Human Stupidity (Human Mental Illness)

[AbruptSLR]

I selected the following 28 references [not including either von der Heydt et. al. 2016 nor Friedrich et al (2016)] that either directly, or indirectly, indicate that climate sensitivity is most likely significantly higher than the range summarized by AR5:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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


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

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


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

And for those who do not like to read, I provide the two attached images of high equilibrium climate sensitivity, with the first based on paleo data, and the second based on modern observations.

[AbruptSLR]

While I am on-a-roll:
First, the linked reference (with an open access pdf) presents a 2015 observation-based model findings of permafrost carbon fluxes when accounting for deep carbon deposits and thermokarst activity.  What I find to be particularly disturbing is the pulse of CH4 emissions circa 2050 from thermokarst lakes (TKLs) under RCP8.5, as indicated in the first attached image.  I find this thermokarst lake CH4 emissions disturbing because the researchers' 2015 RCP 8.5 run did not consider the increase in Arctic rainfall that will occur as the sea ice extent retreats; thus the 2050 date likely errs (considerably) on the side of least drama:

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

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

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

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

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

Lastly, the third attached image is from Andrew's 2015 Ringberg presentation that indicates that if the Eastern Tropical Pacific SSTA increases due to a global warming driven increase in El Nino-like behavior, then ECS could be as high a 5C (see the middle panel in the third image) by the end of this century.

[AbruptSLR]

The linked reference indicates that the remaining carbon budget from 2015 may be as low as 590 GtCO2; and as CO₂-e emissions are around 50GtCO2 (which exceeds RCP 8.5 50%CL), it is easy to see that assuming ECS is 3C we could readily exceed the 2C limit by around 2030, or if ECS is 4C then we could exceed 2.7C by around 2032 to 2035, if we continue on our current BAU pathway for another 16 to 19 years. 
 
Joeri Rogelj, Michiel Schaeffer, Pierre Friedlingstein, Nathan P. Gillett, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Keywan Riahi, Myles Allen & Reto Knutti (2016) "Differences between carbon budget estimates unravelled", Nature Climate Change, Volume: 6, Pages: 245–252, doi:10.1038/nclimate2868

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

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

According to NOAA the CO₂ -equiv at the end of 2015 was 485 ppm; however, if one assumes that the GWP100 for methane is 35 instead of 25 (as assumed by NOAA), then NOAA's calculated value for the CO2-eq for 2015 would be 518ppm.

[AbruptSLR]

The linked reference demonstrates for systems that can change abruptly, like Earth's climate (see the first attached image), why it is a bad idea for denialists to point at the large-noise in Earth's climate record to feel comfortable in the Holocene saddle-node that we have been resting in, as the second attached image shows that these large-noise fluctuations can kick us out of our comfortable saddle-node sooner, rather than later.

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

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

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

Extract: "These results open new prospects for the analysis of time series exhibiting abrupt transitions such as those encountered in climate dynamics."

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article is entitled: "SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills", and it (& the associated image) indicate that anthropogenic radiative forcing is occurring at a higher rate of change than the natural systems can adapt to; and as man is dependent on these natural systems, we are not behaving stupidly:

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

Extract: "It is not only the CO2 concentration that is important, but the annual rate of increase of CO2 concentration, because the rate of increase determines the rate at which natural systems must adapt … or go extinct."

[AbruptSLR]

The first linked article is entitled: "3M-year-old sediment tells the story of today's climate", and it discusses research about Lake El'gygytgyn, in Siberia, that began in 2009.  Even through the findings of this research has been available for years (see the last two linked references and the associated attached image), ESMs have not been able to replicate that amount of Arctic Amplification documented by the Lake El'gygytgyn physical evidence.  This implies that the climate sensitivity of current ESMs need to be increased to appropriate capture the climate change risks (including Hansen's ice-climate feedback mechanism due to 'freshwater hosing' that we are collectively exposing ourselves to.

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

Extract: "One of the "most astounding things" in the sediment, she said, was evidence that ancient summer temperatures in the region had spiked by as much as 14 degrees Fahrenheit higher than today, not just once, but several times in the past.
…
There is no direct way to measure the atmosphere of this ancient time, but repeated estimates from leaf stomata, ocean fossil studies and other remnants now put its carbon dioxide content at around 400 parts per million — about where it is today, largely due to the sharp rise of CO2 and other greenhouse gases since the Industrial Revolution began, literally gaining steam in the 1850s.

According to Brigham-Grette, that means the Earth is much more sensitive to climate change now, and it is speeding up as the planet tries to reach equilibrium from the new injection of heat.
…
The findings of the science team at Lake El'gygytgyn were also very hard for experts who use computer-driven climate models to understand. They pride themselves on being able to predict the speed of climate change in the future and also in the past by use of a technique called "hindcasting."

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

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

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

"We're not in equilibrium now, not even close," he asserted, as the planet's oceans struggle to distribute the new influx of heat.
…
A new Japanese study, published in February written by scientists from a team exploring ice cores drilled in Antarctica, found that ocean warming currents carrying heat from the tropics have become more unstable in the North Atlantic because of colder fresh water dripping from the melting ice of glaciers in Greenland. The phenomenon is called "freshwater hosing," which also appears to have happened in the ancient past.
…
"There's this attitude of 'Well, we're Americans, and we're going to tough it out and help people rebuild along our coastlines,'" she said. "Well, that's sort of stupid, because we're putting people and infrastructure back in harm's way.""



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

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

&

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

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

[AbruptSLR]

The linked reference demonstrates for systems that can change abruptly, like Earth's climate (see the first attached image), why it is a bad idea for denialists to point at the large-noise in Earth's climate record to feel comfortable in the Holocene saddle-node that we have been resting in, as the second attached image shows that these large-noise fluctuations can kick us out of our comfortable saddle-node sooner, rather than later.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[mati]

@AbruptSLR

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

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

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

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

sigh
oh well
we must all keep on trying to build a better world

[AbruptSLR]

@AbruptSLR

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

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

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

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

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

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

[prokaryotes]

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

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

[AbruptSLR]

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

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

prokaryotes,

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

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

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


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

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

Also see:

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature17145.epdf?referrer_access_token=px-zRubs4M6aBBPl42_1GdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M-pvJMg7VLINRa2mnTNsvXfjbAFNU4M9sSVFBNmnefzinIWT5DIW6fVmmjzqPkWPG0EWAexculA_Dh1H0gVAzIYAUjdsj8uznmBvFk8_blNOM5-opyiSaKMyaJis4af48A0kgec2kZ8QcJLEQ0CKHzo1BxzQZ7aHlC6ggm5qLKPX8C4yz0OZ4SKpsmFZlbgUA%3D&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com

[AbruptSLR]

prokaryotes,

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

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

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

The green curve in panel (b) of the third attached image from Hansen et. al. (2016) shows that a collapse of the WAIS would contribute to a temporary planetary energy imbalance; which the fourth images (from Hansen & Sato 2012) indicates results in a temporary bump in the effective equilibrium climate sensitivity over the period of the ice-climate feedback mechanism.

[AbruptSLR]

prokaryotes,

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

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


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

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

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

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

For anyone not aware of how the Hadley cell expansion effects the jet streams I attached an illustrative image.

[AbruptSLR]

prokaryotes,

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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


For those who do not understand dynamical sensitivity, I note that it is related to the influence of climate attractors (from chaos theory), which can capture energy from radiative forcing and progressively ratchet-up climate states (see the two attached images).

[AbruptSLR]

prokaryotes,

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

[wili]

ASLR and prok,

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

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

Best,
wili

[AbruptSLR]

prokaryotes,

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


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


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

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

[AbruptSLR]

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


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

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


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


Captions for the first image: "Fig. 3. (A to H) (A) LR04 global marine isotope stack (12) and (B) mean July insolation for 67.5°N (13) for the past 2.8 My compared with (C) magnetostratigraphy, (D) facies, (E) magnetic susceptibility, (F) TOC contents, (G) Mn/Fe ratios, and (H) Si/Ti ratios in the sediment record from Lake El’gygytgyn (magnetic susceptibility and x-ray fluorescence data are smoothed using a 500-year weighted running mean to improve the signal-to-noise ratio). Super interglacials at Lake El’gygytgyn are highlighted with red bars. (I to L) Expanded views into the interglacials MIS 1, 5e, 11c, and 31 and adjoining glacials/ stadials. (I) Reconstructed MTWM and (J) PANN based on the pollen spectra and best modern analog approach [modern values from (56)]. (K) Mean July insolation for 67.5°N (13) compared with El’gygytgyn Si/Ti ratios, smoothed by five-point weighted running mean. (L) Tree and shrub pollen percentages compared with spruce pollen content. Simulated July surface air temperatures (red and green dots) at the location of the lake are shown for comparison. The location of the dots relative to the x axis corresponds with the GHG and orbital forcing used in each interglacial simulation (see supplementarymaterials). Simulated modern and preindustrial temperatures are close to observed values, so model temperatures are not corrected for bias. The green dot indicates the results derived with a deglaciated Greenland and increased heat flux under Arctic Ocean sea ice by 8Wm−2."  Where: PANN = annual precipitation and MTWM = the warmest month of the year (i.e. July).

[AbruptSLR]

My previous post in this thread, focused on possible previously unrecognized/unappreciated possible natural feedback pathways that could have amplified natural radiative forcing in order to better account for some of the large past high sea level events (focused on MIS 11c, the Holsteinian Peak). I concluded that post with a suggestion that methane emission feedback mechanisms (like thermokarst lakes and/or methane hydrates) may have played an important role.  In this regards, the first two images come from Isaksen et al. (2011) who used computer models to estimate methane's atmospheric burden.  Isaksen et al (2011) found (see the first image) that as the assumed emission rate increased the chemistry of the atmosphere would change, resulting in increased lifetime for methane, thus increasing the associated radiative forcing (see the second image).  The last two images show how during periods slightly warmer than current conditions, relatively warm seawater can enter the Arctic Ocean from the Atlantic, which, might result in methane emissions from marine methane hydrates in the seafloors of Arctic Ocean continental shelves.

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

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GB003845/abstract

[prokaryotes]

My previous post in this thread..

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

[AbruptSLR]

My previous post in this thread..

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

See also the fourth linked reference:

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

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

Extract: "Rain causes more (extensive) permafrost melt [Refs. 7,26], which most likely leads to enhanced emissions of terrestrial methane [Ref. 27] (a powerful greenhouse gas), more direct runoff (a smaller seasonal delay) and concurrent freshening of the Arctic Ocean [Ref 18]. Rainfall also diminishes snow cover extent and considerably lowers the surface albedo of seasonal snow, ice sheets and sea ice [Ref. 9] , reinforcing surface warming and amplifying the retreat of ice and snow; in fact, enhanced rainfall will most likely accelerate sea-ice retreat by lowering its albedo (compared with that of fresh snowfall) "

[AbruptSLR]

The first attached image (that I previously posted in Reply 264), indicates a flattening of the influence of increasing values of ECS on GMSTA; thus implying that increases in atmospheric GHG concentrations may be more impactful on future global warming.  However, the oceans and land vegetation currently sequester about one half of all current anthropogenic emissions; thus if these carbon sinks are compromised with future global warming then mankind's ability to limit future increases in atmospheric GHG concentrations would also be compromised.  In this frame of mind, the first linked reference is entitled "Doubling Down on Our Faustian Bargain" and it indicates that temporary radiative forcing masking factors (such as: both anthropogenic & natural aerosols, and temporary increases in CO₂ absorption by plants) have allowed mankind to accumulate large accumulations of carbon in the atmosphere, land and ocean; that could actively contribute to future radiative forcing once the temporary masking factors have been eliminated. 

The second, third & fourth linked references cite research on forests, as an illustration of how sensitive such carbon sinks can be to future climate disruption (such as :wet-dry cycles, pests, fires, etc) especially as our current rate of increase of radiative forcing is much higher than at any time since the PETM; and thus vegetation (both on land & in the ocean) will not have adequate time to adapt to such rapidly changing climate conditions:


James Hansen, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato (2013), "Doubling Down on Our Faustian Bargain", Environmental Research Letters.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/011006/meta
&
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130329_FaustianBargain.pdf

Abstract: "Rahmstorf et al 's (2012) conclusion that observed climate change is comparable to projections, and in some cases exceeds projections, allows further inferences if we can quantify changing climate forcings and compare those with projections. The largest climate forcing is caused by well-mixed long-lived greenhouse gases. Here we illustrate trends of these gases and their climate forcings, and we discuss implications. We focus on quantities that are accurately measured, and we include comparison with fixed scenarios, which helps reduce common misimpressions about how climate forcings are changing.
Annual fossil fuel CO2 emissions have shot up in the past decade at about 3% yr-1, double the rate of the prior three decades (figure 1). The growth rate falls above the range of the IPCC (2001) 'Marker' scenarios, although emissions are still within the entire range considered by the IPCC SRES (2000). The surge in emissions is due to increased coal use (blue curve in figure 1), which now accounts for more than 40% of fossil fuel CO2 emissions."

The second linked article is entitled: "Forests 'held their breath' during global warming hiatus, research shows".  This illustrates Hansen's Faustian Bargain.

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-forests-held-global-hiatus.html

Extract: "The study shows that, during extended period of slower warming, worldwide forests 'breathe in' carbon dioxide through photosynthesis, but reduced the rate at which they 'breathe out'—or release the gas back to the atmosphere."


The third linked reference indicates that forests play a more important role in keeping the planet cool than was previously appreciated.  Thus if one assumes that they are entitled to make self-serving assumptions one could assume that decision makers will not only preserve forests but will expand them in the future.  However, the reality is that we are currently losing forests at a rate appropriate for a BAU scenario; and which could accelerate in the future.  Thus if we keep losing forest, our AR5 projections may err on the side of least drama:

Ryan M. Bright et al. Local temperature response to land cover and management change driven by non-radiative processes, Nature Climate Change (2017). DOI: 10.1038/nclimate3250

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3250.html

Abstract: "Following a land cover and land management change (LCMC), local surface temperature responds to both a change in available energy and a change in the way energy is redistributed by various non-radiative mechanisms. However, the extent to which non-radiative mechanisms contribute to the local direct temperature response for different types of LCMC across the world remains uncertain. Here, we combine extensive records of remote sensing and in situ observation to show that non-radiative mechanisms dominate the local response in most regions for eight of nine common LCMC perturbations. We find that forest cover gains lead to an annual cooling in all regions south of the upper conterminous United States, northern Europe, and Siberia—reinforcing the attractiveness of re-/afforestation as a local mitigation and adaptation measure in these regions. Our results affirm the importance of accounting for non-radiative mechanisms when evaluating local land-based mitigation or adaptation policies."

The fourth reference (see also the second attached image) indicates a two-fold increase of carbon cycle sensitivity to tropical temperature variations:

Wang, X., Piao, S., Ciais, P., Friedlingstein, P., Myneni, R.B., Cox, P., Heimann, M., Miller, J., Peng, S.P., Wang, T., Yang, H. and Chen, A., (2014), "A two-fold increase of carbon cycle sensitivity to tropical temperature variations", Nature, 2014; DOI: 10.1038/nature12915.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7487/full/nature12915.html#extended-data

http://sites.bu.edu/cliveg/files/2014/01/wang-nature-2014.pdf

Abstract: "Earth system models project that the tropical land carbon sink will decrease in size in response to an increase in warming and drought during this century, probably causing a positive climate feedback. But available data are too limited at present to test the predicted changes in the tropical carbon balance in response to climate change. Long-term atmospheric carbon dioxide data provide a global record that integrates the interannual variability of the global carbon balance. Multiple lines of evidence demonstrate that most of this variability originates in the terrestrial biosphere. In particular, the year-to-year variations in the atmospheric carbon dioxide growth rate (CGR) are thought to be the result of fluctuations in the carbon fluxes of tropical land areas. Recently, the response of CGR to tropical climate interannual variability was used to put a constraint on the sensitivity of tropical land carbon to climate change. Here we use the long-term CGR record from Mauna Loa and the South Pole to show that the sensitivity of CGR to tropical temperature interannual variability has increased by a factor of 1.9 ± 0.3 in the past five decades. We find that this sensitivity was greater when tropical land regions experienced drier conditions. This suggests that the sensitivity of CGR to interannual temperature variations is regulated by moisture conditions, even though the direct correlation between CGR and tropical precipitation is weak. We also find that present terrestrial carbon cycle models do not capture the observed enhancement in CGR sensitivity in the past five decades. More realistic model predictions of future carbon cycle and climate feedbacks require a better understanding of the processes driving the response of tropical ecosystems to drought and warming."

Caption for the second attached image: " Figure 1 | Change in detrended anomalies in CGR and tropical MAT, in dCGR/dMAT and in ªintCGR over the past five decades. a, Change in detrended CGR anomalies at Mauna Loa Observatory (black) and in detrended tropical MAT anomalies (red) derived from the CRU data set16. Tropical MAT is calculated as the spatial average over vegetated tropical lands (23uN to 23u S).  The highest correlations between detrended CGR and detrended tropicalMAT are obtained when no time lags are applied (R50.53, P,0.01). b, Change in dCGR/dMAT during the past five decades. c, Change in cintCGR during the past five decades. In b and c, different colours showdCGR/dMATor cint CGR estimated with moving time windows of different lengths (20 yr and 25 yr). Years on the horizontal axis indicate the central year of the moving time window used to derive dCGR/dMAT or cintCGR (for example, 1970 represents period 1960–1979 in the 20-yr time window). The shaded areas show the confidence interval of dCGR/dMATand cintCGR, as appropriate, derived using 20-yr or 25-yr moving windows in 500 bootstrap estimates."

[AbruptSLR]

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

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

prokaryotes,

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

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

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

The following reference confirms the findings of DeConto & Pollard (2016) that the WAIS could collapse this century if we continue a BAU pathway for a no more that a few more decades:

Dewi Le Bars, Sybren Drijfhout and Hylke de Vries (2017), "A high-end sea level rise probabilistic projection including rapid Antarctic ice sheet mass loss", Environmental Research Letters; doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa6512


http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6512

Abstract: "The potential for break-up of Antarctic ice shelves by hydrofracturing and following ice cliff instability might be important for future ice dynamics. One recent study suggests that the Antarctic ice sheet could lose a lot more mass during the 21st century than previously thought. This increased mass-loss is found to strongly depend on the emission scenario and thereby on global temperature change. We investigate the impact of this new information on high-end global sea level rise projections by developing a probabilistic process-based method. It is shown that uncertainties in the projections increase when including the temperature dependence of Antarctic mass loss and the uncertainty in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) model ensemble. Including these new uncertainties we provide probability density functions for the high-end distribution of total global mean sea level in 2100 conditional on emission scenario. These projections provide a probabilistic context to previous extreme sea level scenarios developed for adaptation purposes."

[prokaryotes]

This brings us to the topic of how soon might we expect to reach the 2 to 3C GMSTA range cited by DeConto & Pollard (2016) for the WAIS to begin its main stage collapse.

DeConto at EGU17 http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/sessionprogramme type DeConto into the search, no video available

[AbruptSLR]

This brings us to the topic of how soon might we expect to reach the 2 to 3C GMSTA range cited by DeConto & Pollard (2016) for the WAIS to begin its main stage collapse.

DeConto at EGU17 http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/sessionprogramme type DeConto into the search, no video available

The following linked 2017 EGU abstracts, that prokaryotes cited; indicate a significant risk of abrupt sea level rise this century:

Rob DeConto, David Pollard, and Ed Gasson (2017), "Potential for future sea-level contributions from the Antarctic ice sheet", Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 19, EGU2017-15929,

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/EGU2017-15929.pdf


Abstract: "Recent Antarctic ice-sheet modeling that includes the effects of surface meltwater on ice-sheet dynamics (through hydrofracturing and ice-cliff collapse) has demonstrated the previously underappreciated sensitivity of the ice sheet to atmospheric warming in addition to sub-ice oceanic warming. Here, we improve on our modeling of future icesheet retreat by using time-evolving atmospheric climatologies from a high-resolution regional climate model, synchronized with SSTs, subsurface ocean temperatures, and sub-ice melt rates from the NCAR CCSM4 GCM. Ongoing improvements in ice-sheet model physics are tested and calibrated relative to observations of recent and ancient (Pliocene, Last InterGlacial, and Last Deglaciation) ice-sheet responses to warming. The model is applied to a range of future greenhouse-gas emissions scenarios, including modified RCP scenarios corresponding to the 1.5º and 2.0º targets of the Paris Agreement and higher emissions scenarios including RCP8.5. The results imply that a threshold in the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and outlet glaciers in East Antarctica might be exceeded in the absence of aggressive mitigation policies like those discussed in Paris. We also explore the maximum potential for Antarctica to contribute to future sea-level rise in high greenhouse gas emissions scenarios, by testing a range of model physical parameters within the bounds of observations."

&

Andra Garner, Michael Mann, Kerry Emanuel, Robert Kopp, Ning Lin, Richard Alley,
Benjamin Horton, Robert DeConto, Jeffrey Donnelly, and David Pollard (2017), "The Changing Risk of Coastal Flooding in New York City from 850 CE to 2300 CE", Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 19, EGU2017-2138,

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/EGU2017-2138.pdf

Abstract: "In a changing climate, the risk of future coastal flooding depends on both storm surges and rising sea levels. We combine probabilistic sea-level rise projections and large sets of synthetic tropical cyclones downscaled from RCP 8.5 runs of three CMIP5 models to assess the impact of changing tropical storm characteristics and sea-level rise on future coastal inundation in New York City in 2100 and 2300 CE. We compare these future results to a historical analysis of flood risk in New York City based upon synthetic tropical cyclone data sets downscaled from Last Millennium runs of CMIP5 models and proxy sea-level records. Modeling results indicate that there will be minimal change in modeled storm surge heights from 2010 to 2100 or 2300, because the predicted strengthening of the strongest storms will be compensated by storm tracks moving offshore at the latitude of New York City. However, projected sea-level rise causes overall flood heights associated with tropical cyclones in New York City in coming centuries to increase greatly compared to historical or present flood heights. Our projected sea-level rise includes an ensemble of Antarctic projections generated for RCP 8.5 climate scenarios. We find that the 1 in 500- year flood event has increased from ~2.25 m above mean tide level (MTL) during the period 850-1800 to ~3.4 m MTL during 1970-2005 to ~3.9 – 4.8 m MTL by 2080-2100, and to 13.1 m MTL by 2280-2300. Results from this study provide a framework for future risk assessments of coastal flooding in New York City and surrounding communities."

[AbruptSLR]

The pdfs of PowerPoint presentations at these two links are interesting, and confirm that dynamical considerations make a truly mathematical definition of climate sensitivity much more complicated (and to me much more worrisome) than AR5 indicates.

Ghil, Michael. 2017. “The Mathematics of Climate Change and of its Impacts.” Workshop on "Mathematical Approaches to Climate Change Impacts - MAC2I" at the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica "Francesco Severi" (INdAM), Italy.


https://dept.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/publications/mathematical-approaches-climate-change-impacts

&

Ghil, Michael. 2016. “A Mathematical Theory of Climate Sensitivity: A Tale of Deterministic & Stochastic Dynamical Systems.” 11th AIMS Conf. on Dynamical Systems, Differential Equations & Applications, Honoring Peter Lax’s 90th Birthday, Orlando, FL, July 2016.

https://dept.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/publications/mathematical-theory-climate-sensitivity-tale-deterministic-stochastic-dynamical

See also:

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/publications/2017-presentations/

&

https://ams.confex.com/ams/97Annual/webprogram/Paper315189.html

Edit: The attached images come from the first linked document on mathematically modeling dynamical climate response, with the first image indicating that the intermediate climate response (think ENSO and/or Arctic Amplification) is most difficult to model; the second image shows alternate graphical representations for short-term climate sensitivity; the third image illustrates random attractors (think ENSO & Arctic Amplification) and the fourth image shows that dynamical climate sensitivity is deterministic (in a Chaos theory sense) & stochastic as well as highly nonlinear and exhibits change/sensitivity to both anthropogenic radiative forcing and systemic internal variability.

[AbruptSLR]

While I certainly approve of the recommendations made in the linked Science reference; nevertheless, it seems disingenuous to believe that policy makers are making bad decisions because they are focusing too much on GWP100 values; as current advanced Earth System climate model projections already account for such differences in GWP.  Thus, it is not too likely that this referenced work will significantly improve the performance of policy makers:

Ilissa B. Ocko, Steven P. Hamburg, Daniel J. Jacob, David W. Keith, Nathaniel O. Keohane, Michael Oppenheimer, Joseph D. Roy-Mayhew, Daniel P. Schrag & Stephen W. Pacala (05 May 2017), "Unmask temporal trade-offs in climate policy debates", Science , Vol. 356, Issue 6337, pp. 492-493, DOI: 10.1126/science.aaj2350

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6337/492

Summary: "Global warming potentials (GWPs) have become an essential element of climate policy and are built into legal structures that regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This is in spite of a well-known shortcoming: GWP hides trade-offs between short- and long-term policy objectives inside a single time scale of 100 or 20 years. The most common form, GWP100, focuses on the climate impact of a pulse emission over 100 years, diluting near-term effects and misleadingly implying that short-lived climate pollutants exert forcings in the long-term, long after they are removed from the atmosphere. Meanwhile, GWP20 ignores climate effects after 20 years. We propose that these time scales be ubiquitously reported as an inseparable pair, much like systolic-diastolic blood pressure and city-highway vehicle fuel economy, to make the climate effect of using one or the other time scale explicit. Policy-makers often treat a GWP as a value-neutral measure, but the time-scale choice is central to achieving specific objectives."

See also the associate article at:

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-current-climate-mask-trade-offs-policy.html

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article is entitled: "10 incredible things climate change will do".  I believe that the article errs on the side of least drama; nevertheless, it is a good list, and I did not previously know that climate change is already making the ocean darker/murkier; which will decrease albedo.

http://www.dw.com/en/10-incredible-things-climate-change-will-do/a-38416411

Extract: "We can expect our oceans to gradually become murkier as the effects of climate change become more apparent over time.
While climate change is often associated with higher temperatures and drought, it is also expected to increase annual rainfall in some areas of the world. This will create faster-flowing rivers, which in turn churns up more silt and debris before this water meets the ocean.
This phenomenon has already been observed along the coast of Norway, where the ocean water has become increasingly darker due to an increase in precipitation and melting snow."

[AbruptSLR]

The linked reference indicates that freshwater hosing events in the North Atlantic can result in warming of the Nordic Seas (see the attached image); which can accelerate Arctic Amplification & which is another example of dynamical climate sensitivity:

Mélanie Wary et. al. (2017), "Regional seesaw between North Atlantic and Nordic Seas
during the last glacial abrupt climate events", Clim. Past Discuss., doi:10.5194/cp-2017-14

http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/cp-2017-14/cp-2017-14.pdf

Abstract. Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations constitute one of the most enigmatic features of the last glacial cycle.  Their cold atmospheric phases have been commonly associated with cold sea-surface temperatures and expansion of sea ice in the North Atlantic and adjacent seas. Here, based on dinocyst analyses from the 48-30 ka BP interval of four sediment cores from the northern Northeast Atlantic and southern Norwegian Sea, we provide direct and quantitative evidence of a regional paradoxical seesaw pattern: cold Greenland and North Atlantic phases coincide with warmer sea-surface conditions and shorter seasonal sea-ice cover durations in the Norwegian Sea as compared to warm phases. Combined with additional paleorecords and multi-model hosing simulations, our results suggest that during cold Greenland phases, reduced Atlantic meridional overturning circulation and cold North Atlantic sea-surface conditions were accompanied by the subsurface propagation of warm Atlantic waters that re-emerged in the Nordic Seas and provided moisture towards Greenland summit.

[AbruptSLR]

Many denialists (including the Trump Administration) claim that climate models are too uncertain to base policy decisions on, but as the two attached images indicate the Hansen et al 1988 BAU projections are very close of both the observed GISTEMP through 2016 and to the Hadcrut4 projection for 2017 (with a hat-tip to Wipneus), respectively. This support the position that our communal inability to effectively address climate change challenges is not based on uncertainty, but rather on human mental illness.

