A list of missing feedbacks

[GeoffBeacon]

I have been asked to provide information on missing climate feedbacks to my MP. I hope this a good place for to compile a list. Please help. Starting with a

• more forest fires
• melting permafrost
• increased decomposition of wetlands

See also my letters and response with the UK Committee on Climate Change: http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/the-committee-on-climate-change-letters-and-response/

[Laurent]

Have you noticed the already existing list of feedbacks ?
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,540.msg15725.html#msg15725

[GeoffBeacon]

Thanks Laurent

I missed it. Perhaps my question is not sufficiently different from that Wili's list of missing feedbacks but I have been asked about feedbacks missing from climate models. I am trying to get a list of these, particularly the important ones. The reply I got from John Mitchell suggests some feedbacks are well covered

 

Based on help from my colleagues
 
          1.  reduced sea ice cover reflecting less of the sun's heat back out to space,

          2.  changing ocean circulation patterns
               
1,2 are in most models and have been for years

          3.  less carbon dioxide absorption by the oceans

          4.  increased soil respiration

3,4 are in most carbon cycle models and fairly well established. There are a good number
of such models in the current IPCC assessment

I was hoping the considerable expertise here might point to the "feedback holes" in the climate models, particularly the CMIP5 ones.

[theoldinsane]

I am a layman and do not know if this is within your scoop but there is perhaps a lack of studies of the feedbacks that may exist between society and climate change. I am referring to climate change in the form of extreme weather events.

A possible positive feedback is that extreme heat waves increase the use of air conditioning driven by electricity from fossil fuels. At the same time, extremely cold periods occur which increases the need for heating, which also increases the use of fossil fuels in countries that are not accustomed to such extreme cold weather (UK Spring 2013).

Or that a severe storm causes havoc with subsequent clean-up work followed by reconstruction, which required a lot of fossil fuels.

All this causes a further increase in carbon dioxide emissions which accelerate climate change.

This is a phenomenon that I believe will increase in line with extreme weather events becoming more frequent, but it may have no significance?

And it is of course only as long BAU prevails. A global societal collapse caused by CC is of course a negative feedback.

[ggelsrinc]

I have been asked to provide information on missing climate feedbacks to my MP. I hope this a good place for to compile a list. Please help. Starting with a

• more forest fires
• melting permafrost
• increased decomposition of wetlands

See also my letters and response with the UK Committee on Climate Change: http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/the-committee-on-climate-change-letters-and-response/

I have devoted a certain amount of attention to what I would call a similar subject that was prompted by a discussion on ASIB about potential negative feedbacks. Two examples that jump right out are the effects of clouds in the Arctic summer and aerosols. Yes, we have satellites that can detect clouds, but estimates on the radiative forcing are very inaccurate. Heavy cloud cover during the Arctic summer will protect the sea ice, but clouds in the Arctic winter make it warmer. Clouds produce a feedback in themselves, because the lack of clouds increases evaporation and evaporation produces more clouds. NASA collects data on clouds, but one cloud doesn't equal another in it's radiative forcing ability. I've seen data for total Earth clouds, but nothing focusing specifically on the Arctic. Getting good data on aerosols is also missing. A single volcanic event can drastically change how the Arctic responds and it's as unpredictable as the weather. None of that is new, but I'm just pointing out the uncertainties involved, mostly caused by inattention and the lack of acquiring good data.

Personally, I have considered ASI doomed from what has already been done, but the fragmentation event provided the last glance of a chance, IMO, to save ASI. It's possible that ASI will weaken so much that it will regenerate during the winter and stabilize long enough for governments to come to their senses. It's time governments grow up and stop playing with their new toy, meaning a sea ice free Arctic. Adult governments should go play somewhere else.

The strength of sea ice isn't something that can easily be estimated or measured. It's a shame I have more hope in ASI fighting for it's survival than the human beings who depend on it. I keep telling myself "it's not over until it's over", but that's a hell of a legacy to leave to my children and the human race. Putting our world back to the way it was and living peacefully within it is a hell of a task. What are we suppose to say: "sorry kids, this is what you get", because we were just too stupid to do better?

[Csnavywx]

http://www.mpg.de/7501454/weather-extreme_carbon-cycle_cimate-change

Here's one for ya.

[ggelsrinc]

http://www.mpg.de/7501454/weather-extreme_carbon-cycle_cimate-change

Here's one for ya.

I'm sorry to say I never gave Alexander von Humboldt the recognition he was do. When El Nino failed about a year ago, I suspected a change in ocean currents based on observations of SSTs affecting the Humboldt current, via the circumpolar current and areas heated near the Arctic, via the gulf stream. It was just a hypothesis using my mind as a model, which isn't as consistent as Planck's constant.

Learning about the brilliant people who lived so long ago makes someone wonder why we are the way we are today. Yes we have technology, but it seems our society is dumbing down. People like Max Planck and Alexander von Humboldt should be universally admired for their achievements, but here I am an old man who knows little about their lives.

Science is simply the accumulation of knowledge of a subject. It's hard to understand why knowledge gets rejected. Something must of happened in those caves I can't put in my equation.

Getting back to the theme of this thread, I think the evidence of albedo changes isn't accurately considered. As the Earth warms, I think it will respond with major changes in climatic patterns and I base that on it's past history. Forests behave differently with snow cover than cleared areas or tundra. I also suspect changes in ocean currents to change the climate in certain areas. Based on the past, I think Spain will dry up as fast as an olive in sunlight and parts of South America will also become desert.

One missing feedback is mankind. Unlike many other points of view, I suspect mankind in the future to be a player and not die off. Mankind is not just a problem maker, they are also a problem solver. I have faith that mankind will learn and fix the problems they have caused.

[wili]

Further support for your second bullet, at least:

http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/

[bluesky]

Hello Geoff

Although this is not as such a missing feedback,  however it might be useful to point out to MPs, MEPs that the IPCC has constantly underestimated SLR particularly in IPPC 4, and it might be the case too in IPCC 2013. Consequently this is leading the policy maker to under preparation due to the inertia of SLR, as it is very well noticed by Stefan Rahmstorf on Real Climate (and already quoted on the ASI thread "5th IPCC report's SLR estimates still too low"):
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/sea-level-in-the-5th-ipcc-report/

"Outlook

For the past six years since publication of the AR4, the UN global climate negotiations were conducted on the basis that even without serious mitigation policies global sea-level would rise only between 18 and 59 cm, with perhaps 10 or 20 cm more due to ice dynamics. Now they are being told that the best estimate for unmitigated emissions is 74 cm, and even with the most stringent mitigation efforts, sea level rise could exceed 60 cm by the end of century. It is basically too late to implement measures that would very likely prevent half a meter rise in sea level. Early mitigation is the key to avoiding higher sea level rise, given the slow response time of sea level (Schaeffer et al. 2012). This is where the “conservative” estimates of IPCC, seen by some as a virtue, have lulled policy makers into a false sense of security, with the price having to be paid later by those living in vulnerable coastal areas.

Is the IPCC AR5 now the final word on process-based sea-level modelling? I don’t think so. I see several reasons that suggest that process models are still not fully mature, and that in future they might continue to evolve towards higher sea-level projections.".... follows the explanations why IPCC AR5 SLR estimates might be too low.

Sorry as I still haven't taken the time to follow up on last year action toward London MEPs. But maybe it is the right time, first reminding Connie Hedegaard letter saying that EU policy was based on IPCC...and waiting for the next IPCC, so now the change of view on SLR between AR4 and AR5 is the single proof that waiting 7 years for the next IPCC, while in between there is a considerable amount of research on SLR and other subject, is a wrong strategy. And this has practical implication in  Northern Europe for low level coastal areas, which are quite numerous, also here in the UK (London which is not the least). Do you know what is the UK CCC position on that?

[ggelsrinc]

Two of the things I've been looking at are jellyfish and phytoplankton blooms. The other thread on feedbacks has a report on jellyfish and there have been plenty science articles about jellyfish lately. While I was watching the melt season, I noticed color I associated with phytoplankton and wondered if a study tracked the historical changes, because it changes albedo. I remembered accounts about the time the Northwest Passage opened and that gray whale was found in the Atlantic of a Pacific Ocean variety, of phytoplankton also migrating to the Atlantic. On a similar theme of albedo changes, I recall discussions of algae changes in GIS.

Global dimming/brightening is another subject seldom discussed. I recall a documentary on the subject and several can be found on YouTube, but try to find the one hour show (45 min). I'd post it, but my satellite connection is too slow. It can easily be found with keywords. The story goes something like this: A man in Israel is taking measurements of solar insolation to help design an irrigation project. 20 years later, he repeats his tests and discovers solar insolation has decreased. His global dimming findings are discounted, because the Earth was obviously warming during that time. In many places around the world, pan evaporation rates are showing similar findings, suggesting less solar insolation is reaching the Earth's surface. A multi-national research mission around the Maldives discovers the amount of aerosols north of the Maldives is 10 times larger than to the south. They also discover the particle size of aerosols can make clouds highly reflective of solar insolation and less likely for the clouds to develop precipitation.

The stage is set showing mankind has both warmed the Earth and cooled it with it's aerosol pollution. Since aerosol pollution is such a health and environmental problem, regulations eliminating aerosol pollution turn global dimming to global brightening. Aerosols are masking mankind's global warming, so as we switch to cleaner energy production, the full effects of our greenhouse gas emissions will be felt. Aerosols both natural or man made are short lived.

Back in the days of acid rain legislation, we can find a rapid increase in global warming as regulations on emissions were implemented. Mankind will clean up those unhealthy aerosols first and suffer the full effects of their carbon emissions.

[wili]

gge, I think the video you're talking about has been chopped up into five about-ten-minute bite sized chunks. Check to see if this looks like the first part of what you are talking about:



ETA: Here are the next parts:

[ggelsrinc]

gge, I think the video you're talking about has been chopped up into five about-ten-minute bite sized chunks. Check to see if this looks like the first part of what you are talking about:



ETA: Here are the next parts:

I've seen the full version in three different places, but I think there are problems posting the full version. I remember Nova, the BBC and some other site, having the full version. The chopped up versions are the same story, but it's a pain to watch them as I recall. It even contains that sideline about post 9/11 and contrails. My take is it involves copyright issues. If this damned satellite connection wasn't so slow, I would just find and post it. It's also possible the full versions are being removed. I recall seeing them on YouTube a few days ago, but was unable to post it.

I don't claim that documentary is the greatest, but it does focus on things seldom discussed. Clouds, aerosols and their interactions are a big uncertainty in climate science. The effects of greenhouse gas additions can be fairly well estimated. The net anthropogenic impact on the environment could be double what it is presently estimated to be and felt, once we remove our aerosol pollution. Think of it this way, we clean up our world and get the effects of doubling CO2 as a consequence. That is why I consider mankind an important feedback. It's like having a switch to turn off the volcano cooling our Earth. I believe mankind will focus on that kind of pollution first and the results will be quick warming, early '80s style. I envision the true greenhouse effect kicking in that will overwhelm any climate pattern making it cooler and once climate patterns assist in a warming trend, the so-called skeptics or climate liars on Earth will disappear, before tar and feathers help them along their way.

It's not a doomsday prediction, because I believe people will come to their senses and fight for their world. We are losing this climate war, if we only look at the battles of this moment. I remember finding myself watching ASI falling apart and being more concerned about proving my point of view being correct than the consequence of what is happening. That's when I realized the last of the Arctic sea ice was more important than my vanity. People like me store their resources in things like faith, hope and love and know what is a more powerful force on our Earth.

It's illogical to think the people of this world need to be so concerned about what I am concerned about at this moment of their lives. As the seconds of time pass away, I think people will be concerned about global warming, because of obvious changes, they can see. Many would be concerned now, if there wasn't such an obvious attempt to delude them. Delusion is only temporary and doesn't destroy the mind. When people know they have been lied to, motivation and determination kicks in. They know who to target.   

[wili]

RC had a series on the effect of aerosols. Here's a link to the first one.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/04/aerosol-formation-and-climate-part-i/

But I'm not sure these count as feedbacks in the usual sense, and I believe that they are accounted for in IPCC reports (though perhaps not as completely as possible); so I am concerned we may be drifting a bit from the thread topic here, though I do hope you are right about people (and especially policy makers) waking up soon to the enormity of the threat.

[bluesky]

In the Real Climate arcticle about "what ocean heating reveals about global warming", there is an interesting answer from  a Real climate contributor, Gavin Schmidt (climate modeller at the Nasa Goddard Institute),  about the recent increase of aerosols from China and India, inferring that IPCC5 is underestimating the impact:

Quote

21
robert says:   
25 Sep 2013 at 12:18 PM

Regarding the “pause” in surface warming. I’m not hearing much about aerosol screening as a result of massive buildup of coal-fired power plants in China and India. Given the significant role such aerosols played in the 40′s, 50′s, 60′s from U.S. and European emissions (prior to serious scrubbers), and that the scale in China / India right now is significantly larger, why wouldn’t this aerosol screening (global dimming) be an issue?

[Response: Indeed. I think this should very much be part of the discussion. There is a lot of evidence that Chinese aerosols are underestimated in the CMIP5 models and in the emission data sets. We don't yet have a good estimate of what this underestimate implies - though people are working on it. - gavin]

End quote

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

[ggelsrinc]

RC had a series on the effect of aerosols. Here's a link to the first one.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/04/aerosol-formation-and-climate-part-i/

But I'm not sure these count as feedbacks in the usual sense, and I believe that they are accounted for in IPCC reports (though perhaps not as completely as possible); so I am concerned we may be drifting a bit from the thread topic here, though I do hope you are right about people (and especially policy makers) waking up soon to the enormity of the threat.

wili, I'm just pointing to the uncertainties involved with aerosols and that's how they and human activity potentially becomes a missing feedback. CO2 tends to get all the attention, because it's the primary greenhouse gas we are adding to the atmosphere. When I look at the evidence of our total greenhouse gas additions, I think the evidence shows adding that amount of those greenhouse gases produces a certain amount of radiative forcing that can be rather accurate measured in the lab. Aerosols produce a negative feedback, but the amount of negative feedback has a wide range of uncertainty. My point is what if we remove those nasty things and discover our greenhouse gas emissions are causing twice the warming we presently have. We don't know how much aerosols are masking our present greenhouse additions. It's all consistent with the IPCC's findings and nothing new. Those aerosols only exist in the atmosphere, because we are constantly adding them and will be reduced, because they produce health hazards.

[wili]

Good catch, bluesky.

gge, again, unless I am missing something (always a possibility), it seems that you are using the term 'feedback' when you may mean 'forcing' as far as aerosols go.

But generally, your points are well taken. We may, indeed, see rapid increases in GW as we remove these aerosols--up to 2 degrees C, from what I have read.

Yet any plan to intentionally continue to inject them into the atmosphere brings up all sorts of other practical, moral, political and other problems.

[ggelsrinc]

Good catch, bluesky.

gge, again, unless I am missing something (always a possibility), it seems that you are using the term 'feedback' when you may mean 'forcing' as far as aerosols go.

But generally, your points are well taken. We may, indeed, see rapid increases in GW as we remove these aerosols--up to 2 degrees C, from what I have read.

Yet any plan to intentionally continue to inject them into the atmosphere brings up all sorts of other practical, moral, political and other problems.

It's a matter of perspective.

Each glacial period is subject to positive feedback which makes it more severe and negative feedback which mitigates and (in all cases so far) eventually ends it.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

The same is true of each interglacial period, if someone doesn't view a glacial period as having the full cycle. Only orbital forcing and solar activity, which are represented as solar irradiance on a radiative forcing chart can be ruled out as feedbacks. The other components are still feedbacks, even if mankind has changed them in his ways to cause global warming by his net changes. They are viewed as forcing, because the IPCC was tasked to calculate what mankind has done to the Earth and what the future consequences may be. Looking at our situation from that perspective doesn't change the feedback characteristics of the physical Earth. It just shows that mankind can hijack one of those natural feedbacks (changes in greenhouse gases) and make it a driver strong enough to reverse a long term net trend, such as slowly cooling to warming. 

 

[wili]

I guess it is the case that, as soon as humans are involved, the line between forcing and feedback can get a bit blurry. As temperatures get hotter, more airconditioning will mostly lead to more coal burning which will lead to both more CO2 and more aerosol 'cooling.'

Generally, though, human CO2 emissions and aerosol emissions are categorized as 'forcings' iirc.

[ggelsrinc]

I guess it is the case that, as soon as humans are involved, the line between forcing and feedback can get a bit blurry. As temperatures get hotter, more airconditioning will mostly lead to more coal burning which will lead to both more CO2 and more aerosol 'cooling.'

Generally, though, human CO2 emissions and aerosol emissions are categorized as 'forcings' iirc.

I was taught to examine the physical processes of the Earth and find it strange how some people consider more air conditioning, because it's getting hotter a feedback, but removing aerosols for health reasons not a feedback and I'm not claiming that was your point. Feedbacks are both positive and negative and if something in the environment causes people to do something to change the environment, I consider it a feedback. Changes in aerosols were a feedback before mankind added what we did, just like changes in clouds were a feedback. The processes to change the climate existed before mankind altered the climate. Changing the climate by adding CO2 is not something mankind invented, it's a physical process that mankind should know well enough to avoid and mankind is a player in that process, now, for better or worse. I've talked to many Denialistas claiming to be Geologists and have often asked how they managed to get their degrees. Changes in CO2 are like a backbone in Geology.

I think it's more a case of semantics. All things in the Earth's energy budget and all the changing components both natural and anthropogenic can be expressed in terms of radiative forcing. Changing global temperatures change atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and many other things. An increase in global temperatures will increase atmospheric CO2, methane and water vapor, which increase global temperatures furthering the increase in atmospheric CO2, methane and water vapor. That is a feedback regardless of what initially starts the process. The process continues until enough negative feedback from clouds stop the rise in global temperature, considered a Hothouse Earth condition. 

Now, of course, we are far from that, because we have a cooled Atlantic Ocean and the Arctic Ocean and Antarctica cool the Earth. The ability of our oceans to store heat buffers a rapid rise in global temperatures. The important point is even Eemian conditions in a near future of a hundred or so years will be a disaster. I don't believe it's a doomsday disaster, but mankind and nature will pay a heavy price. I believe it's smarter to just pay up now and change what we are doing.

The differences between looking at things from our two perspectives is rather meaningless to the science involved. As long as I can understand what someone means, I don't care what language is used.   

[GeoffBeacon]

Thank you all.

I've been a bit distracted since I asked.

I've briefly skimmed the  the IPCC AR5  Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

They mention some feedbacks that I thought were not covered properly in the CMI5 models (e.g. wildfires, thawing permafrost)

Which ones have been robustly inserted into the models? Any? All?




just looked

[wili]

Yes, they mention melting permafrost in the text. But as far as I can figure out, that feedback has not yet made it into the models they are referencing. I hope someone can prove me wrong on that, though.

[GeoffBeacon]

Wili

It has been confirmed by several climate scientists that I have written/spoken to. The first  comment I received was this one.

there is a distinction between processes that have been diagnosed offline from GCM projections (such as  forest fires and permafrost melt), and those that are already fully inside GCMs, providing feedbacks to climate.

The AR5 GCMs typically didn't include fires or interactive methane emissions from permafrost and wetlands, but many models will include such feedbacks next time around.

I will try to find out how they think it affects the AR5 carbon budget.

[wili]

Thanks for doing that foot work, Geoff.

Here is the best recent research on the likely consequences of permafrost melt (if you haven't seen it and have the stomach for it) as summarized by SkSc:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Macdougall.html

To me, the first graph at figure 3 is the takeaway.

Basically, once include feedback from even just the CO2 from just the top 3 meters of just terrestrial permafrost, with the standard climate sensitivity rate of 3 degrees C per doubling, you get the result that even stopping all further human CO2 emissions NOW, atmospheric levels of CO2 will remain at or above current levels for at least the next two centuries.

When one considers that:

a) besides CO2, there will be a lot of methane produced from this source (methane having much stronger gw power then CO2 ~35x at century time scales)
b) permafrost goes a lot deeper than 3 meters; it's up to about a mile deep in some areas
c) melt of seabed permafrost (and clathrates) involving massive quantities of carbon  should be included
d) lots of other feedbacks still not in models also need to be included, which themselves feedback on all the other feedbacks...

...Once all those (and probably others I haven't thought of) are added to the picture, it seems likely that we really are past a crucial tipping point.

This study, with these further considerations, clearly, asfacs, shows that even immediate and permanent [/i]stoppage of all our carbon emissions will not prevent CO2 levels (and so temperatures) from rising throughout at least the next 200 years.

[GeoffBeacon]

Thanks wili

I hadn't seen that. It looks scary and makes the point about the missing feedbacks in The Trillion Tonne Hypothesis in a much more detailed and clearer way than I have been doing. But I have been pursuing this for years including a slightly heated correspondence with Myles Allen in 2011. Some of it concerned my comment (No.19) on Climate Progress (October 18, 2011): http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/10/18/346333/evidence-builds-that-scientists-underplay-climate-impacts/#comment_link

You can see earlier stuff on http://cccq.org.uk - please forgive the crude visual design.

The reason I'm back doing this now is that I have been asked by my MP to compile something for him to pass on.

Thanks to you all.

[wili]

Thank you for your important work, Geoff. And of course, as you know, the McDougall piece is just one paper,  likely to be improved on in the future. And there may well already be some such paper updating these findings that I've missed.

But it is my understanding that it was one of the first to really try to rigorously figure out what incorporating the permafrost feedback into projections would do to predicted CO2 levels going forward. At the time, otherwise rather staid science blogs like tamino's Open Mind and ClimateSight greeted the McDougall piece with statements like "Oh Sh!t!" so it's not just me who interpreted this as an indication that we had passed a critical turning point.

Best wishes.

[GeoffBeacon]

I haven't done as well as I hoped in compiling this list. My MP will send this list to the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology who are compiling a note for UK MPs. I have been distracted by other issues and dithered trying to source the information and get feedback from scientists. Some reported at the end of the list.

What concerns me here is the  underestimation of the IPCC AR5 Carbon Budget due to inadequate modeling in the CMIP5 models they used. On Climate Central Andrew Freedman says this:

According to a 2009 study published in the journal Nature, burning all proven and economically recoverable fossil fuel reserves — never mind other potential new fossil fuel discoveries — would pump another 763 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere. That would be enough to exceed the carbon budget and, most likely, set the globe on track to sail past the temperature target.

 What’s worse is that the budget may even be smaller since emissions other than carbon dioxide (CO2) also contribute to global warming. Factoring in some of these shorter-lived climate pollutants, such as nitrogen oxide and soot, brings the overall cumulative budget down from 1 trillion tonnes of carbon to 800 billion tonnes.

 With that in mind, the remaining budget is even smaller, leaving just 269 billion tonnes of carbon left. To stay within the budget, global emissions would have to peak by 2020, and then become negative – with more carbon being taken out of the atmosphere by plants and the oceans than is put into the air each year — by 2090.

 The IPCC report also said that a possible release of greenhouse gases from thawing permafrost and methane hydrates — which are “not accounted for in current models” — would shrink the remaining budget even further.

Good stuff. One scientist has replied to an email along similar lines

Thanks for your interest and for your compliments on the paper.  In answer to your question, all of the CMIP5 models represent the so-called fast feedbacks that are discussed in the paper, e.g., feedbacks associated with changes in water vapor and clouds.  Some of the CMIP5 models are Earth system models (ESMs), meaning that they include an interactive representation of the carbon cycle.  So, these ESMs are able to simulate climate-CO2 feedbacks, although certain processes that are expected to be important for these feedbacks (e.g., interactions between the carbon and nitrogen cycles) are not yet generally represented.  Moreover, none of the CMIP5 models are currently able to interactively simulate feedbacks between climate change and the greenhouse gases methane and nitrous oxide.  Additionally, the models do not yet represent feedbacks associated with changes in continental ice sheets.  While a select few models (e.g., the NCAR Community Earth System Model) are beginning to add this capability (in a rather simplified way at this point), it was not utilized in the simulations that were performed for CMIP5, i.e., continental ice sheet extents were held fixed at their present-day values in all CMIP5 future scenarios.

(Note: I will attribute the quotes here after asking permission.)

On the thawing permafrost,  I asked a scientist in the IPCC about Significant contribution to climate warming from the permafrost carbon feedback. (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/full/ngeo1573.html). The reply contained

We reviewed all the publications on permafrost for the IPCC, and MacDougall is one of the many we looked at. Most of the studies had an outgas of permafrost ranging from 50-250 GtC (with some studies including multiple model analysis). There was one study below 50 and one study (with one model) above 250 (MacDougall). The range has low confidence because of this. The MacDougall is an outlier, which doesn't mean they are wrong, but it does mean that their result has not been reproduced by others. Note that the permafrost stock of 1700 GtC is right. The question is how much of this stock is released to the atmosphere when it thaws, that's the difficult part to assess.

A comment on this reply was

The model experiments of MacDougall et al. 2012 do show a larger release of permafrost carbon than other model studies. This larger release is due mainly to 3 factors
1) The UVic model more accurately reproduces the quantity of carbon in permafrost soils (previous model estimates had smaller permafrost carbon pools).

2) It explores a larger range of climates than other model experiments. The UVic ESCM’s simplified atmosphere allows us to alter the climate sensitivity of the model therefore we were able to explore the range of climate sensitivity from 2.0 – 4.5 oC for a doubling of CO2. 

3) The UVic ESCM, as the first coupled model to carry out permafrost carbon experiments, and therefore includes the feedback between release of permafrost carbon and further warming of the climate.

Note that the other model estimates for release by 2100 are:

Zhuang et al. (2006): 7 to 17 Pg C
Schaefer et al. (2011): 103+/- 35 Pg C
Koven et al. (2011): 62+/- 7 Pg C
Schneider von Deimling et al. (2012): 33 to 114 Pg C
MacDougall et al. (2012): 68 to 508 Pg C

The 50 to 250 Pg C estimate used by the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers is entirely fair and does implicitly include the estimates from my study, just not the highest estimate  (it also does not include the lowest estimates from literature).

It included a brief inter-model comparison in the supplementary information for MacDougall et al. (2012) (Section S7) which I have attached to this email.

I think the "IPCC comment" means MacDougal et al. as a whole was considered an outlier by the IPCC not just their highest result.  Have I read that correctly?

But that is just one feedback, although perhaps one of the more worrying ones - alongside methane hydrate dissociation.

This is bit long so I will post the list I've compiled  in the next post.

[GeoffBeacon]

This is my list of feedbacks missing/underestimated in the CMIP5 models used in estimateing the carbon budget in IPCC AR5.  What important ones have I missed?

09 September 2012 Permafrost feedbacks
Permafrost feedback:Significant contribution to climate warming from the permafrost carbon feedback
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/full/ngeo1573.html

29 March 2013
Reduced global dimming: Faustian Bargain & The Missing Climate Data
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130329_FaustianBargain.pdf

May 2013
Climate impact of Jellyfish: Stung! On Jellyfish Blooms and the Future of the Ocean. Lisa-ann Gershwin
http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo15220175.html

July 2013
Climate sensitivity underestimated:Review Article,Climate sensitivity in the Anthropocene
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2165/pdf
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/sep/18/climate-change-double-impact-study

August 2013:
Extreme weather events:  Extreme meteorological events and global warming: a vicious cycle?
http://www.mpg.de/7501454/weather-extreme_carbon-cycle_cimate-change

August 2013
Reduced sulphur fluxes: Global warming amplified by reduced sulphur fluxes as a result of ocean acidification
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n11/full/nclimate1981.html

September 2013
Reduced plant growth: Drought Drives Decade-Long Decline in Plant Growth
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/plant-decline.html

September 2013
Carbon Models Underestimate Role of Animals: Animating the Carbon Cycle
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10021-013-9715-7

September 2013
Climate models underestimate the variability of Amazon  dry-season length: Increased dry-season length over southern Amazonia in recent decades and its implication for future climate projection
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/45/18110.full

September 2013
Water vapor feedback underestimated in models: Stratospheric water vapor feedback
http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2013/watervapor.html

October 2013
Wildfires projected to worsen with climate change: Ensemble projections of wildfire activity and carbonaceous aerosol concentrations over the western United States in the mid-21st century
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2013/08/wildfires-projected-worsen-with-climate-change
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231013004573

November 2013
Methane from small thaw ponds: Small Thaw Ponds: An Unaccounted Source of Methane in the Canadian High Arctic
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0078204


I have missed out the feedbacks from human behaviour. There are some others I'm looking for: signs of methane hydrates dissociation, a good pine beetle reference, failing sinks, and nitrogen cycle stuff. If I find them I will post them later.

Additions, comments, help, welcome.

[wili]

Thanks for sharing this list with us, Geoff. I noticed you don't include clathrates/seabed methane hydrates. Did you determine that these were in the IPCC models already? Or is the timing just too hard to determine? Even if you don't find any of the signs so far that methane hydrates are dissociating, they will certainly start to do so at some point.

IIRC, the amount that aerosols dim the planet has recently been found to be not as great as earlier estimates. I'll see if I can find that link. I'll get back to you later with more feedbacks and links, but your list does seem to cover most of the major ones (along with some I hadn't heard of--jelly fish! Who'd a thunk it?).

[Bruce Steele]

Geoff, This study shows potential negative impacts to the biological pump at elevated Co2.

http://www.biogeosciences.net/10/5619/2013/bg-10-5619-2013.pdf

" The impact of Co2 enhanced nutrient utilization by pico- and nanophytoplankton growth at the expense of diatoms on biogeochemical cycling was visible in sedimentation fluxes, which were lower at elevated pCo2."

[GeoffBeacon]

Thanks wili and Bruce

Wili. I'll be looking for good link for the seabed methane hydrates but if you have one that would be good. 

Bruce, is this a negative effect (i.e. a bad one) or a negative feedback? I'm feeling a bit dim today.

[wili]

john just posted this on the "What's new in the Arctic?" thread:

Arctic storms speed up release of methane plumes


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24639-arctic-storms-speed-up-release-of-methane-plumes.html#.UpJdRI2kCxl

A stormier Arctic could fast-track the greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, potentially accelerating global warming.

"Significant quantities of methane are escaping the East Siberian Shelf as a result of the degradation of submarine permafrost," says Natalia Shakhova of the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. She and her team collected data – at a great cost – to show that vast areas are releasing plumes of methane gas, which is escaping into the atmosphere.

In August 2010, 11 sailors aboard a tug boat drowned in the Laptev Sea while trying to rescue a fishing boat in the Arctic waters north of Siberia. What didn't emerge at the time was that they were attempting to rescue a team of Russian researchers probing whether storms that stir up the ocean will increase the release of methane from the sea bed as the Arctic warms.

From their fishing boat, the researchers drilled into the bed of the Laptev Sea – a hotspot of methane emissions – and used sonar to analyse gas bubbles in the water. They found the permafrost that usually sat beneath the sea bed was unfrozen, allowing around 500 tonnes of methane to bubble out of every square kilometre of the sea bed each day. Bubbling seeps of methane were found along the entire coastline of their survey area, over the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. Similar plumes have been seen off the coast of Svalbard in Norway.

The team also measured how two storms – one in 2009 and one in 2010 – changed the amount of methane dissolved in the water. They found that the winds stirred up the ocean, speeding the release of gases into the air.

[GeoffBeacon]

wili

I'll add this

November 2013
Seabed methane release is controversial but may be very important: Several sources...

Arctic storms speed up release of methane plumes
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24639-arctic-storms-speed-up-release-of-methane-plumes.html

Follow links to

Climate science: Vast costs of Arctic change
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7459/pdf/499401a.pdf
Arctic: Speed of methane release
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v500/n7464/full/500529a.html
Arctic: Uncertainties in methane link
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v500/n7464/full/500529b.html
Arctic: Warming impact is uneven
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v500/n7464/full/500529c.html

[wili]

Good set of links, there, Geoff.

It's frustrating that the NS does not have a link to the actual paper being discussed. Perhaps it has not been published yet?

[Bruce Steele]

Geoff, Diatoms are very efficient in transporting carbon to depths by forming large, rapidly sinking aggregates.  If they are outcompeted by Co2 stimulated pico/nanoplankton the carbon pump
( biological pump) doesn't move as much carbon from surface waters to depth, it builds up at the surface . Co2 moving from the atmosphere into the oceans is dependent on a difference in partial pressures. If Co2 builds up in surface waters it will be harder to move from the atmosphere into the ocean.  The extra atmospheric Co2 will lead to more global warming.
  Seems like a feedback to me but the paper I sourced doesn't call it that.   

[wili]

Here's the link to the article (thanks to prokaryote at RC):

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2007.html

Ebullition and storm-induced methane release from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf

abstract:

Vast quantities of carbon are stored in shallow Arctic reservoirs, such as submarine and terrestrial permafrost. Submarine permafrost on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf started warming in the early Holocene, several thousand years ago. However, the present state of the permafrost in this region is uncertain.

Here, we present data on the temperature of submarine permafrost on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf using measurements collected from a sediment core, together with sonar-derived observations of bubble flux and measurements of seawater methane levels taken from the same region. The temperature of the sediment core ranged from −1.8 to 0 °C. Although the surface layer exhibited the lowest temperatures, it was entirely unfrozen, owing to significant concentrations of salt.

On the basis of the sonar data, we estimate that bubbles escaping the partially thawed permafrost inject 100–630 mg methane m−2 d−1 into the overlying water column. We further show that water-column methane levels had dropped significantly following the passage of two storms. We suggest that significant quantities of methane are escaping the East Siberian Shelf as a result of the degradation of submarine permafrost over thousands of years.

We suggest that bubbles and storms facilitate the flux of this methane to the overlying ocean and atmosphere, respectively.

(My emphases and formatting.)

[GeoffBeacon]

Thanks Bruce, wili (and prokaryote)

I now have these to add..

August 2013
Ocean acidification reduces carbon sink: Arctic ocean acidification: pelagic ecosystem and biogeochemical responses during a mesocosm study
http://www.biogeosciences.net/10/5619/2013/bg-10-5619-2013.pdf

November 2013
Seabed methane release: Ebullition and storm-induced methane release from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2007.html


I will point my MP at this thread in case any more is added.

[GeoffBeacon]

I've sent notes and lists (above) introduced with

Missing and underestimated feedbacks in the CMIP5 climate models
used to calculate the carbon budget in the recent IPCC report (AR5).

Thank you for asking me to compile a note on this subject for you to pass to the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.  I have received help from contributors to the Arctic Sea Ice Forum in compiling this list of missing or underestimated feedbacks in the CMIP5 climate models used to calculate the carbon budget in the recent IPCC report (AR5). (See http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,610.0.html)

It may be worth looking up this page in case others add to the list or have other comments.

Best wishes ...

[wili]

Thanks for all your work, Geoff. Meanwhile, everyone, do check out the new post by neven at the blog site on the seabed methane article:

 http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/11/and-the-wind-cries-methane.html#more

[ggelsrinc]

Thanks for all your work, Geoff. Meanwhile, everyone, do check out the new post by neven at the blog site on the seabed methane article:

 http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/11/and-the-wind-cries-methane.html#more

Is there scientific evidence of massive methane releases during the Eemian or Holocene Thermal Maximum?

Your kind has already claimed it's hopeless and we're all going to die, so why waste your time saying anymore?

[wili]

My kind??? You know essentially nothing about me.

[ggelsrinc]

My kind??? You know essentially nothing about me.

Oh, yes I do!

[wili]

Greeeaat. So now you're admitting to being CIA, spying on me??

[ggelsrinc]

Greeeaat. So now you're admitting to being CIA, spying on me??

You won't be alive to admit it.

[wili]

Cool. Veiled threats now. 

[ggelsrinc]

Cool. Veiled threats now. 

Paranoia will destroy ya!

[wili]

Joseph Heller — 'Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you'

[GeoffBeacon]

Here's some of the postscript I added today.

I am adding this postscript after some thought.  Nearly all of the items in the list above reference  papers that have been peer reviewed. I think there are occasions when the usually  valuable demands of peer review exclude the less knowable and the very recent so there are occasions when points, which are important cannot easily be found in the peer reviewed literature.

Last hours

One feed back mentioned above that I would like to draw attention to concerns dissociating methane hydrates.  Thank you for passing on my previous concerns to get an official response to the Last Hours video. This video concerning the longer term should be considered by POST as well..

Neven's Sea Ice Blog

A good place to find up to the hour information can often be found on Neven's Sea Ice Blog. Yesterday a new topic was started  And the wind cries methane. POST should look at this and read the comments.  The piece by Neven ends “Remember, you can track methane yourself on MethaneTracker.org.”

“Looking yourself” is somewhat faster than peer review although not as reliable. (cf. Heisenberg)

[wili]

Great. Thanks for your work, Geoff.

[Bruce Steele]

Geoff, This report came out a couple days late for your letter but you might try to copy the chart I linked on the carbon cycle page today. I can't copy charts off a PDF but if you can it is pretty interesting.   mccip 2013   There is a lot in the report on sea ice and other good reading also.

[GeoffBeacon]

The note from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology can now be found at

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/POST-PN-454/risks-from-climate-feedbacks

Feedbacks like more wildfires aren't explicitly mentioned but it does say

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.

I hope I/We made a difference. Thanks to all.

I might do a follow up when the dust settles.