Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: When and how bad?  (Read 273224 times)

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #450 on: January 18, 2014, 01:56:14 PM »

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #451 on: January 18, 2014, 03:58:35 PM »
DO,

Being our resident ENSO expert I was wondering if you know of some papers which are not paywalled which show the paleo reconstructions of ENSO events over the last 1000 years.  I have been looking and can't find any which have the info I was looking for.

I am reading a book right now by a couple of paleo-climate scientists who are writing about water issues in the southwest of the US.  In their book they talk a lot about the impact of ENSO events since the beginning of the Holocene and especially over the last few thousand years.  In the book they state that paleo records indicate that during the Medieval Climate Anomaly La Nina conditions persisted from 900 to 1300 and during the Little Ice Age El Nino conditions persisted for more than 100 years.  They also mention it was common for one of the conditions to persist for a couple of decades at times.  Other papers I have found indicate that the frequency of changing between the two conditions has become much more frequent over the last few decades. 

I find all this pretty interesting and was trying to find a paper with graphs or charts which showed these cycles in some detail going back as much as 1000 years.  I was also looking for papers which chart the cycles of the PDO (another big issue in the book) and maybe even lay the two features over each other.  The papers I have read indicate that the PDO tends to dampen or amplify the ENSO events and I wanted to  see how that looked.

Any help you can provide is appreciated.
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

Bruce Steele

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1784
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 436
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #452 on: January 18, 2014, 04:31:57 PM »
JimD, Although the sardine boom and bust cycle can only be used as a proxy you might be interested in this study done on fish scales preserved in an anaerobic basin near Santa Barbara. There is some lag time in how these fish populations respond to changes in water temperature because they live ten years or so but it also takes a few years to recover after a crash.  Check out the graphs on page 38 of this paper.

http://www.calcofi.org/publications/calcofireports/v33/Vol_33_Baumgartner_etal.pdf

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #453 on: January 18, 2014, 05:55:00 PM »
Bruce,

Thanks.  There is actually a section in the book I am reading about reconstructions done with sediments in the Santa Barbara Basin.  I am always impressed with work like this.  Clever.
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17750
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 829
  • Likes Given: 309
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #454 on: February 04, 2014, 02:55:33 PM »
This is crazy (bad) -- Pakistan's population is 182 million!
"Pakistan Has A Month’s Worth Of Water Left — And 5 Percent Of Its Tree Cover"

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/03/3238781/deforestation-water-energy-pakistan/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #455 on: February 04, 2014, 05:11:41 PM »
Sig

Your link is another example of bad reporting by Climate Progress.  Since I follow this kind of topic a bit I thought the article was likely inaccurate so I went to the report they based it upon.

The 30 day supply of water they are referring to in the CP article was actually not the amount of water left available to the country, it is the storage capacity of all of their reservoirs.  Big difference.  The report was advocating the construction of new reservoirs.  Not that Pakistan is not in water trouble as 80% of their farmland is irrigated and run off out of the mountains is critical and they will surely be short many of the future years.  But, no it is not accurate that they only have 30 days of water left.
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17750
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 829
  • Likes Given: 309
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #456 on: February 04, 2014, 05:43:32 PM »
JimD,
Thanks, I thought they had to mean something like that. 
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Vergent

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 573
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #457 on: March 15, 2014, 12:10:34 PM »

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #458 on: March 15, 2014, 03:47:03 PM »
Nasa-funded study: industrial civilisation headed for 'irreversible collapse'?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists

It would appear that NASA has started visiting this blog.

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #459 on: June 13, 2014, 04:45:02 PM »

jonthed

  • New ice
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #460 on: July 20, 2014, 04:24:53 PM »
Has everybody seen this work released in March this year by the Apollo-Gaia Foundation? They have spent the past 8 years on a collaborative effort to try to better quantify the Earth System Sensitivity (ESS). Which had this praise from Peter Wadhams (Professor of Oceanography, Dept. of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge):

Quote
It is a completely staggering work, the most important thing in climate change research that I have ever seen. It is also enormously saddening, since it indicates that we are heading for complete disaster as the climate system takes off into accelerated warming which may well exceed a tipping point and become self-sustaining and self-accelerating.
full comment here: http://www.apollo-gaia.org/SCBContributions/Wadhams-140606.html

The report:
http://www.apollo-gaia.org/sensitivitycarbonbudget.html

David Wasdell (director of this project) also has released these videos on what's going on in the arctic already, and the future implications these changes have:

http://www.apollo-gaia.org/ArcticDynamics.html

Altogether perhaps nothing new to most people here, but quite clearly explained, and the work on the Earth System Sensitivity and the complete lack of any remaining carbon budget is striking.

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #461 on: September 07, 2014, 02:10:48 PM »
Has everybody seen this work released in March this year by the Apollo-Gaia Foundation? They have spent the past 8 years on a collaborative effort to try to better quantify the Earth System Sensitivity (ESS).

Thanks, jonthed. Reading up now. Very interesting work.
[]

GeoffBeacon

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 391
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #462 on: September 08, 2014, 11:28:46 AM »
I have come across David Wadsell several times since 2007, when I used to write to goverment departments about his work e.g. Sensitivity and the Carbon Budget http://www.meridian.org.uk/Resources/Global%20Dynamics/Feedback%20Dynamics/index.htm

It was hard to get responses but one was

Quote
The article by David Wasdell leaves the impression that it is inevitable that temperature dependent positive feedbacks will overwhelm the climate system, resulting in accelerated climate change. The recent report of the IPCC suggests that this is an extreme view for this century. However, it is clear that as temperatures rise, the risk of abrupt changes increases. This underlines the urgency of action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Also, his conclusion that climate change will continue to accelerate even if atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration was stabilised would surely depend on the level of stabilisation achieved. For example, if the UK emissions targets were adopted worldwide in a future climate agreement, accelerated climate change, following stabilisation, would be unlikely.
That reads to me as typical civil service "I hope this helps" reply designed to give nothing away. In the end I gave up asking.

I've downloaded the PDF and read his Sensitivity and the Carbon Budget, http://www.apollo-gaia.org/Climate_Sensitivity.htm and it's very plausible. I can't see any problem with it. Can anyone else?


Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

GeoffBeacon

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 391
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #463 on: September 08, 2014, 11:45:08 AM »
I would like to know why David Wadsell's work has received so little attention.

Any clues?

I get the impression he is an outsider. The design of his website http://www.apollo-gaia.org gives me that impression too and some of his comments won't endear him to mainstream scientists

Quote
The IPCC report, in so far as it goes, is absolutely solid. However in terms of whether it is fit for purpose as a ground for strategic policy-making, the answer is 'no, it is not fit for purpose' for the reasons that I have outlined. It is a foundation, but we need to work with an understanding of the problematique that we face, that is to do with the reality of the system in which we live, not a conservative computer model of that reality that doesn't do justice to the crisis.

http://www.apollo-gaia.org/ClubofRome.html
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #464 on: September 08, 2014, 12:03:27 PM »
And yet, the Club of Rome is not exactly the company outsiders keep....
[]

Richard Rathbone

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 756
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #465 on: September 08, 2014, 07:11:27 PM »
I have come across David Wadsell several times since 2007, when I used to write to goverment departments about his work e.g. Sensitivity and the Carbon Budget http://www.meridian.org.uk/Resources/Global%20Dynamics/Feedback%20Dynamics/index.htm

It was hard to get responses but one was

Quote
The article by David Wasdell leaves the impression that it is inevitable that temperature dependent positive feedbacks will overwhelm the climate system, resulting in accelerated climate change. The recent report of the IPCC suggests that this is an extreme view for this century. However, it is clear that as temperatures rise, the risk of abrupt changes increases. This underlines the urgency of action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Also, his conclusion that climate change will continue to accelerate even if atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration was stabilised would surely depend on the level of stabilisation achieved. For example, if the UK emissions targets were adopted worldwide in a future climate agreement, accelerated climate change, following stabilisation, would be unlikely.
That reads to me as typical civil service "I hope this helps" reply designed to give nothing away. In the end I gave up asking.

I've downloaded the PDF and read his Sensitivity and the Carbon Budget, http://www.apollo-gaia.org/Climate_Sensitivity.htm and it's very plausible. I can't see any problem with it. Can anyone else?

The main problem is that he hasn't got a robust method for the timescales of the feedbacks that lead to the eventual full response. Its one thing to work out that there's a lot of warming in the pipeline, but another to work out whether that pipeline is going to deliver on a timescale of 10 years or 100,000 years. If its 10 years (and some of it is), then its our problem, but if its 100,000 years (and some of it is), its somebody else's problem.

There are positive and negative feedbacks, but there are pretty heavy damping mechanisms too, and he hasn't explored those or quantified them and as a result gives the impression that things will happen faster than they actually can.

He's saying we need to behave as if its all going to appear on the 10-100 year timescale, rather than behave as if what we know will appear on the 10-100 year timescale will happen and leave the 100-100,000 year timescale for later while keeping an eye on developments in case we have the wrong idea about how strong the damping is.

GeoffBeacon

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 391
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #466 on: September 08, 2014, 07:36:57 PM »
Vidaloo.

Unfortunately, I also get the impression that the Club of Rome have been sidelined. I went to a presentation given to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil and Gas in the UK Parliament in July 2011. It was Reassessing the Club of Rome's 1972 'Limits to Growth' Report. The speaker was Dr Graham Turner of CSIRO.

He discussed the impression that the Club of Rome had been found to be wrong - that their dire predictions in Limits to Growth hadn't happened but he pointed out that we hadn't yet reached the time for which most of the predictions in Limits to Growth applied. Wikipedia has

Quote
A study by Graham Turner of the research organisation CSIRO in Australia in 2008 found that "30 years of historical data compare favorably with key features of a business-as-usual scenario called the ‘‘standard run’’ scenario, which results in collapse of the global system midway through the 21st century.