[AbruptSLR]

As a follow-on to my Reply #278, the linked reference discusses the positive feedback mechanism between Arctic Sea Ice extent loss and ice mass loss from the GIS; which per Wary et. al (2017) causes warming of the Nordic Seas which cause a reduction in Arctic Sea Ice extent; which completes the loop on this dynamical positive feedback mechanism (that is not yet included in AR5 projections)

Stroeve, J. C., Mioduszewski, J. R., Rennermalm, A., Boisvert, L. N., Tedesco, M., and Robinson, D.: Investigating the Local Scale Influence of Sea Ice on Greenland Surface Melt, The Cryosphere Discuss., doi:10.5194/tc-2017-65, in review, 2017.

http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/tc-2017-65/

Abstract. Rapid decline in Arctic sea ice cover in the 21st century may have wide-reaching effects on the Arctic climate system, including the Greenland ice sheet mass balance. Here, we investigate whether local changes in sea ice around the Greenland ice sheet have had an impact on Greenland surface melt. Specifically, we investigate the relationship between sea ice concentration, the timing of melt onset and open water fraction surrounding Greenland with ice sheet surface melt using a combination of remote sensing observations, and outputs from a reanalysis model and a regional climate model for the period 1979–2015. Statistical analysis points to covariability between Greenland ice sheet surface melt and sea ice within Baffin Bay and Davis Strait. While some of this covariance can be explained by simultaneous influence of atmospheric circulation anomalies on both the sea ice cover and Greenland melt, within Baffin Bay we find a modest correlation between detrended melt onset over sea ice and the adjacent ice sheet melt onset. This correlation appears to be related to increased transfer of sensible and latent heat fluxes from the ocean to the atmosphere in early sea ice melt years, increasing temperatures and humidity over the ice sheet that in turn initiate ice sheet melt.

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article indicates that the widely stated estimate of a 97% consensus on the reality of climate change is too low; and encourages the public to take climate change seriously.

Andrew G. Skuce, John Cook, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Ken Rice, Sarah A. Green, Peter Jacobs & Dana Nuccitelli (May 2, 2017), "Does It Matter if the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Is 97% or 99.99%?", Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0270467617702781

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467617702781?journalCode=bsta

Abstract: "Cook et al. reported a 97% scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), based on a study of 11,944 abstracts in peer-reviewed science journals. Powell claims that the Cook et al. methodology was flawed and that the true consensus is virtually unanimous at 99.99%. Powell’s method underestimates the level of disagreement because it relies on finding explicit rejection statements as well as the assumption that abstracts without a stated position endorse the consensus. Cook et al.’s survey of the papers’ authors revealed that papers may express disagreement with AGW despite the absence of a rejection statement in the abstract. Surveys reveal a large gap between the public perception of the degree of scientific consensus on AGW and reality. We argue that it is the size of this gap, rather than the small difference between 97% and 99.99%, that matters in communicating the true state of scientific opinion to the public."

[AbruptSLR]

It can be frustrating (to me at least) that the current generation of Earth System Models, ESMs (e. g. CMIP5), do not adequately address dynamical climate sensitivity.  Hopefully, CMIP6 and future phase of the Accelerated Climate Modelling for Energy (ACME), will improve upon the accuracy of our current project; nevertheless, as time is of the essence w.r.t. fighting climate change, I will take another try at better conveying the upper end risks that our models (e.g. CMIP5) are likely missing.

The linked reference calibrated an effective/specific equilibrium climate sensitivity (S) based on warming cycles during the past 784,000 years.  There findings for the upper end risk (e.g. RCP 8.5) indicated that the projected GMSTA range could be between 4.78C to 7.36C by 2100, based on one set of calculations (see the first two attached images).

Tobias Friedrich, Axel Timmermann, Michelle Tigchelaar, Oliver Elison Timm and Andrey Ganopolski (09 Nov 2016), "Nonlinear climate sensitivity and its implications for future greenhouse warming", Science Advances, Vol. 2, no. 11, e1501923, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1501923

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/11/e1501923

Extract: "Global mean surface temperatures are rising in response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The magnitude of this warming at equilibrium for a given radiative forcing—referred to as specific equilibrium climate sensitivity (S)—is still subject to uncertainties. We estimate global mean temperature variations and S using a 784,000-year-long field reconstruction of sea surface temperatures and a transient paleoclimate model simulation. Our results reveal that S is strongly dependent on the climate background state, with significantly larger values attained during warm phases. Using the Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 for future greenhouse radiative forcing, we find that the range of paleo-based estimates of Earth’s future warming by 2100 CE overlaps with the upper range of climate simulations conducted as part of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). Furthermore, we find that within the 21st century, global mean temperatures will very likely exceed maximum levels reconstructed for the last 784,000 years. On the basis of temperature data from eight glacial cycles, our results provide an independent validation of the magnitude of current CMIP5 warming projections."

While Friedrich et. al. (2016) is a useful starting point, its use of an effective/specific equilibrium climate sensitivity (S) calibrated to the last 784,000 years of warming cycles, means that it is missing the aperiodic dynamical climate sensitivity illustrated in the third image, the risk of Hansen's ice-climate feedback mechanism and the risk that we may well exceed the value of S calibrated to the last 784,000 years, as the fourth attached image shows that S increases in value with increasing values of GMST.

Edit: In regards to my last point about S increasing with GMST, per the following linked NOAA article is entitled: "Global Climate Report - Annual 2016"

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201613#gtemp

Extract: "The average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2016 was 0.94°C (1.69°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), surpassing the previous record warmth of 2015 by 0.04°C (0.07°F)."

This indicates that at the end of 2016, GMST was around 14.84^oC, while the 7^oC upper-end GMSTA by 2100 forecast by Friedrich et. al. (2016) would put GMST near 21 to 22^oC; which an aperiodic temporary spike in GMST as illustrate by the third attachment image could put us in range of tipping permanently into an equable climate pattern.

[nicibiene]

As it is a OT area and has to do a lot to do with stupidity, greed and its consequences for all of us: I watched a report about a german doctor from Leipzig University, struggling with antibiotica resistent microbes. He made a trip to India where the pharma industry produces cheap antibiotica, leaving us with the nice gift of MRSA...

Really terrible what they found out....

http://mediathek.daserste.de/Reportage-Dokumentation/The-invisible-enemy-deadly-superbugs-f/Video?bcastId=799280&documentId=42690832

[AbruptSLR]

The first linked Wikipedia article is about psychological attribution theory; and points out that this theory is scientific and can reliably applied to projecting juror decision making.  As projecting anthropogenic global warming is fundamentally related to both: (a) the attribution bias of climate scientists regarding estimates of Earth Systems response to radiative forcing; and (b) the attribution bias of decision makers as to how much radiative forcing society will impose on the planet.

Thus it is clearly an example of human mental illness that climate modelers do not make use of attribution theory in order to better account for the likely impacts of these two sources of errors in climate model projections:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_(psychology)

Extract: "In social psychology, attribution is the process by which individuals explain the causes of behavior and events.
…
While people strive to find reasons for behaviors, they fall into many traps of biases and errors. As Fritz Heider says, "our perceptions of causality are often distorted by our needs and certain cognitive biases.
…
Attribution theory can be applied to juror decision making. Jurors use attributions to explain the cause of the defendant's intent and actions related to the criminal behavior."

The second linked Wikipedia article is about psychological attribution bias.

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

Extract: "In psychology, an attribution bias or attributional bias is a cognitive bias that refers to the systematic errors made when people evaluate or try to find reasons for their own and others' behaviors.
…
Additionally, there are many different types of attribution biases, such as the ultimate attribution error, fundamental attribution error, actor-observer bias, and hostile attribution bias. Each of these biases describes a specific tendency that people exhibit when reasoning about the cause of different behaviors."

[AbruptSLR]

As a follow-on to my Replies #255 thru #282, I provide the following to linked references to indicate that correctly accounting for dynamical climate sensitivity in the coming decades require the use of very sophisticated climate models that can account for bipolar seesaw mechanisms correctly and which correctly apply paleo-lessons-learned (including the impacts of freshwater hosing) to our current dynamic conditions:


Joel Pedro, Markus Jochum, Christo Buizert, Sune Rasmussen, and Feng He (2017), "The Bipolar Seesaw and Its Discontents", Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 19, EGU2017-11688

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/EGU2017-11688.pdf

Abstract: "The thermal bipolar ocean seesaw hypothesis is the prevailing explanation for the out-of-phase changes in northern and southern high-latitude climate during the Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events of the last glacial period and deglaciation (Stocker and Johnsen, 2003). However the seesaw hypothesis has been challenged on several grounds: it neglects the much larger transport of heat in the atmosphere compared to ocean, and it does not specify the modes and time scales of signal propagation in the coupled ocean-atmosphere system. The purpose of this presentation is to critically review the seesaw hypothesis and address these critiques.

We use transient simulations with a coupled ocean-atmosphere-sea-ice global climate model (GCM) to trace the ocean and atmospheric heat-transport changes and pathways of inter-hemispheric signal propagation during a simulated collapse and a simulated strengthening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). While the simulated AMOC perturbations result in climate variations in close agreement with palaeoclimate observations, changes to the heat budget and their propagation throughout the globe differ from the ideas of Stocker and Johnsen (2003). The key differences are as follows. (1) Changes in ocean heat transport in the Atlantic in response to AMOC perturbations are partially compensated by changes in northward heat transport in the global atmosphere and in the Pacific Ocean. (2) There is little ocean transmission of temperature anomalies between the South Atlantic and high latitude Southern Ocean, because the lack of zonal boundaries and the steeply outcropping isopycnals of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) act as a barrier to signal propagation. (3) On the multi-centennial timescale of the simulations the heat content of the Southern Ocean to the south of the ACC is insensitive to AMOC changes, and South Atlantic temperature anomalies, rather than crossing the ACC spread at intermediate depths into the Indian and Pacific oceans. (4) The global intermediate-depth ocean to the north of the ACC thus better fits the description of being a ’heat reservoir’ for changes in the AMOC than the Southern Ocean. (5) In the simulations, signal propagation to latitudes south of the ACC (including Antarctica) is dominated by teleconnections between the Hadley Circulation, the mid-latitude westerlies and Southern Ocean sea ice extent.

We conclude with an inter-hemispheric coupling hypothesis that recognises the coupled nature of (interbasin) ocean and atmosphere heat transport, the difficulty of propagating ocean anomalies across the ACC and the role of wind-stress, sea ice and associated surface heat flux changes on temperature variations at high latitudes.

References
Stocker, T. F., and S. J. Johnsen (2003), A minimum thermodynamic model for the bipolar seesaw, Paleoceanography, 18, PA000920, doi:10.1029/2003PA000920.

&

G. Marino, E. J. Rohling, L. Rodríguez-Sanz, K. M. Grant, D. Heslop, A. P. Roberts, J. D. Stanford & J. Yu (11 June 2015), "Bipolar seesaw control on last interglacial sea level", Nature, Volume: 522, Pages: 197–201, doi:10.1038/nature14499

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/abs/nature14499.html

Abstract: "Our current understanding of ocean–atmosphere–cryosphere interactions at ice-age terminations relies largely on assessments of the most recent (last) glacial–interglacial transition, Termination I (T-I). But the extent to which T-I is representative of previous terminations remains unclear. Testing the consistency of termination processes requires comparison of time series of critical climate parameters with detailed absolute and relative age control. However, such age control has been lacking for even the penultimate glacial termination (T-II), which culminated in a sea-level highstand during the last interglacial period that was several metres above present. Here we show that Heinrich Stadial 11 (HS11), a prominent North Atlantic cold episode, occurred between 135 ± 1 and 130 ± 2 thousand years ago and was linked with rapid sea-level rise during T-II. Our conclusions are based on new and existing, data for T-II and the last interglacial that we collate onto a single, radiometrically constrained chronology. The HS11 cold episode punctuated T-II and coincided directly with a major deglacial meltwater pulse, which predominantly entered the North Atlantic Ocean and accounted for about 70 per cent of the glacial–interglacial sea-level rise. We conclude that, possibly in response to stronger insolation and CO2 forcing earlier in T-II, the relationship between climate and ice-volume changes differed fundamentally from that of T-I. In T-I, the major sea-level rise clearly post-dates Heinrich Stadial 1. We also find that HS11 coincided with sustained Antarctic warming, probably through a bipolar seesaw temperature response, and propose that this heat gain at high southern latitudes promoted Antarctic ice-sheet melting that fuelled the last interglacial sea-level peak."

[AbruptSLR]

The linked reference indicates that our current climate models do not sufficiently account for dynamical climate behavior and the risk of a possible abrupt change in climate regime with continued global warming:

Jones, R. N. and Ricketts, J. H.: Reconciling the signal and noise of atmospheric warming on decadal timescales, Earth Syst. Dynam., 8, 177-210, doi:10.5194/esd-8-177-2017, 2017.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/177/2017/

http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/177/2017/esd-8-177-2017.pdf

Abstract. Interactions between externally forced and internally generated climate variations on decadal timescales is a major determinant of changing climate risk. Severe testing is applied to observed global and regional surface and satellite temperatures and modelled surface temperatures to determine whether these interactions are independent, as in the traditional signal-to-noise model, or whether they interact, resulting in step-like warming. The multistep bivariate test is used to detect step changes in temperature data. The resulting data are then subject to six tests designed to distinguish between the two statistical hypotheses, hstep and htrend. Test 1: since the mid-20th century, most observed warming has taken place in four events: in 1979/80 and 1997/98 at the global scale, 1988/89 in the Northern Hemisphere and 1968–70 in the Southern Hemisphere. Temperature is more step-like than trend-like on a regional basis. Satellite temperature is more step-like than surface temperature. Warming from internal trends is less than 40 % of the total for four of five global records tested (1880–2013/14). Test 2: correlations between step-change frequency in observations and models (1880–2005) are 0.32 (CMIP3) and 0.34 (CMIP5). For the period 1950–2005, grouping selected events (1963/64, 1968–70, 1976/77, 1979/80, 1987/88 and 1996–98), the correlation increases to 0.78. Test 3: steps and shifts (steps minus internal trends) from a 107-member climate model ensemble (2006–2095) explain total warming and equilibrium climate sensitivity better than internal trends. Test 4: in three regions tested, the change between stationary and non-stationary temperatures is step-like and attributable to external forcing. Test 5: step-like changes are also present in tide gauge observations, rainfall, ocean heat content and related variables. Test 6: across a selection of tests, a simple stepladder model better represents the internal structures of warming than a simple trend, providing strong evidence that the climate system is exhibiting complex system behaviour on decadal timescales. This model indicates that in situ warming of the atmosphere does not occur; instead, a store-and-release mechanism from the ocean to the atmosphere is proposed. It is physically plausible and theoretically sound. The presence of step-like – rather than gradual – warming is important information for characterising and managing future climate risk.

Extract: "Climate conceptualised as a mechanistic system and described using classical statistical methods is substantially different from climate conceptualised as a complex system.
With record atmospheric and surface ocean temperatures in 2015/16 variously being described as a singular event, a reinvigoration of trend-like warming or a wholesale shift to a new climate regime, this issue is too important to be left unresolved."

[AbruptSLR]

The first link leads to a collection of Journal of Climate references on the teleconnection of heat from the tropics to the poles; which will likely play a central role in any dynamical climate modeling of the risk of abrupt climate change.  While there are a large number of references including in the first links website, I only provide an abstract for the most recent reference at that website from the second link.  Purich et. al. (2016) indicate that a lot of the increase in sea ice extent around Antarctica  in the timeframe from 1979 to 2013 was associate with a period of negative IPO; however, as the IPO has now become positive, we can expect a decrease in Antarctic sea ice extent and an associated decrease in albedo.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/topic/connecting_tropics_to_polar


Ariaan Purich, Matthew H. England, Wenju Cai, Yoshimitsu Chikamoto, Axel Timmermann, John C. Fyfe, Leela Frankcombe, Gerald A. Meehl, and Julie M. Arblaster (2016), "Tropical Pacific SST Drivers of Recent Antarctic Sea Ice Trends', Journal of Climate, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0440.1


http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0440.1


Abstract: "A strengthening of the Amundsen Sea low from 1979 to 2013 has been shown to largely explain the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice concentration in the eastern Ross Sea and decrease in the Bellingshausen Sea. Here it is shown that while these changes are not generally seen in freely running coupled climate model simulations, they are reproduced in simulations of two independent coupled climate models: one constrained by observed sea surface temperature anomalies in the tropical Pacific and the other by observed surface wind stress in the tropics. This analysis confirms previous results and strengthens the conclusion that the phase change in the interdecadal Pacific oscillation from positive to negative over 1979–2013 contributed to the observed strengthening of the Amundsen Sea low and the associated pattern of Antarctic sea ice change during this period. New support for this conclusion is provided by simulated trends in spatial patterns of sea ice concentrations that are similar to those observed. These results highlight the importance of accounting for teleconnections from low to high latitudes in both model simulations and observations of Antarctic sea ice variability and change."

[AbruptSLR]

The linked RollingStone article is entitled: "The Doomsday Glacier".  The first attached image from the article presents a frightening looking artistic illustration of a possible initial collapse sequence for the Thwaites Glacier (the Doomsday Glacier).  The second attached image is from the Sentinel 1 satellite from May 16 2017, which shows a major crack in the Southwest Tributary Glacier Ice Shelf that is beginning to interconnect with a major crack in the Pine Island Ice Shelf; & I note that if the Southwest Tributary Glacier were to loss its ice shelf in the near future, this could trigger a collapse of the adjoining Thwaites Glacier:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-doomsday-glacier-w481260

[AbruptSLR]

For those who do not understand the significance of my last post I provide the following reposts from the 'Hazard Analysis for PIG/Thwaites from 2012 to 2040-2060 Timeframe ' thread, in the Antarctic folder:
From Reply #54 of the 'Hazard Analysis for PIG/Thwaites from 2012 to 2040-2060 Timeframe ' thread:

"The linked reference (with a free pdf and see the attached reference figure) presents a very interesting discussion of the potential migration of the eastern shear margin of the Thwaites Glacier, that could someday contribute to the accelerated ice mass loss from this critical basin:

http://www.igsoc.org/journal/59/217/j13J050.pdf


Weak bed control of the eastern shear margin of Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica; Joseph A. MacGREGOR, Ginny A. CATANIA, Howard CONWAY, Dustin M. SCHROEDER, Ian JOUGHIN, Duncan A. YOUNG, Scott D. KEMPF, & Donald D. BLANKENSHIP; Journal of Glaciology, Vol. 59, No. 217, 2013 doi: 10.3189/2013JoG13J050


"ABSTRACT. Recent acceleration and thinning of Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica, motivates investigation of the controls upon, and stability of, its present ice-flow pattern. Its eastern shear margin separates Thwaites Glacier from slower-flowing ice and the southern tributaries of Pine Island Glacier. Troughs in Thwaites Glacier’s bed topography bound nearly all of its tributaries, except along this eastern shear margin, which has no clear relationship with regional bed topography along most of its length. Here we use airborne ice-penetrating radar data from the Airborne Geophysical Survey of the Amundsen Sea Embayment, Antarctica (AGASEA) to investigate the nature of the bed across this margin.  Radar data reveal slightly higher and rougher bed topography on the slower-flowing side of the margin, along with lower bed reflectivity. However, the change in bed reflectivity across the margin is partially explained by a change in bed roughness. From these observations, we infer that the position of the eastern shear margin is not strongly controlled by local bed topography or other bed properties. Given the potential for future increases in ice flux farther downstream, the eastern shear margin may be vulnerable to migration. However, there is no evidence that this margin is migrating presently, despite ongoing changes farther downstream.""


From Reply #55 of the 'Hazard Analysis for PIG/Thwaites from 2012 to 2040-2060 Timeframe ' thread

"The MacGregor et al 2013 paper that I cite in the immediately preceding post is more significant than my brief comments from yesterday (and also in this post) indicate for reasons including:

(1) The first attached figure from MacGregor et al 2013 indicates: (a) In panel "b" the red jiggly line shows the crack location for the large iceberg that just calved from the Pine Island Ice Shelf, PIIS, this austal winter; which indicates that the next major calving event from PIIS will likely relieve the buttressing action on the glacier labeled "SW tributary", which will most likely accelerate the ice velocity, and will likely extend the upstream flow stream, for this "SW tributary" glacier; and  (b) Panel "a" shows that if the flow stream for the "SW tributary" glacier extends about 50km upstream then it will link with the eastern shear margin of the Thwaites Glacier (see also the figure in the preceding post that shows the shear strain from 2009).

(2) The back ground image of the second attached figure from NASA-JPL shows the changes in ice mass loss through 2012 as measured by the GRACE satellite (note that no scale is provided as the amounts may need to be increase by up to 40% to correct for GIA interpretation according to: An investigation of Glacial Isostatic Adjustment over the Amundsen Sea sector, West Antarctica; A. Groh; H. Ewert, M. Scheinert, M. Fritsche, A. Rülke, A. Richter, R. Rosenau, R. Dietrich; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.001).  Nevertheless this background image clearly shows that along the deep eastern portions of the Byrd Subglacial Basin and just west of the "Thwaites Glacier eastern shear margin" that the amount of ice mass loss has increased significantly between 2009 and 2012, indicating that either: (a) the ice flow in this critical area is slowly accelerating [and if the link between the flow stream for the "SW tributary" and the "Thwaites Glacier eastern shear margin" link as discussed in point (1) this may accelerate even faster]; and/or (b) a large amount of basal melt water is flowing out of the deep eastern portion of the Byrd Subglacial Basin.

(3) The third attached image shows the altimeter measured ice surface elevation change along the Amundsen Sea coastline by 2011 (see the "Surge" thread for details), indicating that the coastal zone of the Thwaites Glacier Gateway area is thinning rapidly and if the acceleration of ice flow along the "Thwaites Gacier eastern shear margin" discussed in points (1) and (2) occur then this thinning would both accelerate and would extend toward (and would link with) the thinning area upstream of the "SW tributary" glacier. 

(4) Given sufficient time, and/or sufficient ice flow acceleration, the ice thinning along the extended Thwaites Glacier Gateway discussed in point (3) could convert the ice in this area into an ice shelf that floats over the top of the somewhat rough bottom topology in this area shown in the fourth attached image.

If the scenario develops as discussed above over the next three decades then this would match the WAIS collapse scenario that I have presented both in this thread and elsewhere in the Antarctica folder."

[AbruptSLR]

While the vast majority of my posts are intended to make people more aware that consensus science's portrayal of climate change risk err considerably on the side of least drama; nevertheless, I still suspect that the majority of readers cannot see the forest from all of these damned trees in the way.  Therefore, I have decided to pick on the recent linked first article entitled: "SkS Analogy 4 - Ocean Time Lag", to illustrate how such a consensus based 'scientific' call to action can greatly underplay the risks associated with regard to dynamical climate sensitivity as illustrated by the second linked reference associated with the influences that the IPO as short-term GMSTA.  The first attached image is from the first reference & indicates that due to a 30-year lag we will not reach 2C warming until 2035 + 30 – 2065.  However, the second & third images, from the second reference, indicate respectively that we appear to have entered a warm IPO period (which may well last until ~2035); which indicates that we could reach +1.8C by 2034 (when considering the confidence range).

https://www.skepticalscience.com/SkS_Analogy_04_Ocean_Time_Lag.html

Extract: "Greenhouse gases (GHG) determine amount of warming, but oceans delay the warming.
…
This figure therefore shows the temperature anomaly starting in 1970, the year when the temperature increase due to greenhouse gases began to emerge from the background noise. This figure indicates 3 things: (1) the time lag between emitting greenhouse gases and when we see the principle effect is about 30 years, due mostly to the time required to heat the oceans, (2) the rate of temperature increase predicted by a climate sensitivity of 3°C tracks well with the observed rate of temperature increase, and (3) we have already locked in more than 1.5°C warming. As of 2017 we have reached 406 ppm CO2. At the current increase of 2 ppm CO2/yr., this implies that we will reach 440 ppm and lock in 2°C warming by 2035 … if we don’t act now."

The second reference is:

Henley, B. J and King, A. D. (2017) Trajectories toward the 1.5C Paris target: Modulation by the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1002/2017GL073480

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL073480/abstract

Abstract: "Global temperature is rapidly approaching the 1.5°C Paris target. In the absence of external cooling influences, such as volcanic eruptions, temperature projections are centered on a breaching of the 1.5°C target, relative to 1850–1900, before 2029. The phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) will regulate the rate at which mean temperature approaches the 1.5°C level. A transition to the positive phase of the IPO would lead to a projected exceedance of the target centered around 2026. If the Pacific Ocean remains in its negative decadal phase, the target will be reached around 5 years later, in 2031. Given the temporary slowdown in global warming between 2000 and 2014, and recent initialized decadal predictions suggestive of a turnaround in the IPO, a sustained period of rapid temperature rise might be underway. In that case, the world will reach the 1.5°C level of warming several years sooner than if the negative IPO phase persists."

Plain Language Summary
Global temperature is rapidly approaching the 1.5°C Paris target. In this study, we find that in the absence of external cooling influences, such as volcanic eruptions, the midpoint of the spread of temperature projections exceeds the 1.5°C target before 2029, based on temperatures relative to 1850–1900. We find that the phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), a slow-moving natural oscillation in the climate system, will regulate the rate at which global temperature approaches the 1.5°C level. A transition to the positive phase of the IPO would lead to a projected exceedance of the target centered around 2026. If the Pacific Ocean remains in its negative phase, however, the projections are centered on reaching the target around 5 years later, in 2031. Given the temporary slowdown in global warming between 2000 and 2014, and recent climate model predictions suggestive of a turnaround in the IPO, a sustained period of rapid temperature rise might be underway. In that case, the world will reach the 1.5°C level of warming several years sooner than if the negative IPO phase persists.


See also the associated following article entitled: "Pacific Ocean shift could see 1.5C limit breached within a decade":

https://www.carbonbrief.org/pacific-ocean-shift-could-see-1point5-limit-breached-within-decade

[AbruptSLR]

In my last post, I indicated that the dynamical impact of the current positive phase of the IPO may well accelerate the rate of increase of GMSTA through at least 2035.  While some readers may think that this is largely irrelevant as the IPO oscillates, so that after 2035 one would expect this dynamical impact to reverse itself during the following negative IPO phase, resulting in a neutral impact on climate change from the IPO.  However, such Pollyannaish thinking does not consider the fact that once triggered the main phase collapse of the WAIS is irreversible, and in this and the next few posts, I hope to present a few key considerations indicating that the initial stages of a WAIS main phase collapse could begin by the 2035 to 2040 timeframe.  I note that the Antarctic folder has multiple threads with more input on such a WAIS collapse scenario during this century:

Edit: I note that in September 2012 the Thwaites Ice Tongue flow rate surged and continued flowing at a high rate through the end of 2012 (and this high flow rate can be associated with the surface elevation depression shown in the second image)

In this regards, the linked reference studies a subglacial draining event beneath Thwaites Glacier from June 2013 to January 2014:

Smith et. al. (2017), "Connected subglacial lake drainage beneath Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica", The Cryosphere, 11, 451–467, doi:10.5194/tc-11-451-2017

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/11/451/2017/tc-11-451-2017.pdf

Abstract. We present conventional and swath altimetry data from CryoSat-2, revealing a system of subglacial lakes that drained between June 2013 and January 2014 under the central part of Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica (TWG). Much of the drainage happened in less than 6 months, with an apparent connection between three lakes spanning more than 130 km. Hydro-potential analysis of the glacier bed shows a large number of small closed basins that should trap water produced by subglacial melt, although the observed largescale motion of water suggests that water can sometimes locally move against the apparent potential gradient, at least during lake-drainage events. This shows that there are important limitations in the ability of hydro-potential maps to predict subglacial water flow. An interpretation based on a map of the melt rate suggests that lake drainages of this type should take place every 20–80 years, depending on the connectivity of the water flow at the bed. Although we observed an acceleration in the downstream part of TWG immediately before the start of the lake drainage, there is no clear connection between the drainage and any speed change of the glacier."

Related to this Smith et. al. (2017) reference, the first attached image shows the a 2009 image of the Thwaites subglacial cavity that collapsed before January 2013 (see the second image) and the location of the adjoining Thwaites subglacial lake that drained in the June 2013 to January 2014 timeframe.  I note that the Smith et. al. (2017) reference indicates that this subglacial lake drains every 20 to 80 years depending on the connectivity of the water flow on the bed (see the third image of the approximate layout of the Thwaites subglacial water drainage system), which means the next such drainage could well be in the 2035 to 2040 timeframe.  The fourth image shows how the glacial ice in this Thwaites gateway area breaks into relatively small (3 to 5 km on a side) icebergs that could float away from the Thwaites gateway during the next drainage event without being pinned to the seafloor as the current Thwaites Ice Tongue is.

[AbruptSLR]

Next, I provide a few abstracts from the linked: "Proceedings of the Wellington Symposium", held 12–17 February 2017, Wellington, New Zealand

https://www.igsoc.org/symposia/2017/newzealand/proceedings/proceedings.html

The first abstract (75A2445) indicates that the ice mass loss from the major Greenland outlet glaciers are "… influenced not only by their interaction with the ocean but equally by their interaction with the atmosphere, making them potentially more sensitive to climate change than thought so far."  Thus, with atypically high warming of the GMSTA to at least 2035, we could expect atypically high ice mass loss from the major Greenland outlet glacier, that could increase the current rate of cooling of the North Atlantic surface waters; which could impact the thermohaline ocean circulation (see the first image).  However, the second abstract (75A2308) indicates that recent findings from the RICE (Roosevelt Island climate evolution) project in the Ross Ice Shelf of Antarctica indicates that when the North Atlantic cools, due to the bipolar seesaw, the coastal ocean waters in the Amundsen Sea and Ross Sea areas warm rapidly.  The third abstract (75A2296) indicates that the ACME model confirms that with more global warming tropical Pacific atmospheric energy is telecommunicated to the Western Antarctic, which could increase local atmospheric temperatures resulting in more melt water ponds such as those indicated by the second image of surface melt days in Western Antarctica in January of 2005.  Lastly, the four abstract by DeConto (75A2456), indicates that hydrofracturing (from surface melt water) and cliff failures (from the loss of the Thwaites Ice Tongue) could trigger a collapse of the WAIS.

75A2445
Rapid melting in the basal zone of a major Greenland outlet glacier
Poul Christoffersen, Tun Jan Young, Bryn Hubbard, Samuel Huckerby Doyle, Alun Hubbard, Marion Bougamont, Coen Hofstede, Keith Nicholls
Corresponding author: Poul Christoffersen
Corresponding author e-mail: pc350@cam.ac.uk
The Greenland ice sheet is losing mass and raising sea levels by 1 mm a–1. While melting of the ice sheet explains half of the net annual loss, the other half is caused by dynamic processes operating in the catchments of marine-terminating outlet glaciers. These processes are poorly understood because they are confined to the basal zone, which is often inaccessible. The Subglacial Access and Fast Ice Research Experiment (SAFIRE) is addressing this paucity of data by drilling to the bed of Store Glacier, the second-largest outlet glacier in West Greenland in terms of flux. Seven 600-m-deep boreholes were drilled to the base of the glacier, about 30 km inland from the calving terminus, at a location where ice flows at a rate of 700 m a–1. Sensors installed at the bed and within ice show that the glacier overrides a warm bed consisting of soft, water-saturated sediment. Basal motion comprised a combination of intense deformation of temperature basal ice as well as sliding. High basal water pressure with diurnal variations showed that water produced on the surface is transported subglacially in a distributed basal water system, which nevertheless was sufficiently efficient to cause rapid lowering of the water level in all seven boreholes, once the system was intercepted. To evaluate the quantify of heat transported from surface to bed, we measured rates of basal melting with a phase-sensitive, frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) radar system installed autonomously at the borehole drill site. The radar captured internal and basal reflector ranges at high spatial (millimetre) and temporal (hourly) resolutions, producing a unique time series of ice deformation and basal melting, coincident with englacial and subglacial borehole measurements. Here, we show that the rate of basal melting was 3 m a–1 in winter, when heat at the bed is provided mainly by basal friction, and that it increases to 20 m a–1 in summer, when heat is also transported to the bed from the surface. Our measurements show that the flow of outlet glaciers from the Greenland Ice Sheet is influenced not only by their interaction with the ocean but equally by their interaction with the atmosphere, making them potentially more sensitive to climate change than thought so far.

75A2308
Glacial Antarctic warm events as captured by RICE ice core
Abhijith UV, Nancy Bertler, Giuseppe Cortese
Corresponding author: Abhijith UV
Corresponding author e-mail: Abhijith.Uv@vuw.ac.nz
The last glacial period in Antarctica has been punctuated by several episodes of warm events, where air temperature rose between 1 and 3°C, which are referred to as Antarctic isotope maxima (AIM). On correlating high-resolution Antarctic and Greenland ice-core records for AIM events, an out-of-phase relationship has been observed between both the hemispheres, with Antarctica warming when Greenland is under a cold phase and Antarctica cooling when Greenland stays in a warm state. This out-of-phase relationship is called the ‘bipolar seesaw’. Possible explanations include oceanic teleconnections via a shift in strength of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and Antarctic bottom water (AABW) formation. A recent comparison between the WAIS Divide and NGRIP records identified a Northern Hemisphere lead of about 218 ± 92 a and 208 ± 96 a for the onset and termination of Dangaard/Oeschger and AIM events, further evidence for an important oceanic role in the interhemispheric energy distribution. Roosevelt Island is a local ice rise at the northern edge of the Ross Ice Shelf. A 764 m deep ice core, the Roosevelt Island Climate Evolution (RICE) core, was obtained over two field seasons in 2011/12 and 2012/13. Due to its proximity to the Ross Sea, one of the major contributors to AABW, the RICE records have the potential to provide new insights into the drivers and consequences during the evolution of AIM events. Here, we will present preliminary data of the major ion record from the RICE ice core covering an age range of 18–60 ka with the main focus of understanding core aspects of AABW during AIM events, including its strength and mode of formation and further to test the bipolar seesaw hypothesis.

75A2296
Role of tropical teleconnections in changes in the Southern Ocean dynamics and Antarctic sea-ice extent in the ACME Earth System Model
Rahul Sivankutty, Diana Francis, Eayrs Clare, David Holland, Stephen Price
Corresponding author: Rahul Sivankutty
Corresponding author e-mail: rs5521@nyu.edu
Recent studies suggest that changes in the Southern Ocean, particularly the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, can influence the thermal structure of the upper ocean and thus affect sea-ice concentration in the Antarctic region. The poleward shifting of subtropical westerlies can result in changes in ocean circulation pattern. The changes in the Southern Annular Mode, and its linkage to tropical SST variability, prove that tropical teleconnections can play an important role in Antarctic climate variability. Using a state-of-the-art Earth system model – the US Department of Energy’s Accelerated Climate Model for Energy (ACME) – which includes coupled representations of all of the components of the physical climate system (atmosphere, land, ocean, sea ice and land ice), we study the tropical linkages to the variability in the Southern Ocean and Antarctic sea ice. The study validates the model’s ability to capture the observed teleconnection patterns. The mechanisms by which the tropical climate influences the dynamics of the Southern Ocean and thereby Antarctic sea ice variability are highlighted.

75A2456
Future fate of the polar ice sheets and implications for global coastlines
Rob DeConto
Corresponding author: Rob DeConto
Corresponding author e-mail: deconto@geo.umass.edu
New climate and ice-sheet modeling, calibrated to past changes in sea level, is painting a stark picture of the future fate of the great polar ice sheets if greenhouse-gas emissions continue unabated. This is especially true for Antarctica, where a substantial fraction of the ice sheet rests on bedrock more than 500 m below sea level. Here, we will explore the sensitivity of the polar ice sheets to a warming atmosphere and ocean, using models that include previously underappreciated physical processes, including surface meltwater-driven hydrofracturing and structural failure of ice cliffs. Approaches to more precisely define the climatic thresholds capable of triggering rapid and potentially irreversible ice-sheet retreat will also be discussed, as will the potential for policy and aggressive mitigation strategies like those discussed at the 2015 Paris Climate Conference to substantially reduce the risk of extreme sea-level rise.

[AbruptSLR]

For my last post in this series about an potential early trigger to the main phase collapse of the WAIS in the 2035 to 2040 timeframe, I provide the linked reference [Hay et. al (2016)] that evaluates the implications of more accurately considering a 3-D viscoelastic Earth models as opposed to the less accurate assumption of elastic response on the sea-level fingerprint implications of an abrupt collapse of the WAIS.  Their findings conclude that "… when viscous effects are included, the peak sea-level fall predicted in the vicinity of WAIS during a melt event will increase by ~25% and ~50%, relative to the elastic case, for events of duration 25 years and 100 years, respectively."  This is important as the local change in sea level is due to ice mass loss from the WAIS; and I note that the magma below the Thwaites Glacier has low viscosity.

Carling C. Hay, Harriet C. P. Lau, Natalya Gomez, Jacqueline Austermann, Evelyn Powell, Jerry X. Mitrovica, Konstantin Latychev, and Douglas A. Wiens (2016), "Sea-level fingerprints in a region of complex Earth structure: The case of WAIS", Journal of Climate, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0388.1


http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0388.1


Abstract: "Sea-level fingerprints associated with rapid melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) have generally been computed under the assumption of a purely elastic response of the solid Earth. We investigate the impact of viscous effects on these fingerprints by computing gravitationally self-consistent sea-level changes that adopt a 3-D viscoelastic Earth model in the Antarctic region consistent with available geological and geophysical constraints. In West Antarctica, the model is characterized by a thin (~65 km) elastic lithosphere and sub-lithospheric viscosities that span three orders of magnitude, reaching values as low as ~4 × 1018 Pa s beneath WAIS. Our calculations indicate that sea-level predictions in the near field of WAIS will depart significantly from elastic fingerprints in as little as a few decades. For example, when viscous effects are included, the peak sea-level fall predicted in the vicinity of WAIS during a melt event will increase by ~25% and ~50%, relative to the elastic case, for events of duration 25 years and 100 years, respectively. Our results have implications for studies of sea-level change due to both ongoing mass loss from WAIS over the next century and future, large scale collapse of WAIS on century-to-millennial time scales."

I conclude this post by noting that the first image from Vaughan et. al. (2011) shows the height of ice above flotation for the WAIS, with superimposed black lines showing seaways that they believed occurred during the last collapse of the WAIS.  In the second image I have sketched on top of the Vaughan et. al. (2011) image the areas of the WAIS that I believe may initiate the main phase collapse of the WAIS circa 2040, assuming we follow RCP 8.5 through 2035.

[AbruptSLR]

As a follow-up to Replies #288 & 289, the first attached Sentinel 1a image of the Pine Island Ice Shelf, PIIS, for May 21 2017, shows that the crack in the PIIS is becoming wider and may interconnect with the large crack in the ice shelf for the SW Tributary glacier.  If/when both of these ice shelves calve they may relieve the buttress action of the SW Tributary glacier, which would put more stress on the Thwaites Glacier's eastern shear margin; which would cause the ice flow velocity for Thwaites to increase somewhat.

Edit: For those who cannot see the images in Reply #289, I provide the second attached image illustrating the connection between the Thwaites Eastern Shear Margin and the SW Tributary Glacier.

[AbruptSLR]

I feel that in Reply #291, I wasn't very clear on the recent subglacial lake drainage event beneath Thwaites Glacier.  Therefore, here is more information on the June 2013 to Jan 2014 drainage of four subglacial lakes beneath the Thwaites Glacier.  The article is entitled: "Hidden lakes drain below West Antarctica’s Thwaites Glacier".

http://www.washington.edu/news/2017/02/08/hidden-lakes-drained-under-west-antarcticas-thwaites-glacier/

Extract: "Researchers at the University of Washington and the University of Edinburgh used data from the European Space Agency’s CryoSat-2 to identify a sudden drainage of large pools below Thwaites Glacier, one of two fast-moving glaciers at the edge of the ice sheet. The study published Feb. 8 in The Cryosphere finds four interconnected lakes drained in the eight months from June 2013 and January 2014. The glacier sped up by about 10 percent during that time, showing that the glacier’s long-term movement is fairly oblivious to trickles at its underside.
…
Melting at the ice sheet base would refill the lakes in 20 to 80 years, Smith said. Over time meltwater gradually collects in depressions in the bedrock. When the water reaches a certain level it breaches a weak point, then flows through channels in the ice. As Thwaites Glacier thins near the coast, its surface will become steeper, Smith said, and the difference in ice pressure between inland regions and the coast may push water coastward and cause more lakes to drain."

[AbruptSLR]

Also, I think that I have not been so clear about the relationship of the geothermal heat flux and the basal ice melting in the WAIS.  Therefore, the linked reference (see also the first attached image and associated caption below) provides more evidence of high geothermal flux and associated basal melt water beneath the Thwaites Glacier, both of which will threaten its future stability:

Dustin M. Schroeder, Donald D. Blankenship, Duncan A. Young, and Enrica Quartini, (2014), "Evidence for elevated and spatially variable geothermal flux beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet", PNAS, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1405184111

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/06/04/1405184111.abstract

http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2014/06/04/1405184111.DCSupplemental

Also see:
http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/06/10/antarctic-glacier-melting/

Caption: "This map shows the locations of geothermal flow underneath Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica that were identified with airborne ice-penetrating radar. The dark magenta triangles show where geothermal flow exceeds 150 milliwatts per square meter, and the light magenta triangles show where flow exceeds 200 milliwatts per square meter. Letters C, D and E denote high melt areas: in the western-most tributary, C; adjacent to the Crary mountains, D; and in the upper portion of the central tributaries, E. Credit: University of Texas Institute Geophysics"

For those who are interested, I provide the following the second image from:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/high-heat-measured-under-antarctica-could-support-substantial-life/

Finally, the third image should another image of the subglacial drainage system beneath Thwaites & PIG, while the fourth image shows the associate surface ice flow velocities from 2016.

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article discusses the prospect for building more large dams in Latin America's rainforests, and I note that large quantities of methane will be released by the flooded organics due to these future tropical dams:

"Why is Latin America so obsessed with mega dams?"

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/may/23/why-latin-america-obsessed-mega-dams

Extract: "The era of big dam-building is not over, but technological progress and economies of scale now offer governments alternatives that did not exist 20 years ago. In places such as Patagonia and the Atacama desert, South America has some of the best wind and solar sites in the world. Better-designed smaller dams and geothermal and marine energy are now being discussed.
…
There are few remaining wild rivers in Latin America and many that have already been dammed are likely to be impounded again and again. Back in Amapá state, the people of Ferreiro Gomes fear that the Araguari will be further diminished. “There are proposals to build another, possible two more dams on the Araguari,” says Remuyna."

[Hyperion]

The Chimpanzee story

There's two species here, separated by the river Congo. The Chimpanzee, and what used to be called bonobo chimps, now just bonobos.  Bonobos are more slender, walk more upright and are genetically closest of current apes to humans.
First the Chimps.
From the studies of primate society behavior, comparisons with corporate s, religions and politicians, all have the same social structures as humans.
The only difference being that the bigger the brains the more complex the games, we have the Chimp story:

Early in the day the junior males all go out into the jungle, to forage for food for the troop.
The Alpha male sleeps in late, then gets up and picks a trail, walks a little then he waits. Hes found a bush to hide behind, built a comfy nest, and lazes away the day in cozy bliss.
One of the junior monkeys has been clever, he's secured  a bunch of nice bananas, and doing this took quite some time. Those bananas were hanging out of reach of other chimps, but a creative chimp like him has found a way.
 Hes looked at the problem long and hard, and inspiration came, a long branch with forked end was found nearby.  Hes now got those bananas and is hurrying home, filled with pride and warm feelings,  anticipating sharing those bananas with the troop.
 When he comes around a corner, the Alpha leaps out and grabs him, drags him behind the bush and beats him to a pulp. Taking his bananas the Alpha strolls home to the troop, when he gets there he hoots look at what I've got. I've found these nice bananas, for everychimps enjoyment, and come enjoy the bounty all you lot.
 He hands out the bananas, but keeps a few for coming plot. When later junior limps in, all bloody, covered in snot, Mr Alpha makes a big and special show. Hooting in fake horror, he shows all the other chimps, what a caring sorta dude he really is.
 He makes soothing cooing noises, strokes juniors dishevelled fur, and says you poor chimp, whatever happened to you. Then he cracks a cheesy grin, staring junior in the eyes and says here, have a nice banana.
 The Betas of the troop, those syncophont primates, smirk and give each other knowing grins. Those Capos know whats up, they've had their breaking process, they know it made them the chimps they are today. They pay homage to the Alpha, congratulations for his guile, with deferential pats and hoots of pleasure.
The Capos ain't too dumb, but they try to look that way,  cause if the Alpha notices them being clever they'll be killed. Mr Alpha don't like smarties, they might knock him off his perch, and being on that perch is all he lives for.
The other junior primates, and the females of the troop, notice nothing at all of this nonsense. They want to think their leader noble, blind their ears and eyes to contrary evidence, and go on living quietly at their jobs.
Junior has a choice to make, one way is to be broken, have his empathy cross wired. He can learn to be a capo, enjoy pain and fear in others, and hate it when he see's them happy.
The other way is harder, he must be an outsider, learn to live as an Omega. These lonesome mystic chimps, spend life in isolation, perched in tallest trees and top of cliffs, they quietly meditate throughout their days.
 Excluded to the edge of troop boundries, they have the most important function, calling warnings to the troop as rival troops invade. They get no thanks for this, no food is shared with them, but about that they care not one little bit. Humble and strong of spirit, they know that when they need it, they don't need to search for food, it finds them.
We've learned that should you take away Omegas, unlike any other chimps, the troop dies from invasion and deceit.
The female chimpanzee troop members, live their lives in bondage, closely guarded by the Alpha and his capos. They're supposed to bonk only for procreation, and only with the psychos, those dominating Alpha and his Betas. But sometimes young ones slip away, find themselves an Omega, and perpetuate his genes for all chimps benefit.

This seems appropriate here:
Fear & Love
Morcheeba
We always have a choice
Or at least I think we do
We can always use
our voice
I thought this to be true
We can live in fear
Extend our selves to love
We can fall below
Or lift our selves above
Fear
 can stop you loving
Love
 can stop your fear
Fear
can stop you loving
But its not always that clear
I always try so hard
To share my self around
But now I'm closing up again
Drilling through the ground
Fear
 can stop you loving
Love
can stop your fear
Fear
can stop you loving
But its not always that
clear
I'd love to give my self away
But I find it hard to
trust
I've got no map to find my way
Amongst these clouds of
dust
Fear
 can stop you loving
Love
can stop your fear
Fear
can stop you loving
Love
can stop your fear
Fear
can stop you loving
Love
can stop your fear
Fear can stop you loving
But
it's not always that clear
But
it's not always that clear
But
it's not always that clear
But
it's not always that clear


The Bonobo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo story is much lighter, an exception in primate societies, other than the human story of pre-patriarchal cultures that ruled the world before the recent era, they :
The Bonobos don't form their hierarchies with violence, they do it with love.
They are all bisexual, and are the only species, other than the humans, on this planet that make love whether or not they are currently fertile.
Most of their social interactions involve sex. They use sex to say hello, goodbye, I'm the boss of you, and sorry for your loss.
"Sex functions in conflict appeasement, affection, social status, excitement, and stress reduction. It occurs in virtually all partner combinations and in a variety of positions. This is a factor in the lower levels of aggression seen in the bonobo when compared to the common chimpanzee and other apes." quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo
As far as their hierarchies go, all the females rank higher than any male, and if you're a male your rank - and breeding opportunities - are set by how much respect your mother has in the troupe.

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article entitled: "The Myth of the Alpha Male", adds context to the discussion of alpha, beta and omega males in chimp vs human cultures:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-myth-of-the-alpha-male-a7724971.html

Extract: "But when you delve into scientific research, there’s little evidence to suggest alpha males are anything more than a myth.
…
Many primates have social hierarchies with one most dominant member at the top, but this isn’t something that works for humans. If it was the same, that would mean there was only one dominant male in every community.
…
… Kaufman has a problem with the division of men into alpha and beta - he thinks it “greatly simplifies the multi-dimensionality of masculinity, and grossly underestimates what a man is capable of becoming, but it also doesn’t even get at the heart of what is really attractive to women.”
…
“In our species, the attainment of social status, and the mating benefits that come along with it, can be accomplished through compassion and cooperation just as much (if not more so) as through aggression and intimidation,” says Kaufman."