Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts  (Read 39251 times)

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2599
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 305
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #50 on: December 13, 2013, 07:08:13 PM »
Good point, domen.

2013 Arctic Report Card press conference is out:

At about minute 25:30 the question is asked about the effect of newly open Arctic Ocean on the jet stream. The panelist that responded in no way down played the effect, but did point out that it is a subject of ongoing research.

At about minute 30 they talk about the failure of models to predict Arctic sea ice melt.

They talk about feedbacks (some of which, presumably, the modelers should have known about).
"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."

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2599
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 305
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #51 on: December 13, 2013, 08:28:28 PM »
It looks as if we will need some very abrupt and severe economic impacts right away and every year for a long time if we are to have any possibility of avoiding abrupt (or less-than-abrupt) catastrophic impacts from climate change:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/South-Scores-11th-Hour-Win-on-Climate-Loss-and-Damage_IPS.html

Quote
To have a good chance at staying under two degrees C, industrialised countries need to crash their CO2 emissions 10 percent per year starting in 2014, said Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester.

And we all know that two degrees is far too high, so change that to something exceeding 10% emissions cuts (~=economic contraction) per year, year after year after year, starting right now.

This is what is absolutely required for having a shot at preserving something like a livable planet.

Right now.

Are we up to it?
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

TeaPotty

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 219
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #52 on: December 13, 2013, 09:01:19 PM »
Hey wili,

Ty for the link to the video.

I wonder if you agree that it highlights more or less what i spoke of. They may be (hesitantly) speaking a bit more direly, but the idolatry of objectivity is clearly there. Nauseating too.

Not to mention, the very bad excuses given for why the Arctic is warming so alarmingly faster than predicted; And no sign of vulnerability to confidence in their current predictions.

How will scientists explain to rest of the world that they were too timid to sound the alarm? How can they explain to their fellow human being that even in face of a mass-extinction event, they still valued their image of objectivity more? How can they not call for more research? How can they not call for radical action?

You gotta love the "I'll just publish my data and hope someone else gives a crap about it" attitude. Conveniently serves the 1%'s too.

Most people have no idea that climate change has blown up to threaten potentially billions of lives and our way of life. The public is definitely not getting any signs of "immediate threat" from scientists. I don't think scientists realize that this position will only invite animosity from the public who will seek who to blame over time.

Indeed, frogs in a slowly boiling pot of water.


Quote
To have a good chance at staying under two degrees C, industrialised countries need to crash their CO2 emissions 10 percent per year starting in 2014, said Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester.

Which is why I think avoiding 4C will be the realistic goal. Because once we pass that 2C-3C, all sorts of feedbacks are likely to kick in. I think even avoiding 3C may be very difficult in the long term.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2013, 09:17:01 PM by TeaPotty »

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2599
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 305
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #53 on: December 13, 2013, 09:53:43 PM »
"idolatry of objectivity"

There is a feminist critique of this, seen in such books as the biography of Barbara McClintock A Feeling for the Organism.

At some point they even say that they are not claiming in the report whether they think the changes they are seeing are good or bad.

So, yeah, it can be pretty frustrating to see the lack of connection between the catastrophic changes they are reporting and their rather flat affect and refusal to commit to anything that sound remotely alarming.

Ultimately, though, much more than the scientists, it is the folks not listening to what the data are showing who are to blame (and even more, of course, the a$$holes actively trying to confuse the populace).

Perhaps you know the phrase, "A word to the wise is sufficient."

Scientists seem to think that people, or at least major decision makers, are in some such way "wise." More and more of them are coming to the understanding that this is not the case.

The panel's discussion of the failures of Arctic sea ice melt models was particularly disappointing.

The first guy at least indicated that feedbacks are hard to model, but he didn't really indicate which feedbacks they failed to model adequately. Then they just went over the most basic kinds of feedbacks that in fact should not be that impossible to model imho as they are based on very fundamental physics. It didn't really answer the question.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain exactly why so many models by so many smart people got this thing so completely and utterly wrong.

And by implication--given this utter and universal failure to model something as basic and fundamental of melting ice--I'm also wondering why we should trust assurances based on current models of other basic processes, particularly feedback-driven processes.

Why should we believe that they also won't end up happening dozens of years sooner and much, much faster and more powerfully than anyone currently can predict?

The unknowns here should be making people everywhere hopping mad and hair-on-fire impatient to immediately start the rapid drawdown of carbon UNsequestration, the suicidal practice we have been madly engaged in for a couple centuries now at an ever increasing rate.

I'm sure there's some analogy to how frighteningly idiotic this all seems, but the metaphor-generating part of my brain doesn't seem to be functioning well this afternoon.

On your last point--give how much earlier and stronger feedbacks have already been kicking in than anyone believed possible, I'm thinking that we are already on the cusp of (or beyond the edge of) triggering processes that will take us way past 2, 4, or even 6 degrees C.

No one really knows, for example, (afaik) whether subsea methane hydrates at the bottom of oceans around the world are starting to destabilize with the ocean warming at ever-greater depths.

 While, given the length of the water column, very little of that methane would make it directly into the atmosphere, massive releases around the globe could still further accelerate the already faster-than-ever-in-the-last-200-years increase in acidity and greatly hasten the point at which the oceans stop absorbing nearly half of the new carbon we spew into the air.
"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."

Bruce Steele

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 139
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #54 on: December 14, 2013, 01:05:39 AM »
Wili,  The rate of pH change in the oceans is the fastest since the PETM. The atmosphere absorbs
about half our Co2 emissions with the terrestrial biosphere absorbing about one quarter and the remaining one quarter going into the oceans.The heating of the oceans will result in less than one quarter of our emissions going into the oceans in the future, we are compromising the oceans ability to
uptake Co2 as effectively as it currently does.
 How is it you are to explain the carbon cycle and all it's complexities? 
 Is it scientists who have failed at getting the larger public informed?  I don't really think that's the problem. I have explained the carbon cycle(and the Co2 problem ) to lots of people. My explanation includes extinctions as a result of our current trajectory. The part that people can't conceive is how to get the 10% reductions and a zero fossil fuel future. There is nothing the scientists can do if we can't get people to at least imagining zero as an option.
 Just trying to achieve zero while everyone else stalls will be a certain irritation to the social fabric. If enough people figure out how to achieve zero well there may be storm clouds for society as a whole.
First and most important is building towards an almost impossible goal, zero fossil fuel emissions,
individually at first but then as a social force. 
 Getting everybody on board isn't as important as getting somebody to sell the notion that zero is a viable alternative. 

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2599
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 305
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #55 on: December 14, 2013, 01:19:09 AM »
"The part that people can't conceive is how to get the 10% reductions and a zero fossil fuel future."

You have hit the proverbial nail on it's proverbial head, here, Bruce.

"Getting everybody on board isn't as important as getting somebody to sell the notion that zero is a viable alternative."

Any thoughts on how to sell that notion.
"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."

ccgwebmaster

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #56 on: December 14, 2013, 03:54:06 AM »
How will scientists explain to rest of the world that they were too timid to sound the alarm? How can they explain to their fellow human being that even in face of a mass-extinction event, they still valued their image of objectivity more? How can they not call for more research? How can they not call for radical action?

You gotta love the "I'll just publish my data and hope someone else gives a crap about it" attitude. Conveniently serves the 1%'s too.

In defence of the scientists, have you looked at what has happened to those who have stuck their heads above the parapet? Michael Mann? James Hansen?

In some cases they were attacked by no less an organ than the government of the United States, which claims to be the most powerful nation on earth (and on that note, why isn't said country and government doing more about this, again...?).

I think pragmatically you have to ask yourself who - scientist or not - is prepared not only to stick their own head into the line of fire but also that of their families (who presumably are supported through their efforts to earn a salary) in such hostile circumstances? How many regular members of the public can you find prepared to do that?

Damn few, I submit.

It's convenient to try to pick a point of blame - some pick the scientists, some the fossil fuel industry, some the governments - but in the end we are all to blame. Personally I value the scientists for what they are prepared to research and publish (when they can even get funding...), and some will go further in private conversations than in public statements (as their necks aren't quite so directly on the block).

Without the science we would have no idea at all what was happening, or what was likely to happen or how our actions as a species related to it. That's worth keeping in mind?

TeaPotty

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 219
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #57 on: December 14, 2013, 06:57:51 AM »
Hey ccgwebmaster,

You gotta love the "I'll just publish my data and hope someone else gives a crap about it" attitude. Conveniently serves the 1%'s too.

In defence of the scientists, have you looked at what has happened to those who have stuck their heads above the parapet? Michael Mann? James Hansen?

In some cases they were attacked by no less an organ than the government of the United States, which claims to be the most powerful nation on earth (and on that note, why isn't said country and government doing more about this, again...?).

I think pragmatically you have to ask yourself who - scientist or not - is prepared not only to stick their own head into the line of fire but also that of their families (who presumably are supported through their efforts to earn a salary) in such hostile circumstances? How many regular members of the public can you find prepared to do that?

Damn few, I submit.

I think you answered that question yourself. Few scientists are willing to stick their neck out from their comfortable little lives. I agree, its very human. Then again such behavior from Scientists, people who are supposed to be intelligent citizens and leaders in our society, is ridiculous.

Also, you see many more moderates than activists - who take every chance to downplay any near-term climate alarm, and miss every opportunity to explain whats the significance of their findings to the rest of the humans they have been playing Risk with.

I did also emphasize that I believe that Capitalism has a lot to do with this, as it has successfully corrupted every institution to its benefit. As Capitalism is also faith-based (not evidence-based), such it has influenced culture and ways of thinking as well.

I'm sure u are aware most economists consider some lunatic idea of modeling and predicting "the market" a Science. That if u can manage to ignore the presumptions and beliefs in things like "market cycles" and "certainty fairies". It's often called a Science, because of its methodology. But something based on faith and assumptions is not really a Science.

I feel Climate Science is at that stage now as well, and its painful to admit. But without confronting how wrong we have been, we will keep making the same overconfident assumptions.

It's convenient to try to pick a point of blame - some pick the scientists, some the fossil fuel industry, some the governments - but in the end we are all to blame. Personally I value the scientists for what they are prepared to research and publish (when they can even get funding...), and some will go further in private conversations than in public statements (as their necks aren't quite so directly on the block).

Without the science we would have no idea at all what was happening, or what was likely to happen or how our actions as a species related to it. That's worth keeping in mind?

I hope you didn't think I was attacking Science in general. There are plenty of Scientists doing important work, and many who are turning increasingly activist, and I welcome it. Science has evolved along with us, just as it must keep doing so.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 07:03:13 AM by TeaPotty »

ccgwebmaster

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #58 on: December 14, 2013, 01:56:49 PM »
I think you answered that question yourself. Few scientists are willing to stick their neck out from their comfortable little lives. I agree, its very human. Then again such behavior from Scientists, people who are supposed to be intelligent citizens and leaders in our society, is ridiculous.

Not exactly. Few people. I'm not sure why you think scientists are leaders - those who control society do so through wealth and historical connections to ancestors mostly.

Are you personally prepared to gamble everything - including your family or friends - on taking a position? You said earlier you were busy managing a business or some such - suggesting it was a higher priority than climate change to you. Are you prepared to sideline it? Or sacrifice it for your cause?

If you can answer yes to any of those, are you doing that?

If you're actually doing it, do you ever wonder if it makes you a rather ruthless and unpleasant (albeit determined) individual, to be willing to sacrifice (or at least risk) such things? A fanatic in the eyes of most, easy to paint as a raving lunatic out on the fringes?

Also, you see many more moderates than activists - who take every chance to downplay any near-term climate alarm, and miss every opportunity to explain whats the significance of their findings to the rest of the humans they have been playing Risk with.

There are plenty of psychological biases in how the human brain operates - from which scientists are no more exempt than the rest of us. Again - look at the general population - whose consumption and behaviour (active and passive) is at the root of the problem (in the westernised nations anyway).

I did also emphasize that I believe that Capitalism has a lot to do with this, as it has successfully corrupted every institution to its benefit. As Capitalism is also faith-based (not evidence-based), such it has influenced culture and ways of thinking as well.

Not necessarily capitalism per se - but certainly the rampant consumerist model adopted by the US (which arguably has some roots from Europe if you go back far enough). The US stands at the heart of this problem in many respects, not that it exempts the rest of the world from their ambitions to copy the US or from doing their bit.

I'm sure u are aware most economists consider some lunatic idea of modeling and predicting "the market" a Science. That if u can manage to ignore the presumptions and beliefs in things like "market cycles" and "certainty fairies". It's often called a Science, because of its methodology. But something based on faith and assumptions is not really a Science.

I feel Climate Science is at that stage now as well, and its painful to admit. But without confronting how wrong we have been, we will keep making the same overconfident assumptions.

I think one is painting with a very broad brush here. If you select specific parts of economics (market predictions) and specific parts of climate science (computer based modelling), I think one can validly be critical. But in both disciplines there is plenty of solid stuff - you just need to look more closely at the details.

With respect to abrupt climate change for example - models have (to my knowledge) been historically poor at being able to predict it, giving a misleading view into the future. However - some scientists have not only predicted it but also made it clear 1C is the safe upper limit (not 2C - and some of that goes back to the 1990s!).

If one looks at paleoclimate, then I think the scope for abrupt climate change becomes far more clear as does the evidence supporting the view that it not only happens but has likely happened fairly often within the history of the earth. When you say what a bad job the scientists have done - I think you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater somewhat. The science is there - mostly - I think you'll find (subject to varying degrees of certainty, and noting human activity is not directly analogous to past events).

In relation to this I think you will find the link ritter provided (though it wasn't immediately clear to me on following it) mentioning abrupt climate change of 5C in 13 years was the same PETM related matter discussed at some length in other topics and nobody can work out a mechanism that would account for the changes observed in the sediments in question - at least not over that timescale (the paper suggesting cometary carbon or igneous province activity, truly vast amounts effectively injected instantaneously). To me that suggests something truly exceptional happened (or the paper is wrong) - ie the rate of change would appear too great even for rapid release of submarine clathrates. That said such large changes are likely possible in specific regions (as opposed to globally) over such timescales (younger dryas provides a nice example, albeit of regional cooling and not directly applicable to the current situation).

Shared Humanity

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3979
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 429
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #59 on: December 14, 2013, 05:02:10 PM »
How will scientists explain to rest of the world that they were too timid to sound the alarm? How can they explain to their fellow human being that even in face of a mass-extinction event, they still valued their image of objectivity more? How can they not call for more research? How can they not call for radical action?

You gotta love the "I'll just publish my data and hope someone else gives a crap about it" attitude. Conveniently serves the 1%'s too.

In defence of the scientists, have you looked at what has happened to those who have stuck their heads above the parapet? Michael Mann? James Hansen?

In some cases they were attacked by no less an organ than the government of the United States, which claims to be the most powerful nation on earth (and on that note, why isn't said country and government doing more about this, again...?).

I am certain they are doing more about this than we know.

For example, I have no doubt that a large number of climate scientists are having all of their electronic communication captured and analyzed by the NSA. Hansen is no doubt on the top of their list.

Given the very cozy relationship between business and our increasingly autocratic government, I have no doubt the info captured is being fed to businesses in order  to provide them the means to discredit climate scientists.

Ooooops....need to adjust my foil cap.  :o

Shared Humanity

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3979
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 429
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #60 on: December 14, 2013, 05:27:22 PM »
Hey ccgwebmaster,

You gotta love the "I'll just publish my data and hope someone else gives a crap about it" attitude. Conveniently serves the 1%'s too.

In defence of the scientists, have you looked at what has happened to those who have stuck their heads above the parapet? Michael Mann? James Hansen?

In some cases they were attacked by no less an organ than the government of the United States, which claims to be the most powerful nation on earth (and on that note, why isn't said country and government doing more about this, again...?).

I think pragmatically you have to ask yourself who - scientist or not - is prepared not only to stick their own head into the line of fire but also that of their families (who presumably are supported through their efforts to earn a salary) in such hostile circumstances? How many regular members of the public can you find prepared to do that?

Damn few, I submit.

I'm sure u are aware most economists consider some lunatic idea of modeling and predicting "the market" a Science. That if u can manage to ignore the presumptions and beliefs in things like "market cycles" and "certainty fairies". It's often called a Science, because of its methodology. But something based on faith and assumptions is not really a Science.

With an economics degree from the University of Chicago, I can assure you that Economics is appropriately classified as a social science and it is based upon some fundamental assumptions about human behavior that have been well supported by research. Whether you would like to call it "maximizing utility" or "satisficing", these assumptions result in highly predictable and quantifiable human behavior on the aggregate.

As such, this intensely quantifiable science, is very effective in describing  and, yes, predicting the behavior of the system of capitalism.  However, the study of system behavior is only useful when the system is operating within certain normal limits of that system.  When the system moves to the margins (a black swan event is an example) the behavior of the system becomes highly unpredictable.

Climate change and the associated weather catastrophes would appropriately be labeled black swan events and as these continue to get worse the  system of capitalism will become very erratic and even break down. This will require extensive interventions by governments to stabilize the markets and orderly operation of capitalism.

Capitalism is actually more fragile than people generally realize. A real estate bubble in the U.S. followed by a mortgage crisis threatened to bring the system down and required interventions by governments across the globe. Seven years later, the global economy has still not fully recovered. Ongoing severe weather events will eventually completely disrupt the global economy and  the orderly  functioning  of  markets.

We are much closer to the dramatic perturbation of the economy than most expect and it will arrive with the attendant social unrest, regionally and globally.

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17693
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 892
  • Likes Given: 242
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #61 on: December 14, 2013, 07:25:11 PM »
Shared Humanity,

As an economist you know that what is a black swan event for a turkey is not a black swan event for his butcher.  Just as the best informed investors can clean-up in an economic down-turn by shorting the market; I imagine that some capitalist are waiting for the consequences of abrupt weather changes to become intolerable to large governments (say by 2030), so that one or more large governments resort(s) to geoengineering (say spraying hundreds of thousands of tons of suphuric acid into the upper atmosphere each year) in order to temporarily reduce the economic impact of the worst weather/atmospheric impacts; which would clearly provide a short-term market shorting opportunity for savy investors.  Such a desperate geoengineering scenario could possibly postpone (or actually temporarily benefit the select few) the worst economic impacts of continuing GHG emissions for several decades (say 2070) postponing wars, and allowing world populations to continue to grow (say to about 10 billion by 2070).  However, at the minimum the continued acidification of the oceans (with associate drop in marine life and of CO2 absorption) and the continued rise of sea level would likely eventually end the shorting opportunities associated with such a geoengineering scenario (note that with regard to sea level rise, SLR, if the ice sheet contributions result in a rate of SLR of over 1m per thirty years the NRC 2013 estimates that economies that that have not yet taken protective measures will likely have crippling economic losses from coastal inundation before they can take appropriate action to prevent the loss of at risk coastal infrastructure).

James Hansen has repeatedly warned about the Faustian Bargain that society (including those benefiting from vulture capitalism) is engaging in [gambling that some technological fix will resolve all of the climate change threats before the geoengineering scenario(s) run its(their) course(s)], will not end well for society, as by postponing facing the root of the problem we are increasing the eventual consequences. 

While I am agreeing with your basic point that economic systems are fragile in the face of the non-stationary conditions associated with BAU climate change; I am also pointing-out that society's proclivity for Faustian Bargains will likely raise the stakes/consequences to eventually turn black swan events into a dragon king event.   

My only hope is that the sooner we put an end to the shorting opportunities of the select few (either by better education, better regulation, or re-structuring of the capitalist system), the safer society will be.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 07:32:31 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

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2599
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 305
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #62 on: December 14, 2013, 09:45:16 PM »
IIRC, global dimming leads to shifts in the monsoon rains; these in turn would lead to millions or more dying of starvation.

If any nation openly intentionally geo-engineered the climate in such a way to lead to such consequences, I would think it would likely lead to...international hostilities, to say the least, but more probably open war or major, incessant terrorist activity.

And there would doubtless be any number of extreme unintended (and perhaps sometimes intended) consequences. That doesn't mean such measures won't be tried. Just that I'm not sure that they will really postponed negative consequences much and may accelerate them, at least in some areas.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

TeaPotty

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 219
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #63 on: December 15, 2013, 03:56:38 AM »
I am overjoyed to hear Gavin Schmidt gave a spot-on argument for more Scientific Advocacy at AGU. I created a separate topic with quotes to highlight what I feel stood out most:
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,692.0.html


Also, this quote from Stephen Schneider in July 1990 explains my point much more elegantly (used in Gavin's speech):

Quote
"...But what makes this [climate change] an interesting problem, and 'interesting' I use somewhat sarcastically, is the only way to prove that for sure is to perform the experiment on us, and that's why you have a debate about whether to do something about it before its proved beyond doubt; And that's not an issue of Science, that's an issue of values.

...How to choose what to do in face of uncertainty is never a scientific question. Science is illucidating the possibilities and the probabilities, but how to act and how to react is your own values.

...But if you don't have any information, it's hard to know how to apply your values in more than a random way"
« Last Edit: December 15, 2013, 03:11:06 PM by TeaPotty »

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #64 on: December 15, 2013, 06:16:36 PM »
JimD, aren't you a bit overemphasizing population? Most of people on planet don't emit much. 20% of the people emits 80% of excess GHGs (quoting Kevin Anderson from Tyndall Center). Overconsumption by rich is main driver of emissions.

domen

Sorry for the late response I was delivering a load of tools and such to my son's new farm in Calif.

Re: population.  I don't think so as Mr. Anderson is not looking at the problem in a systemic fashion.  If you want to read the background on what we have written here on population there is a population thread in the Consequences section that has a lot of work in it.  The thing to keep in mind about population is that, absent AGW considerations, our current population (which is projected to hit 9.6 billion in 2050) will utterly destroy our ability to maintain anything like our current civilizational structure well before the end of this century.   Add in climate change and energy supply issues and my personal projection is that we collapse circa 2050.

The key non-AGW factor in terms of continuing civilization as we know it is that we are already some significant factor above the carrying capacity of the Earth for our species.  Very conservatives estimates are that we are at 1.5 Earth equivalents in terms of resource consumption.  The other end of the spectrum indicates as many as 5 Earth equivalents.  As would be noted here on the forum, my practice is to work from the mid range numbers in order not to drift into assumptions which are difficult to support  with the available data.  So let's say we are at 3+ times carrying capacity.  Our resource extraction rates are stunning, and for some critical items, indications are that we will be struggling to obtain them at affordable costs in just a few decades.  These critical items range from strategic minerals related to high technology requirements to agriculture ones like phosphate supplies, freshwater supplies, top soil reserves and also  impacts from evolved pests and diseases which impact production, negative consequences of GMO crops, super weeds evolved from reaction to herbicides, etc.   Our population levels are also directly proportional to our impact on the food chain, ocean fish populations, and species extinction rates.   As you probably know resource extraction follows typical patterns of discovery and exploitation in that we find the biggest and easiest to exploit reserves first and work our way downwards towards the smaller and more difficult to exploit ones.  This practice puts a huge burden on the future as the resources used to exploit future reserves are much greater than they were in the past.  This further crimps our ability to maintain current levels of use and runs directly into the impact of rising population.  We need to keep in mind that almost ALL of the struggles we are having at this time are NOT related to AGW issues (those are just starting to impact significantly).  The current struggles are just mostly do to being over carrying capacity.  That is why AGW is so frightening.

A huge further consideration is that our desire to improve the standard of living of those less fortunate than the populations of the rich countries (our readers here in general) will result in the consumption of vast amounts of additional resources.  I note in an aside here that we do not try and raise their standard of living due to a sense of fairness, but rather in a search for new markets to exploit for profit - but I digress.  I believe very strongly that there is almost no chance that the populations of the wealthy countries will willingly give up any significant amount of their standard of living and, thus, the raising of the standard of living of poor peoples would dramatically worsen the carrying capacity ratio due to a large rise in resource consumption..  The global population "could" share more equitably and hold the rise in resource consumption to a lower level but we will not do so because of political and cultural concerns and the uncooperativeness of basic human nature .  Data over the last decade bears this belief out.  Economic development and rising population will eventually cause collapse as it will push us so much further past carrying capacity that natural systems will fail.  This will happen regardless of the impacts of AGW.

But AGW is not sitting on the sidelines.  It is going to flatten us like a bug so to speak.  Add a vast and rapidly rising population that is going to continue to emit vast amounts of carbon (and methane) to the atmosphere to the resource extraction issues and you have an unsolvable problem.

We could solve the population problem if the physics of AGW did not exist.  But it would be very difficult and we would not have unlimited time.  Certainly less than a century.  We could likely deal with AGW if our population were only 1-2 billion in that we could slow the rise in temperatures and all the side effects and our lower population would be easier to support in a world of dramatically reduced carrying capacity.   Carrying capacity is not rising.  AGW especially is decreasing it and this decrease will accelerate over time.  Depletion of the easy to extract resources also worsens the numbers.  Continuation of emissions on a large scale must stop (not that it will but it must) or they will destroy us.  Continuation of large population levels will destroy us let alone letting population increase.  Economic growth on a per capita basis will quickly destroy us and so will a continuation of the current level of consumption.

The only rational path towards a possible solution to our systemic problems are dramatic population reductions.  And the reduction cannot be based upon just small reductions in fertility or family planning policies.  We must lower population by many billions very soon.  Everyone wants a miracle.  Either God is going to save us or Progress is going to save us.  I do not believe in fantasies of either sort. 

In the population thread we talk about the least onerous methods of reducing populations.  No one can come up with a way of doing this humanely.  The best solution I have been able to come up with is a global ban on having ANY children at all.  Probably for 20-25 years.  Scary isn't it.  But other than that we are left to mother nature via famine and disease, or eventually humans will resort to genocide via war or bioweapons.  Would even a voluntary ban on births work in time?  I don't know but it is certain that nothing else will.  I wished I believed in miracles.

The above viewpoint is one reason I post so many items on what is going on in the world that are not climate change related.  I am trying to build a body of evidence as to why the Green-BAU approach will not work any better than the Koch funded BAU approach we all so hate.  Solar and wind energy are great developments that will be very useful to our survivors, if there are any.  As will a lot of other human endeavors such as modern medicine and better understandings of biology and physics.  But they will not save us.  Economic development and growth will not save us.  Capitalism will not save us.   Carbon pricing will not save us.  Population levels are problem number 1.  All others are derivative. We are in huge overshoot and there is only one solution to that problem.
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

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2599
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 305
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #65 on: December 15, 2013, 10:37:43 PM »
I don't want to rehash points already worked through on the other thread too much, but my slight variant of Jim's plan may be a bit more palatable since it gives people some hope of having a kid, while achieving essentially the same result--an immediate (near) total cessation of new births.

My idea was not kids before mothers are over 30 (or a bit higher). Since most women over 30 who want to have kids have already had them at this point, this rule (if enforceable) would essentially immediately almost all new births, just as Jim's plan does. But then new births would gradually increase, but only very slowly. And by the time most under-30 women who have not already had a kid reach 30, many will decide not to have one (particularly as it becomes ever more clear that their kids are not going to be facing a very friendly world).

In exchange for their sacrifice, all women should be offered free education, free health care (including of course contraception and safe abortion services), and an end to all discrimination based on sex.

Of course, neither Jim nor my plan have a rat's chance of being implemented anywhere, much less at the universal level required.

But I will also again point out that, important as population issues are, consumption is at least as important to control, and right away. There is no way to humanely decrease populations at rates faster than Jim or my plan entail (although moving away from the view that heroic, expensive measures should be always taken to lengthen life of even the most debilitated superannuated among us would help a bit).

But there are many ways that consumption can be very rapidly brought down to a fraction of the current level among those who consume the most globally. Banning most plane and car trips and most meat and dairy eating would go a long way in the right direction. It will take a bit longer to super insulate most homes and businesses, but much of that can be done within a very few years. In the mean time, most high-energy-consuming people have to learn to put up with much lower indoor temps in the winter and much higher in the summer.

Of course, any such measures would likely be met with howls of protest from all sides. That is unless most can be shown that we are facing an existential crisis at least as great as WWII.
"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: 17693
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 892
  • Likes Given: 242
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #66 on: December 18, 2013, 07:01:37 PM »
The information provided at the link below indicate that more people are taking the possibility of geoengineering more seriously, and when the climate gets bad I think that it will be hard for policy makers not to try such measures, no make what the risks are:

http://www.sciencecodex.com/hack_the_planet_geoengineering_research_ethics_governance_explored-125055
« Last Edit: December 28, 2013, 09:38:11 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: 17693
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 892
  • Likes Given: 242
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #67 on: December 28, 2013, 09:39:27 AM »
The linked article indicates that geoengineering will not be as effective as some people might hope:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/reducing-sunlight-by-geoengineering-will-not-cool-earth-16861
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

GeoffBeacon

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 378
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #68 on: December 31, 2013, 07:19:13 PM »
JimD
 
Quote
our current population (which is projected to hit 9.6 billion in 2050) will utterly destroy our ability
to maintain anything like our current civilizational structure well before the end of this century.

our current civilizational structure is crap.

We must redirect it to survive.

At present, the rich and affluent get richer and more polluting.

Fine the rich and affluent for their pollution and redistribute the fines to everybody.
A straightforward example is Hansen's Carbon Fee.
I'd aim to exceed $1000 per tonne of CO2e.
However I'd use some of the pollution fines to create full employment.

Excuse the poem - and spot the lie.

Quote
Kill the world as little as you can
Don't drive a car,
Don't fly in planes
And leave that corned beef in the can.

Kill the world as little as you're able
Don't build with bricks
Don't build with steel
And eat the horse that's in your stable.

Don't kill the world by rushing all the time
Gaze at the stars
Breathe in the air
Slow down your life and we'll be fine

Avoiding abrupt climate change needs changing the economics of capitalism so that we change our lifestyles: It's far too late to scrap capitalism itself.

Population control is too slow have enough effect, unless there is the great dying we would probably like to avoid.

Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #69 on: December 31, 2013, 08:27:05 PM »
Quote
our current civilizational structure is crap.

Quite true.  But the various BAU folks are trying to maintain it none the less.

Quote
Fine the rich and affluent for their pollution and redistribute the fines to everybody.
A straightforward example is Hansen's Carbon Fee.
I'd aim to exceed $1000 per tonne of CO2e.
However I'd use some of the pollution fines to create full employment.

How are you going to obtain their permission to do that?  They have a tendency not to like the terms redistribution, fines, taxes, and such.  And they own the system.  There are some 45 million American adults who do not work (37% of the adult population) so I think we are long past the idea of full employment (I realize you are in the UK, but it may have the same issue as the US). 

Quote
Avoiding abrupt climate change needs changing the economics of capitalism so that we change our lifestyles: It's far too late to scrap capitalism itself.

I guess my understanding of capitalism would mean that it has to be abandoned as I think it only functions in a growth paradigm.

Quote
Population control is too slow have enough effect, unless there is the great dying we would probably like to avoid.

As everyone here likely knows, I think that avoiding that fate is improbable and will only happen in the event of some kind of religious or technological miracle.

Sorry to be so contrary.
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

TeaPotty

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 219
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #70 on: January 01, 2014, 07:31:19 AM »
JimD,

I agree. Capitalism must end.

For that to happen, ppl have to understand what it means though.
Capitalism as a system that attempts to organize and fully utilize every last person and consume every last resource possible on this planet, all in worship of the gods of growth and profit.

This "profit" of course is mostly collected by the 1% in this modern form of slavery, who mostly use it continue growing their "profit". Consumption to depletion.

When necessary to calm the public, squeezing of the citizens' wallets is of course done for their own good.

Do ppl even understand that our govs loan money from the 1%, instead of taxing it which creates a deficit, and use it increasingly to subsidize and bailout the 1%'s business failures, and then pay back that same loan?

As it stands now, the age of growth has ended. Its hard to understand what they are still calling profit now. Closer examinations seems to reveal intricate systems of money flowing from govs to the 1%.

Oh yeah, and it seems the govs are also preparing for public riots bc of climate change. We all just need to learn our place in this wonderful system of capitalistic death. Sucks to get caught on the bottom though, which will continue to grow ever larger.

GeoffBeacon

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 378
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #71 on: January 01, 2014, 03:04:09 PM »
JimD

Perhaps this should be a seperate Forum topic but...

Quote
How are you going to obtain their permission to [have large carbon fines]?

First tell the politicians, the public & etc how it is. That climate change is much worse than they think and climate scientists that speak out receive threats.

Quote
I guess my understanding of capitalism would mean that it has to be abandoned as I think it only functions in a growth paradigm.

What does "[capitalism] only functions in a growth paradigm" mean?

Using the polluter pays principle (with a nod towards the "tragedy of the commons"), community revenues from carbon fines could create full employment (1) and would drive/help the market to new solutions. OK, "drive/help" needs some though (2).

A contraction of GDPs together with happier lives is possible.

(Note 1)  http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/is-economic-growth-necessary-for-job-creation/

(Note 2)  See this interesting discussion in Forbes Magazine http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/17/mariana-mazzucato-responds-to-tim-worstall/)

« Last Edit: January 01, 2014, 04:28:44 PM by GeoffBeacon »
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #72 on: January 01, 2014, 04:22:17 PM »
Geoff

Actually there already is a Forum topic on this subject. 

"the economy conundrum and the question of sustainable growth" in the Policy Section

I will respond over there as you suggest.
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

GeoffBeacon

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 378
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #73 on: January 01, 2014, 05:24:50 PM »
Thanks Jim
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17693
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 892
  • Likes Given: 242
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #74 on: January 08, 2014, 02:50:45 PM »
The following link leads to an article that discusses new research indicating the dangers of geo-engineering, but I still suspect that policy makers will be sorely tempted to try this technology by mid-century:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/plan-to-avert-global-warming-by-cooling-planet-artificially-could-cause-climate-chaos-9043962.html
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Buddy

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3325
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #75 on: January 08, 2014, 05:21:07 PM »
I just got back from a trip to Tampa Bay last week.  While there, I was watching some news and saw two things that were of interest:  (1)  a local news report that discussed how surprised people in Florida were with the high level of property insurance increases over the last year....even the people who's houses weren't on the coast, and discussing how a new round of foreclosures could begin because people can't afford their property tax insurance, and (2) the Port Of Miami is spending big $$$ to expand the port to be able to handle the largest ships when the Panama Canal expansion is finished in 2015.

I hope these folks are older....because they REALLY won't like that "light in the tunnel" that is coming slowly....but surely....right at them.

I think they must be watching too much FOX News.....and they don't understand that global warming is REALLY HAPPENING.

What is that new tag line of FOX News:  FOX....where journalism and truth go to die.   

FOX (RT) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #76 on: January 08, 2014, 08:45:30 PM »
Coastal dwellers should take their own chances

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/238f8cfe-76d9-11e3-a253-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz2ppzy8kDb

Quote
....So we have created powerful vested interests, businesses and property owners, who want the shoreline to remain unchanged in perpetuity. These lobbies want taxpayers’ money to be spent on achieving this outcome. Yet the history of the world tells us that this unnatural objective is likely to be formidably expensive even if it is technically possible. ....

Quote
....It is almost impossible to reconcile the objectives of flood-control policy; solidarity in disaster, fairness between different home occupiers, spending neither too much nor too little on flood prevention, and discouraging people from building vulnerable properties. Different countries have adopted different solutions, and most are thinking of changing to something else.

The US has an insurance scheme similar to the French, but messier and more complex, and is controversially attempting to move to a more market-based approach. The UK has equally controversial plans to move in just the opposite direction. The Netherlands has socialised the whole system – flood insuranceis not available but the government has generally picked up the bills. With Dutch flood risks apparently well controlled, proposals have been made to move back to a private market.
....
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

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #77 on: February 11, 2014, 08:16:09 PM »
Here is a very interesting article on the great Permian extinction event. 

Quote
Now researchers at MIT have determined that the end-Permian extinction occurred over 60,000 years, give or take 48,000 years—practically instantaneous, from a geologic perspective. The new timescale is based on more precise dating techniques, and indicates that the most severe extinction in history may have happened more than 10 times faster than scientists had previously thought.

Big implications for today's situation.

http://phys.org/news/2014-02-end-permian-extinction-yearsmuch-faster-earlier.html
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

bligh8

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 310
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #78 on: March 17, 2014, 06:21:35 PM »
This is direct and to the point about our current situation and co2 emissions.



I have not seen this posted here, but I may have missed it.

Best,
b

ccgwebmaster

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #79 on: March 18, 2014, 02:22:29 AM »
Here is a very interesting article on the great Permian extinction event. 

Quote
Now researchers at MIT have determined that the end-Permian extinction occurred over 60,000 years, give or take 48,000 years—practically instantaneous, from a geologic perspective. The new timescale is based on more precise dating techniques, and indicates that the most severe extinction in history may have happened more than 10 times faster than scientists had previously thought.

Big implications for today's situation.

http://phys.org/news/2014-02-end-permian-extinction-yearsmuch-faster-earlier.html

I recall seeing (and posting a year or two ago) a link to a documentary about it that concluded it had a couple of distinct stages - one of which was thought there to have happened in only thousands of years? (the release of submarine clathrates in very large amounts, following the tens of thousands of years of volcanic activity thought to have added enough carbon dioxide to warm the planet up enough for the clathrates to destabilise on the scale required).

I don't see any clathrate references at a glance in the link, though it's interesting that both the end Permian and PETM they're gradually (or rapidly) shrinking the window of time in which we think it happened...

We may yet find the planet is capable of very dramatic and widescale changes in shorter periods of time than we expect in the modern context (and I mean far bigger changes than merely losing Arctic ice cover).


Shared Humanity

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3979
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 429
  • Likes Given: 52

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2599
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 305
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #82 on: March 19, 2014, 01:42:12 AM »
Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but one of the abrupt climate impacts discussed is the shift of Hadley cells so that places that used to get rain predictably suddenly don't anymore.

This article seems to be relevant to that issue, among others:

Climatologists offer explanation for widening of Earth's tropical belt
   
Quote
Climatologists posit that the recent widening of the tropical belt is primarily caused by multi-decadal sea surface temperature variability in the Pacific Ocean. This variability includes the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (a long-lived El Niño-like pattern of Pacific climate variability) and anthropogenic pollutants, which act to modify the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Until now there was no clear explanation for what is driving the widening.

    Recent studies have shown that Earth's tropical belt -- demarcated, roughly, by the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn -- has progressively expanded since at least the late 1970s. Several explanations for this widening have been proposed, such as radiative forcing due to greenhouse gas increase and stratospheric ozone depletion.

    Now, a team of climatologists, led by researchers at the University of California, Riverside, posits that the recent widening of the tropical belt is primarily caused by multi-decadal sea surface temperature variability in the Pacific Ocean. This variability includes the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), a long-lived El Niño-like pattern of Pacific climate variability that works like a switch every 30 years or so between two different circulation patterns in the North Pacific Ocean. It also includes, the researchers say, anthropogenic pollutants, which act to modify the PDO.

    Study results appear March 16 in Nature Geoscience.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140318113829.htm

Robert J. Allen, Joel R. Norris, Mahesh Kovilakam. Influence of anthropogenic aerosols and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation on tropical belt width. Nature Geoscience, 2014; DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2091

(Thanks to Graeme at POForums for the link.)
"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."

Shared Humanity

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3979
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 429
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #83 on: March 19, 2014, 04:33:43 PM »
wili......I think it's the right thread. We are talking about abrupt climate impacts and I can't imagine anything more abrupt than a rapid switch between an icehouse climate to a greenhouse climate that is driven by a collapse of the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar cells into a single cell.

This has been linked before but I thought I would link to it again for anyone who wants a quick read on this.

http://www.fields.utoronto.ca/programs/scientific/10-11/biomathstat/Langford_W.pdf

icefest

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 258
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #84 on: March 20, 2014, 06:08:44 AM »
We are talking about abrupt climate impacts and I can't imagine anything more abrupt than a rapid switch between an icehouse climate to a greenhouse climate that is driven by a collapse of the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar cells into a single cell.

Here is a quote from what you linked that astounded me most:

« Last Edit: March 20, 2014, 01:32:29 PM by icefest »
Open other end.

JackTaylor

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 209
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #85 on: March 20, 2014, 01:17:34 PM »
icefest,

Have you picked-up on anything about 3Mya being close enough to the formation of the Isthmus of Panama for the north pole icehouse climate.

Is it logical?

"about 3 million years ago, an isthmus had formed between North and South America"
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=4073

icefest

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 258
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #86 on: March 20, 2014, 01:39:53 PM »
Are you saying that the formation of the isthmus caused the north pole ice house climate to collapse?
I could understand the opposite, as the isthmus would cause increased heat transport into the high latitudes, but how increased heat to the NP results in icehouse formation seems counter-intuitive.

Then again, I am not even remotely a climatologist so this is pure conjecture.
Open other end.

Bruce Steele

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 139
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #87 on: March 20, 2014, 02:48:07 PM »
The Gulf stream also delivers warm salty water north that when cooled in the North Atlantic sinks and drives the northern leg of the ocean conveyer. There are no deep water sources otherwise in the northern hemisphere. How thermohaline circulation operated when the warm water from the Atlantic simply flooded through the gap between North and South America is something to ponder. I don't personally have an answer but I would suggest such a major change in ocean circulation patterns would have had major implications for the carbon cycle and thus atmospheric Co2 levels worldwide.
 If sufficient heating causes the collapse of both the Greenland  and Antarctic ice sheets the gap that now separates North and South America might well be submerged again. This obviously would be far into the future but it is something to think about and how that circulation affected earths climate and carbon cycle might give you an answer to what otherwise might seem a counterintuitive response...

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #88 on: March 20, 2014, 04:23:56 PM »
Closure of the isthmus raised heat transport to the arctic.

Quote

Abstract

The paleoclimatic effects of the closure of the Isthmus of Panama ∼3 Ma are investigated using a coupled atmosphere-ocean model. Consistent with earlier ocean-only modelling studies, it is shown that prior to closure there is an absence of deep water formation in the North Atlantic. Hence there is a reduction in oceanic heat transport. This is largely compensated for by the atmosphere such that only small changes in total planetary heat transport occur. The model climate of the North Atlantic is significantly warmer after Isthmus closure. In addition, the regions surrounding the Pacific Ocean and South Atlantic are generally cooler while the Indian Ocean is generally warmer in the model present-day climate. Finally, possible relationships to glaciation and initiation of northern hemisphere glacial cycles are discussed.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/96GL03950/abstract
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

icefest

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 258
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #89 on: March 20, 2014, 10:26:05 PM »
So, just to confirm, the closure of panama isthmus was unlikely to have caused the icehouse climate in the NP.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2014, 03:33:53 AM by icefest »
Open other end.

JackTaylor

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 209
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #90 on: March 21, 2014, 02:22:25 PM »
Are you saying that the formation of the isthmus caused the north pole ice house climate to collapse?
I could understand the opposite, as the isthmus would cause increased heat transport into the high latitudes, but how increased heat to the NP results in icehouse formation seems counter-intuitive.

Then again, I am not even remotely a climatologist so this is pure conjecture.
No, I'm not saying that. First asking a question, then wondering if it's logical, and providing a Link.

My reply to you was basically conjecture also because I've read other places about the northward flowing Gulf Stream, caused by the formation of the isthmus, reducing surface level flow from the Arctic causing colder temperature effects to remain and grow up there to produce the ice-house of present.  Also, will have to dig it up, some study that a gradual reducing flow/volume from the Pacific to the Arctic by slowly (mm/yr) reducing the depth of the Bering Strait contributed as the ice pack formed.

Pros and Cons,  they're out there with sometimes conflicting information.
Have you ever seen or heard of a retraction/correction of a study?




JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #91 on: March 21, 2014, 03:56:56 PM »
icefest

If your question was directed at my response I do not know the answer.  The isthmus is just one factor in a very complex system and I am no expert on that stuff.

But I expect that Chris Reynolds probably has a good idea and maybe AbruptSLR (if he pays attention to the arctic mechanisms like he does to Antarctica).  They don't come by this part of the Forum/Blog that often so you might have to pm them.  Most of the folks who are really deep into the physics of the arctic spend most of their time on the Blog and not on the Forum.  There is only so much time.
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

Andreas T

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1127
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #92 on: March 22, 2014, 10:45:22 AM »
I have not read much about this topic, but something I find a striking difference between Atlantic and Pacific is how much more saline the Atlantic is especially in the tropics. Could an open gap between North and South America reduce surface salinity enough to bring the warm waters which are going north near or to the surface? In present conditions cold fresher water floats on saline warmer water in the arctic. Warmer surface waters which sink as they cool drive a different form of circulation than freeze and melt cycles which form deep water when brine rejection produces cold and saline water.
 So it is not just the amount of heat circulating but also where it goes. Coupling this with albedo feedback might do the rest.

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2536
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #93 on: May 21, 2014, 09:20:23 AM »
Water goes 'missing' with snow loss
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27486002

Shared Humanity

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3979
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 429
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #94 on: May 21, 2014, 03:11:05 PM »
Water goes 'missing' with snow loss
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27486002

My guess is the losses are primarily through transpiration. Warmer temperatures will generally lengthen growing seasons and water  vs. snow will make available more ground moisture to be taken up by plants. This should probably result in more rapidly growing biomass across the ecosystem but that  would be something that is very difficult to measure.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2014, 03:17:02 PM by Shared Humanity »

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2536
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #95 on: July 11, 2014, 08:12:27 PM »

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17693
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 892
  • Likes Given: 242
Re: Scientists Warn about Abrupt Climate Impacts
« Reply #96 on: July 21, 2014, 04:31:22 AM »
morganism in the "Trends for the Southern Ocean" thread in the "Antarctic" folder provided the following links to references about the DIMES program that provides physically measured parameters supporting the position that increases in the wind velocities of the Southern Hemisphere Westerlies, will result in increased venting of CO₂ from the Southern Ocean:

K. L. Sheen, A. C. Naveira Garabato, J. A. Brearley, M. P. Meredith, K. L. Polzin, D. A. Smeed, A. Forryan, B. A. King, J-B. Sallée, L. St. Laurent, A. M. Thurnherr, J. M. Toole, S. N. Waterman & A. J. Watson, (2014), "Eddy-induced variability in Southern Ocean abyssal mixing on climatic timescales", Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo2200

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2200.html

Abstract: "The Southern Ocean plays a pivotal role in the global ocean circulation and climate. There, the deep water masses of the world ocean upwell to the surface and subsequently sink to intermediate and abyssal depths, forming two overturning cells that exchange substantial quantities of heat and carbon with the atmosphere. The sensitivity of the upper cell to climatic changes in forcing is relatively well established. However, little is known about how the lower cell responds, and in particular whether small-scale mixing in the abyssal Southern Ocean, an important controlling process of the lower cell, is influenced by atmospheric forcing. Here, we present observational evidence that relates changes in abyssal mixing to oceanic eddy variability on timescales of months to decades. Observational estimates of mixing rates, obtained along a repeat hydrographic transect across Drake Passage, are shown to be dependent on local oceanic eddy energy, derived from moored current meter and altimetric measurements. As the intensity of the regional eddy field is regulated by the Southern Hemisphere westerly winds, our findings suggest that Southern Ocean abyssal mixing and overturning are sensitive to climatic perturbations in wind forcing."

See also:
http://phys.org/news/2014-07-insight-southern-ocean-behaviour.html

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