Tim Worstall's criticism of the Club of Rome in his blog for the Adam Smith Institute is worth reading: Yes, the Club of Rome and Limits to Growth is still piffle, why do you ask? http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/energy-environment/yes-the-club-of-rome-and-limits-to-growth-is-still-piffle-why-do-you-ask/

But I find David Wasdell's analysis much more compelling.

Does anyone else?
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18791
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2048
  • Likes Given: 255
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #467 on: September 08, 2014, 10:29:59 PM »
GeoffBeacon,

While I personally do find many of Wasdell's point compelling, I must also agree with Richard Rathbone that Wasdell's methodology for the timescale of the feedback mechanisms is not robust enough to convince policy makers of the seriousness of this issue.  Unfortunately, one would need a Global Circulation Model, that is more sophisticated than those currently available to prove Wasdell's points.  For the past nominally 15 to 17 years the Earth's true climate sensitivity has been masked by such factors as: (a) the cool phases of both the PDO and the AMO; (b) heavy air pollution over much of Asia and Africa; (c) volcanic activity and (d) a temporary surge of plant growth in previously marginal regions (desert, and permafrost, areas).  Now that such masking factors are coming to an end, we are likely to see abrupt warming for several decades as occurred in both the Younger, and Oldest, Dryers as cited in the following reference (see also the attached image from Buizert (2014)):

Christo Buizert, Vasileios Gkinis, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, Feng He, Benoit S. Lecavalier, Philippe Kindler, Markus Leuenberger, Anders E. Carlson, Bo Vinther, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, James W. C. White, Zhengyu Liu, Bette Otto-Bliesner, & Edward J. Brook, (2014), "Greenland temperature response to climate forcing during the last deglaciation", Science, 5 September 2014: Vol. 345 no. 6201 pp. 1177-1180, DOI: 10.1126/science.1254961

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6201/1177

Abstract: "Greenland ice core water isotopic composition (δ18O) provides detailed evidence for abrupt climate changes but is by itself insufficient for quantitative reconstruction of past temperatures and their spatial patterns. We investigate Greenland temperature evolution during the last deglaciation using independent reconstructions from three ice cores and simulations with a coupled ocean-atmosphere climate model. Contrary to the traditional δ18O interpretation, the Younger Dryas period was 4.5° ± 2°C warmer than the Oldest Dryas, due to increased carbon dioxide forcing and summer insolation. The magnitude of abrupt temperature changes is larger in central Greenland (9° to 14°C) than in the northwest (5° to 9°C), fingerprinting a North Atlantic origin. Simulated changes in temperature seasonality closely track changes in the Atlantic overturning strength and support the hypothesis that abrupt climate change is mostly a winter phenomenon."

See also the following extract from:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140904141953.htm

Extract: "In addition to the gradual warming of five degrees (C) over a 6,000-year period beginning 18,000 years ago the study investigated two periods of abrupt warming and one period of abrupt cooling documented in the new ice cores. The researchers say their leading hypothesis is that all three episodes are tied to changes in the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), which brings warm water from the tropics into the high northern latitudes.
The first episode caused a jump in Greenland's air temperatures of 10-15 degrees (C) in just a few decades beginning about 14,700 years ago. An apparent shutdown of the AMOC about 12,800 years ago caused an abrupt cooling of some 5-9 degrees (C), also over a matter of decades.

When the AMOC was reinvigorated again about 11,600 years ago, it caused a jump in temperatures of 8-, 11 degrees (C), which heralded the end of the ice age and the beginning of the climatically warm and stable Holocene period, which allowed human civilization to develop.
"For these extremely abrupt transitions, our data show a clear fingerprint of AMOC variations, which had not yet been established in the ice core studies," noted Buizert, who is in OSU's College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences. "Other evidence for AMOC changes exists in the marine sediment record and our work confirms those findings.""

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

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #468 on: September 08, 2014, 10:40:05 PM »
New satellite maps show polar ice caps melting at 'unprecedented rate'
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/01/new-satellite-maps-show-polar-ice-caps-melting-at-unprecedented-rate

I  am not a specialist but it appears to me that it is very difficult to know how the earth will react to a run away process of that kind since it has never happened before...The politicians have no excuse facing uncertainty, the minimum they have to do is stabilizing the green house gazes as quickly as they can no matter what. We are far from it. That does mean also informing the citizens  of what is happening and what that will mean for them personally and for the nations economies that have to be rescaled accordingly.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2014, 09:47:17 AM by Laurent »

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #469 on: September 09, 2014, 02:00:32 AM »
That reads to me as typical civil service "I hope this helps" reply designed to give nothing away. In the end I gave up asking.

That may be the ultimate de–facto function of the IPCC. Making it possible for civil servants and politicians to just say «Look, we've got this government panel that deals with this sort of stuff. Talk to the hand.»
[]

GeoffBeacon

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 391
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #470 on: September 09, 2014, 09:30:11 AM »
Richard Rathbone, AbruptSLR

Quote
The main problem is that he hasn't got a robust method for the timescales of the feedbacks that lead to the eventual full response. Its one thing to work out that there's a lot of warming in the pipeline, but another to work out whether that pipeline is going to deliver on a timescale of 10 years or 100,000 years. If its 10 years (and some of it is), then its our problem, but if its 100,000 years (and some of it is), its somebody else's problem.

Yes, he doesn't give timescales in the Feedback Dynamics presentation but has given a useful framework for putting in our own timescales and weights in a way that is much more accessible than the millions of lines of code in the CMIP5 models (and these have missing feedbacks anyway. Some of thes missing feedbacks (e.g. increased wildfires) we can see now. 

Quote
There are positive and negative feedbacks, but there are pretty heavy damping mechanisms too, and he hasn't explored those or quantified them

Can you list some damping mechanisms?

Quote
as a result gives the impression that things will happen faster than they actually can.

I think Wasdell's formulation has given me a framework to make my own judgements on timescales that I can test bu asking others better informed than me.  Why do I want to make my own judgements? Because experience has given me a significant distrust of "official" storys.

What I want to know is there a flaw in Wasdell's framework.
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #471 on: September 09, 2014, 05:20:26 PM »

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #472 on: September 09, 2014, 08:36:43 PM »
A bit redundant but still a media coverage.

Ocean acidification and greenhouse gases hit new records
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2548735/ocean_acidification_and_greenhouse_gases_hit_new_records.html

Quote
Nitrous oxide's atmospheric concentration in 2013 was about 325.9 ppb. Its impact on climate, over a century, is 298 times greater than equal emissions of CO2. It also plays an important role in the destruction of the ozone layer that protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet solar radiation.

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #473 on: September 09, 2014, 09:39:55 PM »
What I want to know is there a flaw in Wasdell's framework.

Only thing I could see, was that he gave Club of Rome the impression that even seafloor methane was in limited amounts. For any real–*LIFE* purposes it is not. It's pretty much the end of the world.
[]

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18791
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2048
  • Likes Given: 255
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #474 on: September 10, 2014, 04:15:35 AM »
Richard Rathbone, AbruptSLR
 

Quote
There are positive and negative feedbacks, but there are pretty heavy damping mechanisms too, and he hasn't explored those or quantified them

Can you list some damping mechanisms?

GeoffBeacon,

The following linked reference provides an example of damping a negative feedback mechanism.  In the tropics, one would normally assume that deforestation in the tropics would increase albedo (as tropical rainforests are otherwise dark green); however, deforestation also decreases local cloud cover resulting in a lower planetary albedo.  Thus one not only needs to model the negative feedback mechanisms correctly, but also how they are dampened by secondary affects.  An example of damping of a positive feedback, might be that decreases in the Arctic Sea Ice Extent decreases albedo; however, the associated increase in exposed ocean can result in increased Arctic sea smoke that increases albedo.

"A dampened land use change climate response towards the tropics" M. K. van der Molen, B. J. J. M. van den Hurk and W. Hazeleger

http://www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/ecearth_lucid_withfigures_accepted_cd.pdf

Abstract: "In climate simulations we find a pronounced zonal gradient of climate response to land cover change. Climate response approaches zero in the tropics, and increases towards the poles. The zonal gradient in climate response to land cover change results from damping feedbacks in the tropics, rather than from polar amplification. The main cause for the damping in the tropics is the decrease in cloud cover after deforestation, resulting in increased incoming radiation at the surface and a lower planetary albedo, both counteracting the increase in surface albedo with deforestation.  In our simulations, deforestation was also associated with a decrease in sensible heat flux but not a clear signal in evaporation. Zonal differences in climate response have implications for attribution of observed climate change, as well as for climate change mitigation strategies."

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

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3064
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 514
  • Likes Given: 355
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #475 on: September 10, 2014, 04:47:19 AM »
Quote
An example of damping of a positive feedback, might be that decreases in the Arctic Sea Ice Extent decreases albedo; however, the associated increase in exposed ocean can result in increased Arctic sea smoke that increases albedo.


Nice point. But if I understand you correctly, the sea smoke only dampens how strong the positive feedback of the ice loss albedo change is. The sea smoke gain in albedo couldn't possibly totally counterbalance the loss of sea ice, since it isn't as reflective (I would think) and isn't there all the time.

And this seems to be the general pattern--there are some damping feedbacks, but they only serve to slightly ameliorate the otherwise overwhelm power, magnitude and number of positive (exacerbating) feedbacks.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18791
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2048
  • Likes Given: 255
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #476 on: September 10, 2014, 12:41:56 PM »
wili,

As you know I firmly believe in the Precautionary Principle, and I believe that there is more than enough evidence that policy makers need to take serious action now.  Unfortunately, most policy makers say that there is competing demands on their resources and thus they want very accurate projections, to allow them to decide just how much effort to give to climate change relative to our other current problems.  Due to the complexities of Global Circulation Models, GCMs, providing very accurate projections is a major challenge, not only due to such factors as the damping of feedback mechanisms; but also because the feedback mechanisms (positive & negative) are often non-linear, and offer exhibit synergy with other mechanisms.  The calibration of all of this GCM complexity will keep scientists busy for a long time (time which society does not have), particularly since the vast majority of scientists intentionally error on the side of least drama.  As an example of some of this complexity you can scan through the "Slow Transition" thread in the Arctic Folder at the following link.

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,933.0.html

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

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #477 on: September 10, 2014, 01:27:56 PM »
I've been more or less aware of the dire climate problems since at least 1989, when «our» parliament made a climate promise that they later screamingly broke, as they always do, and even at that time it was said even by mainstream polluticians that the time when we have absolute certainly also will be a time when it's much too late to act.

So I definitely agree with those who say we know more than enough to act swiftly and decisively now. If that means regime change then regimes must be changed. Simple as that.

The calibration of all of this GCM complexity will keep scientists busy for a long time (time which society does not have), particularly since the vast majority of scientists intentionally error on the side of least drama.

PS: What happened to erring on the side of caution? What do these scientists think their Climate Panel assignment is?
« Last Edit: September 10, 2014, 01:51:46 PM by viddaloo »
[]

GeoffBeacon

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 391
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #478 on: September 10, 2014, 02:52:38 PM »
Calibrations of GCMs

It's worth pointing to POSTnote No 454 (January 2014) from the UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/POST-PN-454/risks-from-climate-feedbacks

This says

Quote
Compared to existing model estimates, it is likely that climate feedbacks will result in additional carbon in the atmosphere and additional warming. This is because the majority of poorly represented climate feedbacks are likely to be amplifying feedbacks. This additional atmospheric carbon from climate feedbacks could make it more difficult to avoid a greater than 2˚C rise in global temperatures without additional reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The strength of many amplifying feedbacks is likely to increase with warming, which could increase the risk of the climate changing state (Box 3). Some commentators suggest the uncertainties in our knowledge of carbon cycle and physical feedbacks may mean the Earth will warm faster than models currently estimate.

That's rather muted but some close to policy makers actually recognise the problem. I might see a couple of MPs soon. I'll ask them if the message got through to them and their colleagues - the message that the IPCC CMIP5 models are underpowered and the IPCC scenarios too optimistic.
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

Bruce Steele

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1784
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 436
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #479 on: September 10, 2014, 04:25:35 PM »
When and how bad? If we want to run a fifty/fifty chance then it looks like 2040 is a more likely end point than 2050 at current rates of increase in emissions.

http://trillionthtonne.org/

So let's assume this is a 50/50 chance of fatal outcomes or avoiding ( reducing risk ) of fatal outcomes. Would anyone here risk those odds?
Are the chances( good ) the Arctic sea ice summer melt out and the 50/50  threshold for climate suicide will both be crossed within 26 years?
2040 / 50/50 no return date.  no return address.

 

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #480 on: September 17, 2014, 03:28:25 PM »

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #481 on: September 23, 2014, 10:20:22 PM »
World on track for worst-case warming scenario
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26243-world-on-track-for-worstcase-warming-scenario.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|environment#.VCHJ01FJzlc

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #482 on: September 29, 2014, 06:00:14 PM »

Ymir

  • New ice
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #483 on: April 09, 2015, 12:27:10 PM »
This was one of the first threads I read, like everyone else I am morbidly fascinated by this horrifying process and gravitated here for some End Times Porn. I don't have anything to add in terms of the science, I've read a fair amount on climate change and related phenomena in the past year or so and have gone from an "End is More or Less Nigh" to an "It's Already Started" mindset, which seems to be what many here believe. The final nail in the coffin (even before coming here  ;))was reading Bill Mckibben's "Eaarth" a couple of months ago, so named because his point is that the planet we took for granted throughout our species' existance no longer exists.  That articulated something that I had been unconsciously thinking for some time.

I appreciate that many people here may have been thinking this for some time but it has been a little strange to dispassionately watch how fucked the human world is and in my specific experience,  how fucked the UK is under the Tories and think this pales compares to what is imminent. I've always been a pessimist, at least when it comes to humanity as a whole and have taken more of an interest in the environment, so it's not as if I was completely blinkered before.

Of course, I could be wrong now, as could everyone else here, though I doubt this. Something that staggers me and makes me most "doomy" is the sheer logistics of what we face. Climate change alone is potentially cataclysmic but soil degradation also sounds  sounds like it could be on its own. The mass species die off were are currently experiencing again sounds like it could do for us, as we simply don't know what the kock on effects of loosing "X" amount of biodiversity is. Not to mention ocean acidification.

There's also economic collapse, which ruination of the natural world will eventually bring anyway but  we may not have to wait that long, there are inumerable blogs/lectures/books on the imminent "financial apocalypse" many of which may be correct. I'm making my way through the "Collapse of Empire" thread and had only recently become aware of the appalling state of America's infrastructure, which brings to mind the phrase "fur coat, no knickers".

I'm not especially worried for myself, I'm not far from middle age, don't have children and don't intend to, I've long since though it was selfish and immoral to have children, given the state of the world. I am worried for the children of family members and friends.

It's refreshing to come here and "meet" so many other people who are equally as pessimistic and as cynical about "our" ability to deal with this mess and who are not of the tinfoil hat "OMG IT IS THE BIBLICAL/OTHER ENDTIMES PROPHECY!" and/or "IT IS THE SATANIC/ALIEN ILLUMINATI!" variety. I occasionally wonder if I may be turning into one of the tinfoil hatters, I suppose that wouldn't be all bad, there are plenty of badly made, fact free youtube videos to keep them entertained.

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #484 on: April 09, 2015, 01:43:32 PM »
I think the situation is more than worrying, the when is now and how bad...well more than 70 meter in the thousand years...
I am also in the middle age and without children. We have to look for the futur not having children is not a solution as such, we have to find ways to reproduce ourselves enough as it is sustainable for the temps and as many species as possible.

One idea is to create some communities of less than 50 people managing around 500.000 m2 financially independant but linked together like a multinational but with inverted power. The parents seeing the opportunity in the other surrounding communities could decide to make babies and later when the children are 16 or 18 move in that community. The problem we face is that in the nature the individual or the species that does maximise the use of energy win against an other. That's what we are doing pretty well, so well that we are destroying everything including ourself. So we have do to the opposite wich is not natural and could be done if explained inside these communities.

my last point is that if everything looks dull (or worse), we are the problem and the solution, we have the potential to bring the earth back to 300 ppm CO2eq more quickly than nature would do...the ealier we start, the better.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2015, 10:20:07 AM by Laurent »

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #485 on: April 09, 2015, 02:41:26 PM »
You have to wonder why *ALL* the religious myths have end–times chapters, even the Norse one, the Ragnarok, and perhaps be thankful that you live in so–called interesting times? It's a played–out cliché, but the chinese symbol for crisis also means opportunity..

And I think all the gods know we need a fresh beginning.
[]

Ymir

  • New ice
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #486 on: April 09, 2015, 03:10:02 PM »
You have to wonder why *ALL* the religious myths have end–times chapters, even the Norse one, the Ragnarok, and perhaps be thankful that you live in so–called interesting times? It's a played–out cliché, but the chinese symbol for crisis also means opportunity..

And I think all the gods know we need a fresh beginning.

Ragnarok is siumltaneously a rebirth/recreation. Unlike Christianity and I presume Judaism and Islam. Something that makes me a little cautious about proclaiming the Wnd of Days is that civilisation seems to have an inherent tendency to believe The End is Nigh, "The End of Time" by Damian Thompson addressesis about this. I wonder how many people thought The Black Death, both World Wars etc were the end of the world? Although, I do think this situation is different as the effects we are having on the Earth are far more profound than anything that has happened previously.

There does seem to be a contradictory heads in the sand impulse in most people who simply can't or won't contenance that everything can go to hell very quickly. Maybe those of us that do accept it are a little "odd"? Not necessarily in a bad way.

TeaPotty

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 219
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #487 on: April 13, 2015, 07:38:05 AM »
There does seem to be a contradictory heads in the sand impulse in most people who simply can't or won't contenance that everything can go to hell very quickly. Maybe those of us that do accept it are a little "odd"? Not necessarily in a bad way.

I can relate a lot to to your post. I also tend to ultimately blame religion, which is much like a baby's pacifier. We needed to get rid of religion long ago, and shed our sentiment and attachment to strong beliefs in ideological dogma without evidence. It is little more than a childish projection of a crude ego, seeking an excuse to feel unique and better about themselves. This continued infant tendency to further act out of ego-fueled dogma and not evidence, reason, and foresight will be our downfall. We don't want to grow up, too bad. Time is up.

icefest

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 258
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #488 on: April 27, 2015, 10:54:30 AM »
TeaPotty:
Is that a blanket 'religion' statement, or do you count all religions? What about spiritual but not formal religion?
Open other end.

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3449
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 639
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #489 on: April 27, 2015, 04:05:25 PM »
And what about the 'best' expressions from each religious tradition.
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

TeaPotty

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 219
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #490 on: April 27, 2015, 05:07:08 PM »
TeaPotty:
Is that a blanket 'religion' statement, or do you count all religions? What about spiritual but not formal religion?

Any type of dogmatic / theological thinking is inherently anti-scientific, instilling irrational tribalistic thought habits in its followers, while absolving most of any need to reach homeostasis with their social & ecological environment. Meaning, this authoritarian masochist 'god' fellow apparently 'judges' u for the stupidity he 'created' in u in the first place, giving followers a false sense of piety & self-goodness. Who needs to do good deeds or save the planet when 'god' will save me anyway? The rest of my non-believing neighbors can 'burn in hell'.

Spirituality has much merit without religion branding ppl's experiences & deciding for them what their conclusions should be. Religion is the oppression of spirituality, and dogmatic thinking can be seen perverting and ruining spiritual development in its followers. Nearly all religions in history have seen their spiritually inclined numbers decrease to insignificant levels as the religion ages.

Buddhism is certainly one example of useful philosophy divorced from dogma. Spirituality can be used to enhance empathy, strengthen social connections, life satisfaction, etc. But religion is the preferred tool of our ruling elite, as it provides them with power over masses.

Whether we speak about North America, Australia, Europe, Africa, or Asia, the facts show clearly that it is religious conservatives who fight against the improvement of life for their country, blindly accepting the drivel fed to them by conservative politicians and religious leaders.

And what about the 'best' expressions from each religious tradition.

Like I mentioned above, u have to look really hard for religious communities who care about society & are not in control of the 1%. Most religious communities develop into a sick insular culture that value anti-intellectualism. Any religious communities that haven't will probably do so in a generation or two.

If u find this difficult to swallow, consider how the Christian community keeps pushing us into wars since WW1, when it started as merely a spiritual movement emphasizing empathy and tolerance.

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

Nothing stops humanity from improving their future more than the belief that their true reality & paradise awaits them after death, and that the current reality is purposely corrupted by 'god' as a way of testing them.

The very idea if Climate Change, that humans can have such a powerful impact on our world, is an insult to religious believers. Religious leaders are correct to see it as a threat to their followers.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2015, 05:14:00 PM by TeaPotty »

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3449
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 639
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #491 on: April 27, 2015, 05:58:58 PM »
As I wouldn't want to follow guidance from a climate science denying "scientist", I wouldn't want to follow guidance from a climate science denying "Christian" or "Buddhist".  (I once spent half a year 'studying world religions' in south Asia and saw plenty of Buddhist (etc.) practice that dismayed me.)

After a quick internet search of approximate 'best' Christian responses to climate change, I offer
NCC-2006 and WCC - 2008.

I certainly do not deny that religion has been and is used as an opiate. Do you deny that it sometimes gets people off their rear ends?
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

opensheart

  • New ice
  • Posts: 57
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #492 on: April 28, 2015, 12:02:33 AM »
If I may offer another perspective.    I do not believe religion in and of itself is bad.   It is my personal opinion that the only thing that could save humanity, or direct the survivors onto a different path for generations to come is a religion.   

Instead I think there are certain avoidable weaknesses in religions that cause them to go bad.
1.     A hieratical structure with an all-knowing, all-powerful, pure good deity on top and a pure-evil being at  the bottom.
         a.   This encourages a king of the hill mentality, or get as close to the king as you can, and dam all the people at the bottom.
         b.   This structure is too easily hijacked by those in power to  say “Thus says the Lord” and demand everyone follow.
         c.   This emboldens followers to believe their position on the top of the truth hill gives them the right to impose, direct, control, destroy those of ‘lessor’ truth positions.
2.   A God, creed, or sacred writ that is perfect.   That is to say it changes not.   Which means its followers cannot allow it to be changed.   Which implies they must keep their world view, culture, society, community on the one true path and not respond to changing conditions.

I would offer the Druids of the Celtic world as a possible example of escaping this pattern.    As I  understand them,  they were an oral tradition only, and not for lack of writing.   They seem to believe wisdom needed to be passed orally.   Which may mean there was an inherent flexibility built in to their system.    Some have suggested that when the Celts knew they were beaten by Rome, the Druids morphed into Christian Clergy.   Debating and losing some critical points of this new faith.    It seems to me that the Druids were whatever their people/times needed/called for them to be.

If you could allow me to propose a seed of a new religion that might be more appropriate to humanity today.
•   No single deity at top or bottom.
•   Divinity is not all-knowing or all-good
•   Instead of any divinity, there is a pool of life beyond.   The Essence of all living beings, humans and otherwise feed this pool.    All mixed together like adding ingredients to a stew.   There is no higher or lower, everyone returns to the same stew.   And from that stew we are all drawn.
•   The state of the souls entering the pool matter.   Dark matter darkens the pool for generations to come.   Light matter lightens the pool for generations to come.
•   Thus the ultimate purpose of life is to improve one’s self.   Work on one’s issues and weaknesses.   Strengthen the good, and reduce the evil.   Be yourself what you wish humanity to become and you will actually influence life to come.
•   That the pool of life is not eternal.   That the life force must be constantly refreshed by returning to real life in this world.     Thus we must maintain the sustainability of this world for generations to come, or else life itself could fail.     There is no concept of leaving this world for a better one.   This is the world our life was given to live on.   

Appropriate points could be added for the importance of changing as conditions change.   Adapting as needed to continue the cycle of life.    The concept of limits to growth could be built in.   Diversity in the stew of life would be a good thing, adding different tastes to the stew.   

There could be a concept of ‘night language’ and ‘day language’.   That religion is night language, like the language of dreams.   While science is the day language.   They should co-exist in balance.   Each with its own sphere of influence.  One should not control or oppose the other.   Yes religion is the softer language and should mold around the harder truths of science.   But science should never attempt to purge the night.   That it is essential for humanity to maintain our soft side.   Our beliefs, heart and faith.   These are some of the distinctive attributes that separate us from machines and systems.

Hopefully such a system would focus more soft skills and personhood instead of power and status.  Focus on what is enough.    Perhaps it could focus more on raising all souls equally.  And less on growing layers of social strata from top to bottom.

Perhaps it could even be designed to be self-correcting.   To re-align itself with the peak of the bell curve while respecting, honoring and including the tails to either side.


Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3449
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 639
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #493 on: April 28, 2015, 02:44:57 AM »
I realize we're off topic - sharing good news and not bad!

I like what you describe, opensheart.  Have you ever taken the quiz at Belief-O-Matic?
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7684
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1051
  • Likes Given: 504
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #494 on: April 28, 2015, 10:29:39 AM »
Nicely put, opensheart. I also try to look at things that way.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3064
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 514
  • Likes Given: 355
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #495 on: April 28, 2015, 03:28:51 PM »
Yes, nice points, generally. But all indications are that the druids were quite hierarchical. One reason for avoiding writing, as with the Brahmins in India, is that memorizing texts was a central function of the priesthood. Writing the texts down was a threat to their legitimacy. Lots of 'king of the hill' stuff going on there, I'm afraid.

Hierarchy may be a kind of inherent element of religion. The word hierarchy itself comes from the Greek for "rule by priests."
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Ymir

  • New ice
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #496 on: April 29, 2015, 11:32:57 PM »
The Druids apparently learned vast amounts of lore, orally, over twenty years, I asume they must have started before their teens. It's only possible to do that if you have a vadt substrata of peasant types to grow all the food you're going to eat. I'm afraid they must have been hierarchical, though my understanding is that humans have been since we discovered agriculture. The civilisation at Catal Hyuk in Turkey may have been an exception.

Theta

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 174
  • Grips
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #497 on: October 20, 2015, 09:27:42 PM »
Sorry to have to start this topic up again, but I thought it was very important given where we are now. We seem to have entered a new era in Climate Change, where we can't think of the problems as being several years out into the future, but rather, we are going to start experiencing them very soon.

We seem to be seeing methane off the oregon coast, that means that not only are we seeing methane seeping from the arctic permafrost, but we are also seeing a dramatic increase in methane coming from the actual ocean, that is doomsday type stuff and if things get worse, it's curtains for humanity.

wildfires are continuing, adding much more carbon to the atmosphere, and they will never end.

Finally, we have this super El Nino and the extra water vapour feedback, we are at the mercy of it and personally, I think it's going to stick around for a very long time.

Taking these into consideration, I believe that things are going to start getting very bad ("the Road" levels of bad) very soon, perhaps from next months onwards we are probably going to start seeing the ocean rapidly turn into a Carnfield Ocean as the coral dies and the methane seeps become violently rapid, and after that, it's just a straight freefall to extinction for everything.
Can't think of a signature

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #498 on: October 22, 2015, 11:28:03 AM »
Permafrost warming in parts of Alaska 'is accelerating
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34540414
Quote
The professor said a rise in permafrost temperatures in the past four years convinced him warming was real.

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When and how bad?
« Reply #499 on: January 13, 2016, 03:32:02 PM »
This seems like a good place for this.

Quote
There Is a New Climate Change Disaster Looming in Northern Canada

...........For decades, mine operators in Northern Canada have stored waste rock and tailings waste—the "pulverized rock slurry" byproduct of mineral processing that's filled with skeevy chemicals like arsenic, lead, and mercury—in frozen dams reinforced with permafrost, an option far cheaper than constructing artificial structures to house the goop. But if such walls thaw, allowing air and water to interact with the highly reactive tailings, widespread "acid mine drainage" (AMD) could occur. Such a process can generate sulphuric acid and result in the leaching of heavy metals into nearby soil and water sources.

"Permafrost degradation is going to affect everything," says Magdalena Muir, research associate at the University of Calgary's Arctic Institute of North America. "When you have frozen infrastructure, you don't have to build an artificial structure and probably get used to not having to worry too much about breaches. But as soon as you have soil that behaves just like any other soil, you have all the issues you'd have in southern Canada."

The Canadian mining sector produces around one million tons of waste rock and 950,000 tons of tailings per day. As a result, the prospect of widespread AMD could be disastrous for the Canadian North: such scenarios would obviously be nightmares to contain, with the remoteness and cold climate seriously impeding cleanup. Think the Deepwater Horizon of the Arctic, except not nearly as visible and minus the dead dolphins to draw attention to the disaster. And like methane bubbling out of the permafrost, the situation only gets worse as it unfolds.

"Once a chemical process is underway—let's say, the oxidization of mining waste and leaching of heavy metals and acid drainage—it's much, much harder to stop that chemical process than just preventing it from the outset," says Ugo Lapointe, Canadian coordinator for MiningWatch. "It has its own momentum once it starts. Also, the plume of contamination downstream or underground are much harder to clean up and control once it starts, it's very, very costly."....

http://www.vice.com/read/this-is-the-looming-climate-change-disaster-in-canadas-north-that-no-one-is-talking-about
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein