVE5338xGv8uBOQWlRnAab4qPXFs4O3SZb6IxKfW2PnJo_T3XFSFHOLhlVP5DuGMj1m9zXfhUpQNo49qcfXDEiah-FdrNW9ptu6fWbPhE1c9_C5YRZri4QlC1kisr1NrPzt4KRR2GdIZazw2xlww80jv4_iErazAtxWMImsP1HDoFRm1OW3P6nlXyMUnlxs%3D&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com

Abstract: "Global mean surface warming has stalled since the end of the twentieth century, but the net radiation imbalance at the top of the atmosphere continues to suggest an increasingly warming planet. This apparent contradiction has been reconciled by an anomalous heat flux into the ocean, induced by a shift towards a La Niña-like state with cold sea surface temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific over the past decade or so. A significant portion of the heat missing from the atmosphere is therefore expected to be stored in the Pacific Ocean. However, in situ hydrographic records indicate that Pacific Ocean heat content has been decreasing9. Here, we analyse observations along with simulations from a global ocean–sea ice model to track the pathway of heat. We find that the enhanced heat uptake by the Pacific Ocean has been compensated by an increased heat transport from the Pacific Ocean to the Indian Ocean, carried by the Indonesian throughflow. As a result, Indian Ocean heat content has increased abruptly, which accounts for more than 70% of the global ocean heat gain in the upper 700 m during the past decade. We conclude that the Indian Ocean has become increasingly important in modulating global climate variability."

See also:
Julia Rosen (2015), "Indian Ocean may be key to global warming 'hiatus' - Upper ocean may be storing heat, giving atmosphere a break", Nature, doi:10.1038/nature.2015.17505
http://www.nature.com/news/indian-ocean-may-be-key-to-global-warming-hiatus-1.17505
http://phys.org/news/2015-05-global-captured-pacific-ocean-indian.html



Ringler, T., Petersen, M., Higdon, R. L., Jacobsen, D., Jones, P. W., & Maltrud, M. (2013). Ocean Modelling. Ocean Modelling, 69(C), 211–232. doi:10.1016/j.ocemod.2013.04.010 (pdf)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1463500313000760

Abstract: "A new global ocean model (MPAS-Ocean) capable of using enhanced resolution in selected regions of the ocean domain is described and evaluated. Three simulations using different grids are presented. The first grid is a uniform high-resolution (15 km) mesh; the second grid has similarly high resolution (15 km) in the North Atlantic (NA), but coarse resolution elsewhere; the third grid is a variable resolution grid like the second but with higher resolution (7.5 km) in the NA. Simulation results are compared to observed sea-surface height (SSH), SSH variance and selected current transports. In general, the simulations produce subtropical and subpolar gyres with peak SSH amplitudes too strong by between 0.25 and 0.40 m. The mesoscale eddy activity within the NA is, in general, well simulated in both structure and amplitude. The uniform high-resolution simulation produces reasonable representations of mesoscale activity throughout the global ocean. Simulations using the second variable-resolution grid are essentially identical to the uniform case within the NA region. The third case with higher NA resolution produces a simulation that agrees somewhat better in the NA with observed SSH, SSH variance and transports than the two 15 km simulations. The actual throughput, including I/O, for the x1-15 km simulation is the same as the structured grid Parallel Ocean Program ocean model in its standard high-resolution 0.1° configuration. Our overall conclusion is that this ocean model is a viable candidate for multi-resolution simulations of the global ocean system on climate-change time scales."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9612
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1343
  • Likes Given: 618
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #994 on: July 05, 2015, 07:17:33 PM »
Welcome back, ASLR.  :)
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #995 on: July 05, 2015, 07:36:47 PM »
Welcome back, ASLR.  :)

Neven,

Thank you very much. 

With the increasingly strong El Nino conditions likely suppressing the rate of ASI loss this season; hopefully my posts on other climate change topics will help to clarify that climate change risks remain serious. 

Furthermore, I plan to expand my focus in a series of posts in the Science folder related to the Anthropocene that include efforts to scientifically model anthropogenic impacts & related risks that go beyond simply trying to model Earth Systems.

It is good to be back,

Best ASLR
“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: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #996 on: July 05, 2015, 08:40:06 PM »
The following linked JAMES reference provides in modelling findings related to the risk high climate sensitivity associate with positive feedback from increasing rates of decomposition of  soil organics with continued global warming:

Carlos A. Sierra, Susan E. Trumbore, Eric A. Davidson, Sara Vicca, I. Janssens (2015), "Sensitivity of decomposition rates of soil organic matter with respect to simultaneous changes in temperature and moisture", JAMES, DOI: 10.1002/2014MS000358

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014MS000358/full


 
Caption for the attached image: " Reaction velocities (dimensionless) of the β-glucosidase enzyme in organic soils predicted by the DAMM model as a function of temperature (K) and moisture (volumetric soil water content %). Parameter values are based on Davidson et al"
“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: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #997 on: July 05, 2015, 08:51:59 PM »
The linked references indicates that continued global warming will likely decreases terrestrial plants ability to absorb CO2, and also to decrease the nutritional value of the plants that do grow:


Camilo Mora,  Iain R. Caldwell,  Jamie M. Caldwell,  Micah R. Fisher,  Brandon M. Genco,  Steven W. Running (June 10, 2015), "Suitable Days for Plant Growth Disappear under Projected Climate Change: Potential Human and Biotic Vulnerability", PLOS, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002167

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002167
Abstract: "Ongoing climate change can alter conditions for plant growth, in turn affecting ecological and social systems. While there have been considerable advances in understanding the physical aspects of climate change, comprehensive analyses integrating climate, biological, and social sciences are less common. Here we use climate projections under alternative mitigation scenarios to show how changes in environmental variables that limit plant growth could impact ecosystems and people. We show that although the global mean number of days above freezing will increase by up to 7% by 2100 under “business as usual” (representative concentration pathway [RCP] 8.5), suitable growing days will actually decrease globally by up to 11% when other climatic variables that limit plant growth are considered (i.e., temperature, water availability, and solar radiation). Areas in Russia, China, and Canada are projected to gain suitable plant growing days, but the rest of the world will experience losses. Notably, tropical areas could lose up to 200 suitable plant growing days per year. These changes will impact most of the world’s terrestrial ecosystems, potentially triggering climate feedbacks. Human populations will also be affected, with up to ~2,100 million of the poorest people in the world (~30% of the world’s population) highly vulnerable to changes in the supply of plant-related goods and services. These impacts will be spatially variable, indicating regions where adaptations will be necessary. Changes in suitable plant growing days are projected to be less severe under strong and moderate mitigation scenarios (i.e., RCP 2.6 and RCP 4.5), underscoring the importance of reducing emissions to avoid such disproportionate impacts on ecosystems and people."

Also see:
http://time.com/3916200/climate-change-plant-growth/

Extract: "Climate change could turn forests them into carbon emitters
Add the hindering of plant growth to the long and growing list of the ways climate change may affect life on our planet. The number of days when plants can grow could decrease by 11% by 2100 assuming limited efforts to stall climate change, affecting some of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people, according to a new study in PLOS Biology.
Climate change affects a number of variables that determine how much plants can grow. A 7% decline in the average number of freezing days will actually aid plant growth, according to the study, which relied on an analysis of satellite data and weather projections. At the same time, extreme temperatures, a decrease in water availability and changes to soil conditions will actually make it more difficult for plants to thrive. Overall, climate change is expected to stunt plant growth.
Declining plant growth would destroy forests and dramatically change the habitats that are necessary for many species to survive. And, if conditions get bad enough, forests could actually produce carbon instead of removing it from the atmosphere, exacerbating the root cause of climate change.
“Those that think climate change will benefit plants need to see the light, literally and figuratively,” said lead study author Camilo Mora, a professor at the University of Hawaii, in a statement.
The effects of climate change on plant growth will likely vary by region, with northern areas in places like Russia, China and Canada gaining growing days. But already hot tropical regions could lose as many as 200 growing days per year. In total, 3.4 billion people would live in countries that lose nearly a third of their growing days. More than 2 billion of those people live in low-income countries, according to the study.
The researchers’ findings sound pretty dire, but they acknowledge that these consequences would be the result of a worst-case scenario of sorts, one in which humans take minimal action to stem climate change. With strong or even moderate efforts, worldwide plant growth will fare much better, according to the study."


Feng, Z., Rütting, T., Pleijel, H., Wallin, G., Reich, P. B., Kammann, C. I., Newton, P. C.D., Kobayashi, K., Luo, Y. and Uddling, J. (2015), Constraints to nitrogen acquisition of terrestrial plants under elevated CO2. Global Change Biology. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12938

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.12938/abstract

Abstract: "A key part of the uncertainty in terrestrial feedbacks on climate change is related to how and to what extent nitrogen (N) availability constrains the stimulation of terrestrial productivity by elevated CO2 (eCO2), and whether or not this constraint will become stronger over time. We explored the ecosystem-scale relationship between responses of plant productivity and N acquisition to eCO2 in free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) experiments in grassland, cropland and forest ecosystems and found that: (i) in all three ecosystem types, this relationship was positive, linear and strong (r2 = 0.68), but exhibited a negative intercept such that plant N acquisition was decreased by 10% when eCO2 caused neutral or modest changes in productivity. As the ecosystems were markedly N limited, plants with minimal productivity responses to eCO2 likely acquired less N than ambient CO2-grown counterparts because access was decreased, and not because demand was lower. (ii) Plant N concentration was lower under eCO2, and this decrease was independent of the presence or magnitude of eCO2-induced productivity enhancement, refuting the long-held hypothesis that this effect results from growth dilution. (iii) Effects of eCO2 on productivity and N acquisition did not diminish over time, while the typical eCO2-induced decrease in plant N concentration did. Our results suggest that, at the decennial timescale covered by FACE studies, N limitation of eCO2-induced terrestrial productivity enhancement is associated with negative effects of eCO2 on plant N acquisition rather than with growth dilution of plant N or processes leading to progressive N limitation."

Also see:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/13/3669094/carbon-dioxide-could-mean-less-nutritious-plants/
“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: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #998 on: July 05, 2015, 10:27:01 PM »
I would like to join neven in welcoming you back, ASLR.

Now I just have to find the time to catch up on all the great stuff you've already posted! :)
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #999 on: July 06, 2015, 12:39:06 AM »
I would like to join neven in welcoming you back, ASLR.

Now I just have to find the time to catch up on all the great stuff you've already posted! :)

wili,

Thanks for the warm welcome, and to add to your backlog:

The linked TED talk by Gavin Schmidt and the associated image about Resolved vs Unresolved Climate Change Modeling Physics, gives an idea of just how much more climate change modeling effort is needed in order to more accurately evaluate the risks of possible high climate sensitivity:

http://www.ted.com/talks/gavin_schmidt_the_emergent_patterns_of_climate_change?language=en
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson