Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE (narrated video)  (Read 254939 times)

Lennart van der Linde

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 771
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE (narrated video)
« Reply #2250 on: December 13, 2019, 04:47:16 PM »
Hansen's model(s), that he has published in several papers since 2005, is in my opinion not accepted science... He speculates that exponentially increasing ice losses primarily from the Antarctic will cause the AMOC/SMOC to shut down within a few decades, which will trigger more large-scale climate changes. But this is just a modelling excercise, based on incomplete theories, and totally insufficient data, especially from the ever important Southern Ocean... And we aren't yet able to adequately model deep convection in the tropics, where most of energy transfer takes place. Etc.etc., just to point out that we shouldn't get panic because of some computer simulations that is essentially GIGO.
...
I agree about the urgency of climate policies to avoid the 'tipping points'. But I think that:
i. The capitalist market forces already strongly favouring renewables due to pure price competitiveness; and
ii. The kind of aggressive climate policies now implemented by the EU and some other OECD countries; will be quite sufficient to avoid those tipping points in reasonable time, say 40 years. I think we already left the exponential growth of CO2, and that we are now in linear growth. In as little as 5-10 years I hypothesize that we will see flat CO2 growth.

I hope you're right, but would not count on it. Hansen has a history of becoming accepted science after first being contested (by some). He may be wrong this time, but it seems very possible that he's right again. And many of his suspicions are being shared by prominent and respected scientists in their fields. Waiting with stronger mitigation until we have more certainty about the accuracy of their suspicions implies risking being too late (even more than we already are), precisely because of the inertia in the climate system, which Hansen emphasizes. Gambling with such stakes involved seems very irresponsible. To minimize the unacceptably large risk of passing dangerous tipping points we have to reach net zero globally within 30 years, not 40 years, or as fast as possible, as Hansen says. This means the EU and other richer parts of the world have to reach net zero in about 20 years, or pay poorer countries to reduce their emissions even faster than otherwise. Where the market can do this, great. But where the market cannot do this fast enough yet, stronger policies will have to accelerate their development. The EU is making some progress in the right direction, at least on paper, but more will be needed and has to be implemented. My two cents.

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3116
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 409
  • Likes Given: 200
Re: Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE (narrated video)
« Reply #2251 on: December 13, 2019, 04:48:33 PM »
Hefaistos,
Can you clarify what you mean?
...
I agree about the urgency of climate policies to avoid the 'tipping points'. But I think that:
i. The capitalist market forces already strongly favouring renewables due to pure price competitiveness; and
ii. The kind of aggressive climate policies now implemented by the EU and some other OECD countries;

will be quite sufficient to avoid those tipping points in reasonable time, say 40 years. I think we already left the exponential growth of CO2, and that we are now in linear growth. In as little as 5-10 years I hypothesize that we will see flat CO2 growth.
...
and
...
I agree about 350 as a good goal.
I think we're getting out of CO2 growth pretty soon (5-10 years), and we will see a stable decline starting well before 2050.
In one post you indicate CO2 growth will be flat within 5-10 years.  I presume this means neither acceleration nor deceleration - if one year's increase is 1.0 ppm, the next year's increase is also 1.0 ppm.  (This is certainly an improvement on the current acceleration of CO2 growth.)

In the next post you indicate CO2 growth will end within 5-10 years.  I'm pretty sure this means we will have reached peak atmospheric CO2 concentrations.   (This would be good news indeed.)

I, too, think 350 ppm is good a '1st iteration' goal.  Where we are in the current Milankovitch cycle tells me we want a thicker CO2 blanket to prevent a significant glacial advance.  [Would that be our current concern!]  (Future climate models will be able to help us discern how much 'blanket' we need to compensate for variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, precession of the Earth's orbit, solar intensity, etc.)
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Lennart van der Linde

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 771
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE (narrated video)
« Reply #2252 on: December 13, 2019, 04:56:04 PM »
Hefaistos,
Can you clarify what you mean?

Indeed, if you share 350 ppm as a desirable goal, then this implies net zero globally by 2050 to minimize the risk that tipping points will be crossed that will make 350 impossible to reach, as far as I understand.

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3116
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 409
  • Likes Given: 200
Re: Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE (narrated video)
« Reply #2253 on: December 13, 2019, 05:38:51 PM »
...
Indeed, if you share 350 ppm as a desirable goal, then this implies net zero globally by 2050 to minimize the risk that tipping points will be crossed that will make 350 impossible to reach, as far as I understand.
A "350 ppm goal", to me, does not imply we reach peak CO2 concentrations as late as 2050 (which is what arriving at "net zero" means to me - am I off?).  I would truly love to see peak CO2 concentrations around 2025-30 and Earthlings causing our achieving the 350 ppm goal within 50-75 years of that.  (And people thought WWII-era industrial [etc.] focus was intense...)  Anything less aggressive then that will allow more tipping points to be crossed (one or two appear to have already been crossed - permafrost and Amazon) and therefore making it more difficult to achieve (as you suggest).

I would very much like the Earth to be livable for the grandchildren of today's youth (that is, youth of 'all' species [maybe without a pathogen or two]).
« Last Edit: December 13, 2019, 07:29:42 PM by Tor Bejnar »
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1110
  • 0Kg CO2, 35 KWh/wk,130L H2O/wk, No heating
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 7207
Re: Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE (narrated video)
« Reply #2254 on: December 13, 2019, 06:22:59 PM »
I want to mention that  AGW- and biosphere-collapse effects have happened 'faster than expected' by science. Every time the science and understanding improves, it paints an even darker picture of the future. I read a lot about improved science from the great series of articles by AbruptSLR in this thread.

Tipping points may likely be crossed 'faster than expected'.
High time to stop having respect for complacency.
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
   Simple: minimize your possessions and be free and kind    It's just a mindset.       Refugees welcome

Lennart van der Linde

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 771
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE (narrated video)
« Reply #2255 on: December 13, 2019, 07:42:53 PM »
I would truly love to see peak CO2 concentrations around 2025-30 and Earthlings causing our achieving the 350 ppm goal within 50-75 years of that.

Me too, but is it possible to reach net zero global emissions and peak concentrations in 5-10 years? I've seen no reasoned argument how this could be done, but if anyone has, I'm curious to hear it.

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1110
  • 0Kg CO2, 35 KWh/wk,130L H2O/wk, No heating
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 7207
Re: Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE (narrated video)
« Reply #2256 on: December 13, 2019, 07:54:25 PM »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law

Quote
Martial law is the imposition of direct military control of normal civilian functions by a government, especially in response to a temporary emergency such as invasion or major disaster, or in an occupied territory.[1][2]

Martial law can be used by governments to enforce their rule over the public, as seen in multiple countries listed below. Such incidents may occur after a coup d'état (Thailand in 2006 and 2014, and Egypt in 2013); when threatened by popular protest (China, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, 2009's Iranian Green Movement that led to the takeover by Revolutionary Guards); to suppress political opposition (Poland in 1981); or to stabilize insurrections or perceived insurrections (Canada, the October Crisis of 1970). Martial law may be declared in cases of major natural disasters; however, most countries use a different legal construct, such as a state of emergency.

Apologies for the off-topic post.
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
   Simple: minimize your possessions and be free and kind    It's just a mindset.       Refugees welcome

sidd

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4987
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 389
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE (narrated video)
« Reply #2257 on: December 13, 2019, 10:03:29 PM »
Does anyone seriously believe that we will achieve 350 ppm CO2 anytime this century absent huge carbon recapture effort ?  I see no way there based on reducing fossil emission alone. Perhaps if we went to

sidd

KiwiGriff

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 323
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 187
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE (narrated video)
« Reply #2258 on: December 13, 2019, 10:11:06 PM »
Quote
Global carbon emissions are expected to hit an all-time high in 2019, scientists say, smashing a previous record set in 2018.

By the end of the year, emissions from industrial activities and the burning of fossil fuels will pump an estimated 36.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And total carbon emissions from all human activities, including agriculture and land use, will likely cap off at about 43.1 billion tons.

The estimates were released last night in a new report from the Global Carbon Project, an international research consortium dedicated to tracking the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-emissions-will-break-another-record-in-2019/

“A famous bon mot asserts that opinions are like arse-holes, in that everyone has one. There is great wisdom in this… but I would add that opinions differ significantly from arse-holes, in that yours should be constantly and thoroughly examined.

We must think critically, and not just about the ideas of others. Be hard on your beliefs. Take them out onto the verandah and beat them with a cricket bat.... Be intellectually rigorous. Identify your biases, your prejudices, your privilege.”.
Tim Minchin

Roughly 50 % of our emissions end up staying in the atmosphere.
Stable emissions would only result in a slowly declining rise in CO2 levels until we reach equilibrium far into the future. 
 

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17737
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 936
  • Likes Given: 242
Re: Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE (narrated video)
« Reply #2259 on: December 13, 2019, 10:42:16 PM »
...
“A famous bon mot asserts that opinions are like arse-holes, in that everyone has one. There is great wisdom in this… but I would add that opinions differ significantly from arse-holes, in that yours should be constantly and thoroughly examined.

We must think critically, and not just about the ideas of others. Be hard on your beliefs. Take them out onto the verandah and beat them with a cricket bat.... Be intellectually rigorous. Identify your biases, your prejudices, your privilege.”.
Tim Minchin
...
The title of the linked reference indicates that consensus climate scientists are concerned with how the general public accepts their message about climate change; and that the general public trusts consensus science projections when they create upper and lower bounds which they artificially call best and worst case scenarios; but that the general public lose their trust in consensus climate scientists when these scientists admit that uncertainty means that the artificially defined upper and lower bound are not actually the true best nor the true worst cases.

To me this is another way of saying that: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", whether by the public, climate scientists or decision makers.

Howe, L.C., MacInnis, B., Krosnick, J.A. et al. Acknowledging uncertainty impacts public acceptance of climate scientists’ predictions. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 863–867 (2019) doi:10.1038/s41558-019-0587-5

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0587-5

Abstract: "Predictions about the effects of climate change cannot be made with complete certainty, so acknowledging uncertainty may increase trust in scientists and public acceptance of their messages. Here we show that this is true regarding expressions of uncertainty, unless they are also accompanied by acknowledgements of irreducible uncertainty. A representative national sample of Americans read predictions about effects of global warming on sea level that included either a worst-case scenario (high partially bounded uncertainty) or the best and worst cases (fully bounded uncertainty). Compared to a control condition, expressing fully bounded but not high partially bounded uncertainty increased trust in scientists and message acceptance. However, these effects were eliminated when fully bounded uncertainty was accompanied by an acknowledgement that the full effects of sea-level rise cannot be quantified because of unpredictable storm surges. Thus, expressions of fully bounded uncertainty alone may enhance confidence in scientists and their assertions but not when the full extent of inevitable uncertainty is acknowledged."

For example, the IPCC says that forcing scenarios (whether SRES, RCP or SSP) cover the upper and lower bounds of reasonable forcing scenarios.  Yet since the Kyoto Protocol actual forcing has only followed the 'upper' bound assumptions and never the middle or lower bound assumptions.  Furthermore, all IPCC Assessment Reports to date have ignored ice-climate feedbacks; when in reality they should be added on top of the GHG forcing scenarios.

Earth Systems will follow the pathway of the laws of physics and not the opinions of the general public, of consensus climate scientists nor of decision makers; no matter how we all react to uncertainty.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17737
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 936
  • Likes Given: 242
Re: Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE (narrated video)
« Reply #2260 on: December 13, 2019, 11:17:38 PM »
In the linked reference the authors acknowledge climate uncertainty with the adjustment factor for unrepresented Earth system feedback called (EEsfb).  Unfortunately, their discussion about unrepresented Earth system feedback do not mention ice-climate feedbacks even through these ice-climate feedbacks are clearly present in the paleo-record as indicated by Hansen et al. (2016) and others.

Rogelj, J., Forster, P.M., Kriegler, E. et al. Estimating and tracking the remaining carbon budget for stringent climate targets. Nature 571, 335–342 (2019) doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1368-z
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1368-z

Abstract: "Research reported during the past decade has shown that global warming is roughly proportional to the total amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. This makes it possible to estimate the remaining carbon budget: the total amount of anthropogenic carbon dioxide that can still be emitted into the atmosphere while holding the global average temperature increase to the limit set by the Paris Agreement. However, a wide range of estimates for the remaining carbon budget has been reported, reducing the effectiveness of the remaining carbon budget as a means of setting emission reduction targets that are consistent with the Paris Agreement. Here we present a framework that enables us to track estimates of the remaining carbon budget and to understand how these estimates can improve over time as scientific knowledge advances. We propose that application of this framework may help to reconcile differences between estimates of the remaining carbon budget and may provide a basis for reducing uncertainty in the range of future estimates."

Extract: "We present in equation (1) an estimate of the remaining carbon budget (Blim) for a specific temperature change limit (Tlim) as a function of five terms that represent aspects of the geophysical and coupled human–environment system (equation (1): the historical human-induced warming to date (Thist), the non-CO2 contribution to future temperature rise (TnonCO2), the zero-emissions commitment (TZEC), the TCRE, and an adjustment term for sources of unrepresented Earth system feedback (EEsfb). These terms are visualized in Fig. 1 and are described and discussed in turn below.

Blim=(Tlim−Thist−TnonCO2−TZEC)/TCRE−EEsfb       (1)


Finally, reductions in emissions due to unrepresented Earth system feedback mechanisms (EEsfb, in units of Gt CO2), are the last term in the proposed remaining carbon budget framework (equation (1)). Any Earth system feedback that is not yet incorporated in estimates of the TCRE or that would reduce the applicability of TCRE should be assessed, and accounted for and communicated as part of EEsfb. These feedback processes have typically been related to permafrost thawing and the associated long-term release of CO2 and CH4. However, other Earth system feedback sources that can affect remaining carbon budgets have been identified, including changes in vegetation CO2 uptake linked to nitrogen availability. If unrepresented feedback results in a direct CO2 emission from an ecosystem, the translation to the EEsfb term is direct. However, because of the diverse nature of Earth system feedback, accounting for it through an adjustment in CO2 emissions is not always straightforward. For example, if a feedback system results in the release of other greenhouse gases or affects the Earth system through changes in surface albedo, clouds or fire regimes, for example, its contribution needs to be translated into an equivalent CO2 correction term (see refs 89,90 for example). Because most Earth system feedback is either sensitive to rising CO2 or to variations in climate parameters, it is expected that these contributions are scenario-dependent, nonlinear, and in some cases realized over longer timescales only. This adds to the complexity of the translation into a CO2-equivalent correction term, and makes EEsfb an uncertain contribution. EEsfb could be estimated either for the time at which global net CO2 emissions become zero or until the end of the century or beyond, assuming anthropogenic CO2 emissions are kept at net-zero levels but feedback mechanisms continue to change over time. Finally, scenario-independent Earth system feedback that scales linearly with global average temperature increase could also be incorporated by adjusting the TCRE, as long as it is not double-counted in both EEsfb and TCRE."

Edit, the caption for the first attached image is as follows:

Caption for the first image: "The schematic shows how the remaining carbon budget can be estimated from various independently assessable quantities, including the historical human-induced warming Thist, the zero-emissions commitment TZEC, the contribution of future non-CO2 warming (consistent with global net-zero CO2 emissions or otherwise) TnonCO2, the transient climate response to cumulative emissions of carbon (TCRE), and further correcting for unrepresented Earth system feedback EEsfb. The grey shading illustrates how uncertainty in TCRE propagates from the start point. Arrows and dashed lines are visual guides illustrating how the various factors combine to provide an estimate of the remaining carbon budget. Besides estimating the remaining carbon budget Blim, the framework can also be applied to understand, decompose and discuss estimates of carbon budgets calculated by other methods. The relative sizes of the various contributions shown in this schematic are not to scale."

Next, I provide the second image that shows that a symmetrical PDF for a Earth system feedback results in a right-skewed PDF for climate sensitivity.  Thus Rogelj et al. (2019) are at least erring on the side of least drama by showing a shaded area about TCRE that is symmetrical when at least it should be right-skewed.  Furthermore, in addition to the fact that Rogelj et al. (2019) do not cite ice-climate feedbacks as a source of unrepresented Earth system feedback (EEsfb), they also do not cite that the rate of change of radiative forcing can have a nonlinear impact on EEsfb, and it is also not clear Rogelj et al. (2019) should be showing the same linear analysis for the 1.5C limit as for the 2C limit, when many feedback system are known to increase nonlinearly with increasing temperature.  Lastly, I do not like the fact that the first image (Fig 1) by Rogelj et al. (2019) shows a carbon budget from the middle of the shaded area for unrepresented Earth system feedbacks (which should at least be right-skewed) as this implies that it is fine to take a 50%-50% chance with the well being of the world.

Edit2: Also, when looking at Fig 1 it appears to me that the shaded area about TCRE is left-skewed and if so, to me this indicates bias on the part of the authors to err on the side of least drama.

Edit3: I also note that the proportion of the height of the 'historical human-induced warming' to the height of the 'Global warming limit of interest' is deceptive as GMSTA in 2019 will be over 1.1C and the only two warming limits under consideration are 1.5C and 2C and the ratio of 1.1 to either 1.5 or 2 is no where near that implied by this Fig 1 which again implies the bias of the authors to err on the side of least drama.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2019, 04:08:21 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17737
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 936
  • Likes Given: 242
Re: Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE (narrated video)
« Reply #2261 on: December 14, 2019, 12:08:32 AM »
Does the fact that we have not yet found intelligent life in the universe imply that many such past alien civilizations overshot their sustainability limit?

Title: "Are We Alone? Maybe. The Better Question Is, Can We Survive?"

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2018/07/are-we-alone-in-the-universe--maybe--the-better-question-is--can/

Extract: "Whether we're alone in the universe depends on whether alien societies overcame the climate change their advances created, says a new book.

How bad does the probability of forming a civilization on a random planet have to be for us to be alone, for us to be the only time in the entire history of the universe that there’s ever been a civilization? That number is 1 in 10 billion trillion.

That number tells me that the only way that we can be the only civilization in cosmic history is if the odds are that low or lower. As long as there’s a probability larger than that, then it has happened before. So unless nature is really perversely biased against forming civilizations then there have been others.

Whether there are others in existence today, I cannot answer. It all depends on this important factor in the Drake Equation, the average lifetime of a civilization. You could have planets creating civilizations all the time, but if nobody makes it to more than, say, 200 years, then right now we would be living in a sterile galaxy. We can say that, yes, there have probably overwhelmingly been civilizations before us. The next step is, does anybody last long, particularly when climate change is going to be a natural consequence of civilization-building?"
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1738
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 395
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE (narrated video)
« Reply #2262 on: December 14, 2019, 12:26:22 AM »
It may be different limits than climate change.
Pretend civilization arose in the Ediacaran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacaran
CO2 would start out at 4500 ppm. Our 2019 CO2e would be about 4720...about 5% higher.
Assuming ECS of 3˚ C then the change in temperature would be about 1/16 of 3˚ or about 0.2˚ C...quite survivable. We could put twice as much ∆CO2e and only raise it another 0.2˚. By then we would have depleted recoverable fossil fuel.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

Hefaistos

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 451
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 131
Re: Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE (narrated video)
« Reply #2263 on: December 14, 2019, 08:24:52 AM »
Hefaistos,
Can you clarify what you mean?
...
I agree about the urgency of climate policies to avoid the 'tipping points'. But I think that:
i. The capitalist market forces already strongly favouring renewables due to pure price competitiveness; and
ii. The kind of aggressive climate policies now implemented by the EU and some other OECD countries;

will be quite sufficient to avoid those tipping points in reasonable time, say 40 years. I think we already left the exponential growth of CO2, and that we are now in linear growth. In as little as 5-10 years I hypothesize that we will see flat CO2 growth.
...
and
...
I agree about 350 as a good goal.
I think we're getting out of CO2 growth pretty soon (5-10 years), and we will see a stable decline starting well before 2050.
In one post you indicate CO2 growth will be flat within 5-10 years.  I presume this means neither acceleration nor deceleration - if one year's increase is 1.0 ppm, the next year's increase is also 1.0 ppm.  (This is certainly an improvement on the current acceleration of CO2 growth.)

In the next post you indicate CO2 growth will end within 5-10 years.  I'm pretty sure this means we will have reached peak atmospheric CO2 concentrations.   (This would be good news indeed.)
...

All this is a bit speculative, but I do see some positive things happening. If we take Sweden as an example, our GHG emissions have been declining for 15 years already. Last year we had a 1.8% decline, in spite of strong economic growth.
Not enough, but we will have a larger decline in coming years, due to new policies being implemented and a lot of investments in renewables.
A few days ago we got really positive news from the EU, with aggressive new climate policies aiming for CO2 neutrality 2050. This covers several big OECD countries. I'm confident we will see these policies implemented, and that all of EU will see a growing decline in GHG emissions.

Looking at the Keeling curve, there are some signs that we already have left the exponential growth phase and entered a linear growth phase. Yes, I think we will see peak CO2 in less than 10 years. Strong declines in OECD countries will be paired with growth in developing countries, but the market forces will prevail and favour the renewables and causing disinvestment in FF.

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3116
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 409
  • Likes Given: 200
Re: Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE (narrated video)
« Reply #2264 on: December 14, 2019, 06:37:35 PM »
Thanks
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1110
  • 0Kg CO2, 35 KWh/wk,130L H2O/wk, No heating
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 7207
Re: Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE (narrated video)
« Reply #2265 on: December 14, 2019, 06:39:17 PM »
<snip>
How bad does the probability of forming a civilization on a random planet have to be for us to be alone, for us to be the only time in the entire history of the universe that there’s ever been a civilization? That number is 1 in 10 billion trillion.

That number tells me that the only way that we can be the only civilization in cosmic history is if the odds are that low or lower. As long as there’s a probability larger than that, then it has happened before. So unless nature is really perversely biased against forming civilizations then there have been others.

Thanks AbruptSLR. Interesting. Another example of 'civilisation bubble'. So I can try to point out the bubble and give another view.

Civilisation in general means lifeforms going bad, going for fantasies, going supreme, going insane, going for total destruction.
That goes for all exobiology lifeforms as well. There are no interstellar 'manned' spaceships.

Without supremacy over all other lifeforms and the thereby induced insanity, it is impossible to create high tech. In the very long term it is always impossible.


Perversely?
"What?" I say, I say "No no no, Supremacy is perverse. Not nature."

Nature is not 'biased' against anything. Perhaps you mean that living nature experiences a civilisation-induced mass extinction because it is biased against civilisation? ;)

This post is not meant as an attack. I think this is a very important but perhaps difficult to see subject.
I ask myself, why people want to live inside bubbles? "Come outside, the view's better here." "What's that? I didn't hear you." :)

We should've moved South.
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
   Simple: minimize your possessions and be free and kind    It's just a mindset.       Refugees welcome

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17737
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 936
  • Likes Given: 242
Re: Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE (narrated video)
« Reply #2266 on: December 15, 2019, 10:41:11 PM »
For those not familiar with the history of supercomputers and climate models, I provide the following linked article that address some of the many different details of that story.  Also, I note that when the associated attached image indicates that many current climate models are accounting for ice sheet feedbacks they only mean MISI models not MICI models:

Title: "Supercomputers, Climate Models and 40 Years of the World Climate Research Programme"

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06122019/climate-models-supercomputer-world-research-program-agu-100-anniversary-cheyenne-wyoming

Extract: "Earlier this week, a group of scientists published a peer-reviewed paper comparing the early climate models published between 1970 and the mid-2000s with what actually happened. They found that 14 of the 17 early models' projections about temperature change as emissions rise were almost indistinguishable from the observed record.

Today's computer models are far more complex, requiring supercomputers to account for everything from the forces melting Antarctica's ice to the impact of vegetation on temperature and moisture. But there are still uncertainties, such as how aerosols impact cloud formation that could affect temperature and how and when tipping points such as loss of sea ice or thawing of permafrost will trigger faster global changes.

The next generation models—running on even more powerful supercomputers—are being designed to incorporate more detail to help answer increasingly difficult questions."

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

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17737
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 936
  • Likes Given: 242
Re: Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE (narrated video)
« Reply #2267 on: December 15, 2019, 10:47:34 PM »
...
Nature is not 'biased' against anything. Perhaps you mean that living nature experiences a civilisation-induced mass extinction because it is biased against civilisation? ;)

This post is not meant as an attack. I think this is a very important but perhaps difficult to see subject.


nanning,

While I appreciate that your post was not an attack, I note that the words that you quoted were not my words but those of the author of the cited article.  Furthermore, I note that virtually all of my posts are not intended to provide a definitive account for our extremely complex climate change situation; but rather they are intended to provide more pieces of this complex puzzle slowly bringing the reality of our current situation into focus by progressively reducing uncertainty.

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

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17737
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 936
  • Likes Given: 242
Re: Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE (narrated video)
« Reply #2268 on: December 15, 2019, 11:16:48 PM »
It appears to be more difficult for COP nations to agree to take effective climate action than some posts in this thread seem to indicate:

Title: "Major states snub calls for climate action as U.N. summit wraps up"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-accord/major-states-snub-calls-for-climate-action-as-un-summit-wraps-up-idUSKBN1YJ02D

Extract: "A handful of major states resisted pressure on Sunday to ramp up efforts to combat global warming as a U.N. climate summit ground to a close, angering smaller countries and a growing protest movement that is pushing for emergency action.

Brazil, China, Australia, Saudi Arabia and the United States had led resistance to bolder action, delegates said."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17737
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 936
  • Likes Given: 242
Re: Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE (narrated video)
« Reply #2269 on: December 15, 2019, 11:39:17 PM »
The linked reference finds that: "Thus, models that have missed out on considering this contribution could have underestimated the extent of oxygen depletion we are to expect in a future, warming world. A more intense expansion of dead zones than expected could have severe ecological, economical (fisheries), and climatic consequences."

Sabine K. Lengger et al. (06 December 2019), "Dark carbon fixation in the Arabian Sea oxygen minimum zone contributes to sedimentary organic carbon (SOM)", Global Biogeochemical Cycles,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GB006282

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GB006282
&
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2019GB006282?referrer_access_token=3UzHv2eeWLjkTpg9Ct_HesOuACxIJX3yJRZRu4P4ervSH3IgF-dOHgRHvW_nefh_mVeJv0V8Lu-avjVuqLf9BaztwyUeIQyHDbsj8NTMHpfk6sEJw70Cpsa1nMtAsQ747bdsauNzv8Sg7eW8uv85xg%3D%3D

Abstract
In response to rising CO2 concentrations and increasing global sea surface temperatures, oxygen minimum zones (OMZ), or “dead zones”, are expected to expand. OMZs are fueled by high primary productivity, resulting in enhanced biological oxygen demand at depth, subsequent oxygen depletion, and attenuation of remineralization. This results in the deposition of organic carbon‐rich sediments. Carbon drawdown is estimated by biogeochemical models; however, a major process is ignored: carbon fixation in the mid‐ and lower water column. Here, we show that chemoautotrophic carbon fixation is important in the Arabian Sea OMZ; and manifests in a 13C‐depleted signature of sedimentary organic carbon. We determined the δ13C values of SOM deposited in close spatial proximity but over a steep bottom‐water oxygen gradient, and the δ13C composition of biomarkers of chemoautotrophic bacteria capable of anaerobic ammonia oxidation (anammox). Isotope mixing models show that detritus from anammox bacteria or other chemoautotrophs likely forms a substantial part of the organic matter deposited within the Arabian Sea OMZ (~17%), implying that the contribution of chemoautotrophs to settling organic matter is exported to the sediment. This has implications for the evaluation of past, and future, OMZs: biogeochemical models that operate on the assumption that all sinking organic matter is photosynthetically derived, without new addition of carbon, could significantly underestimate the extent of remineralization. Oxygen demand in oxygen minimum zones could thus be higher than projections suggest, leading to a more intense expansion of OMZs than expected.

Plain Language Summary

Oxygen minimum zones are areas in the ocean in which algae produce large amounts of organic material. When this sinks towards the seafloor, all oxygen at depth is used up. This results in vast “dead zones” where almost no oxygen is available to sustain life. With global warming, and increased nutrients from rivers, dead zones are forecast to expand. Computer models can calculate this, by considering algal production, and the amount of material delivered to the seafloor. However, these models often ignore a major process: anaerobic bacteria in the deeper water column, that can live at the edge or in the middle of these dead zones, which can also produce organic material from the dissolved CO2. In this study, we used the fact that these bacteria add a distinct signature to the organic material, to show that one fifth of the organic matter on the seafloor could stem from bacteria living in these dead zones. Thus, models that have missed out on considering this contribution could have underestimated the extent of oxygen depletion we are to expect in a future, warming world. A more intense expansion of dead zones than expected could have severe ecological, economical (fisheries), and climatic consequences.

See also:

Title: "We May Have Gravely Underestimated The Threat of 'Dead Zones' in The World's Oceans"

https://www.sciencealert.com/dead-zones-in-the-world-s-oceans-could-be-a-much-greater-threat-than-we-realised
« Last Edit: Today at 03:34:36 AM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17737
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 936
  • Likes Given: 242
As an update to the linked article about this season's field work for the ITGC, I post the first image from Andreas T showing where the field team plans to drill through the Eastern Thwaites Ice Shelf (ETIS) to "... install instrumentation to measure the ocean, and use seismic and radar systems to map the ice thickness and the cavity beneath the ice. Teams will also collect sample sediment cores from the sub-ice seabed."  I presume that they are drilling at the base of the ETIS instead of at the base of the Thwaites Ice Tongue (see the second image) is due to safety associate with the risk that the ice tongue might surge downstream soon.

Also, I provide the third image which presents another perspective on the bed topology near the Thwaites Glacier gateway:

Title: "Land Ice Field Season 2019-2020, Antarctica"

https://thwaitesglacier.org/events/land-ice-field-season-2019-2020-antarctica

Extract: "MELT, TARSAN, GHC, THOR, and TIME teams will depart for McMurdo in early November 2019, and will deploy to the field between late November 2019 and January 2020.

ITGC teams plan to drill through the floating ice at the edge of the ice sheet, install instrumentation to measure the ocean, and use seismic and radar systems to map the ice thickness and the cavity beneath the ice. Teams will also collect sample sediment cores from the sub-ice seabed.  A geoscience team will collect rock samples from nearby mountains to examine the past history of the ice sheet. Farther upstream, another field team will investigate the boundary between the fast-flowing ice of Thwaites Glacier and the near-stationary ice next to it."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson