Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences  (Read 450454 times)

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 755
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1950 on: October 09, 2017, 04:50:21 PM »
[quote author=Shared Humanity link=topic=1053.msg130993#msg130993

Yes and there are two things that must occur throughout the human species for us to address the problem.

First we must finally accept how dire our situation is and the need for coordinated and radical change.

Second, we must embrace a sense of efficacy or the first will, in fact, drive us insane.
[/quote]

The second is too late, at least for me. I did my time locked up while they looked inside my head and patched up some of the neurons. So now I am mostly the old man in the gallery watching it happen.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2315
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1951 on: October 09, 2017, 05:18:58 PM »
I recommend that common citizens should prepare for a climate change triggered socio-economic collapse in the approximately the 2045 to 2060 timeframe:

As a 60 year old businessman with an MBA and Economics degree from the University of Chicago, I believe the time frame suggested is highly accurate and almost certain. I base this on the interconnectedness of global capitalism, the absolute dependency of the system on the continued smooth flow of goods and financial capital across the planet.

In 2007/2008, we witnessed the impact that a housing crisis or bubble that originated in the U.S. but was contributed to by bubbles in other countries (Spain being a notable example) disrupted the flow of financial capital across the planet. The system ground to a halt and a planet wide depression was narrowly averted due to a coordinated effort on the part of governments across the system to flood the system with liquidity. Essentially, they lubricated the system to get it working again. This drove interest rates nominally to 0% and excess liquidity continues to prop up the financial system which explains the historically low interest rates that still exist.

This was the result of a housing bubble which will pale in comparison to the shocks to the financial system that will occur due to climate change!!

Example: Our current severe hurricane season has now been determined to be a "capital event" as opposed to an "earnings event" by S&P Global ratings.

http://www.intelligentinsurer.com/news/hurricane-irma-expected-to-become-capital-event-for-re-insurers-13029

For those who do not understand the distinction, "earnings events" impact the earnings of an entity while "capital events" threaten the very existence of the entity. These kinds of events can drive an organization into bankruptcy. If you want to get a sense of how connected and vulnerable the financial system is, click on the link and scroll down to 2005 and read through 2008. If you added illustrations to each of the events listed, it would make a compelling graphic novel horror story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_crisis_impact_timeline
« Last Edit: October 09, 2017, 05:29:38 PM by Shared Humanity »

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1952 on: October 14, 2017, 04:43:46 PM »
From a risk point of view, the linked reference can be taken to mean that the period of the faux hiatus, when the Eastern Tropical Pacific did not warm much but the Western Tropical Pacific did, led some scientists to mistakenly estimate that climate sensitivity may be towards the low end of the AR5 range.  However, this research indicates that if the Eastern Tropical Pacific warms relatively rapidly (as the paleo record indicates for interglacials warmer than today), then climate sensitivity would be towards the upper end of the AR5 range:

Timothy Andrews and Mark J. Webb (2017), "The dependence of global cloud and lapse-rate feedbacks on the spatial structure of tropical Pacific warming", Journal of Climate, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0087.1

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0087.1?utm_content=buffercb5c8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Abstract: "We force an Atmospheric General Circulation Model (AGCM) with patterns of observed sea-surface-temperature (SST) change and those output from Atmosphere-Ocean GCM (AOGCM) climate change simulations to demonstrate a strong dependence of climate feedback on the spatial structure of surface temperature change. Cloud and lapse-rate feedbacks are found to vary the most, depending strongly on the pattern of tropical Pacific SST change. When warming is focused in the southeast tropical Pacific – a region of climatological subsidence and extensive marine low cloud – warming reduces the lower tropospheric stability (LTS) and low cloud cover, but is largely trapped under an inversion and hence has little remote effects. The net result is a relatively weak negative lapse-rate feedback and a large positive cloud feedback. In contrast, when warming is weak in the southeast tropical Pacific and enhanced in the west tropical Pacific – a strong convective region – warming is efficiently transported throughout the free troposphere. The increased atmospheric stability results in a strong negative lapse-rate feedback and increases the LTS in low cloud regions, resulting in a low cloud feedback of weak magnitude. These mechanisms help explain why climate feedback and sensitivity change on multi-decadal timescales in AOGCM abrupt4xCO2 simulations and is different to those seen in AGCM experiments forced with observed historical SST changes. From the physical understanding developed here we should expect unusually negative radiative feedbacks and low effective climate sensitivities to be diagnosed from real world variations in radiative fluxes and temperature over decades in which the eastern Pacific has lacked warming."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1953 on: October 14, 2017, 04:55:05 PM »
The linked reference indicates that current climate model projections largely do not investigate the impacts of surface level ozone on vegetation and rely solely on the estimates including in the RCP forcing scenarios.  However, the research finds the negative impacts of the surface ozone on vegetation from RCP 8.5 is actually about 70% higher than the scientists who generated RCP 8.5 assumed.

Pierre Sicard, Alessandro Anav, Alessandra De Marco and Elena Paoletti (2017), "Projected global ground-level ozone impacts on vegetation under different emission and climate scenarios", Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 12177-12196, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-12177-2017

https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/17/12177/2017/?utm_content=buffere9233&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Abstract. The impact of ground-level ozone (O3) on vegetation is largely under-investigated at the global scale despite large areas worldwide that are exposed to high surface O3 levels. To explore future potential impacts of O3 on vegetation, we compared historical and projected surface O3 concentrations simulated by six global atmospheric chemistry transport models on the basis of three representative concentration pathways emission scenarios (i.e. RCP2.6, 4.5, 8.5). To assess changes in the potential surface O3 threat to vegetation at the global scale, we used the AOT40 metric. Results point out a significant exceedance of AOT40 in comparison with the recommendations of UNECE for the protection of vegetation. In fact, many areas of the Northern Hemisphere show that AOT40-based critical levels will be exceeded by a factor of at least 10 under RCP8.5. Changes in surface O3 by 2100 worldwide range from about +4–5 ppb in the RCP8.5 scenario to reductions of about 2–10 ppb in the most optimistic scenario, RCP2.6. The risk of O3 injury for vegetation, through the potential O3 impact on photosynthetic assimilation, decreased by 61 and 47 % under RCP2.6 and RCP4.5, respectively, and increased by 70 % under RCP8.5. Key biodiversity areas in southern and northern Asia, central Africa and North America were identified as being at risk from high O3 concentrations.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1954 on: October 14, 2017, 05:13:51 PM »
I recommend that common citizens should prepare for a climate change triggered socio-economic collapse in the approximately the 2045 to 2060 timeframe:

As a 60 year old businessman with an MBA and Economics degree from the University of Chicago, I believe the time frame suggested is highly accurate and almost certain. I base this on the interconnectedness of global capitalism, the absolute dependency of the system on the continued smooth flow of goods and financial capital across the planet.

SH,

It looks like the smart money agrees with you as the demand for billionaire bunkers has increased 300% since the November 2016 election of Donald J. Trump as the president of the USA.

Title: "Billionaire bunkers: How the 1% are preparing for the apocalypse"

http://edition.cnn.com/style/article/doomsday-luxury-bunkers/index.html

Extract: "A number of companies around the world are meeting a growing demand for structures that protect from any risk, whether it's a global pandemic, an asteroid, or World War III -- while also delivering luxurious amenities.

"Your father or grandfather's bunker was not very comfortable," says Robert Vicino, a real estate entrepreneur and CEO of Vivos, a company he founded that builds and manages high-end shelters around the world.

"They were gray. They were metal, like a ship or something military. And the truth is mankind cannot survive long-term in such a Spartan, bleak environment."

Many of the world's elite, including hedge fund managers, sports stars and tech executives (Bill Gates is rumored to have bunkers at all his properties) have chosen to design their own secret shelters to house their families and staff.

Gary Lynch, general manager of Texas-based Rising S Company, says 2016 sales for their custom high-end underground bunkers grew 700% compared to 2015, while overall sales have grown 300% since the November US presidential election alone."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1955 on: October 16, 2017, 05:07:00 PM »
Stratospheric ozone is under assault from anthropogenic emissions (primarily from East Asia) of several chlorine-containing very short-lived substances (Cl-VSLSs).  This was certainly not envisioned by AR5 & almost certainly is not considered in AR6:

Oram, D. E., Ashfold, M. J., Laube, J. C., Gooch, L. J., Humphrey, S., Sturges, W. T., Leedham-Elvidge, E., Forster, G. L., Harris, N. R. P., Mead, M. I., Samah, A. A., Phang, S. M., Ou-Yang, C.-F., Lin, N.-H., Wang, J.-L., Baker, A. K., Brenninkmeijer, C. A. M., and Sherry, D.: A growing threat to the ozone layer from short-lived anthropogenic chlorocarbons, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 11929-11941, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-11929-2017, 2017.

https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/17/11929/2017/?utm_content=bufferb397a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Abstract. Large and effective reductions in emissions of long-lived ozone-depleting substance (ODS) are being achieved through the Montreal Protocol, the effectiveness of which can be seen in the declining atmospheric abundances of many ODSs. An important remaining uncertainty concerns the role of very short-lived substances (VSLSs) which, owing to their relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (less than 6 months), are not regulated under the Montreal Protocol. Recent studies have found an unexplained increase in the global tropospheric abundance of one VSLS, dichloromethane (CH2Cl2), which has increased by around 60 % over the past decade. Here we report dramatic enhancements of several chlorine-containing VSLSs (Cl-VSLSs), including CH2Cl2 and CH2ClCH2Cl (1,2-dichloroethane), observed in surface and upper-tropospheric air in East and South East Asia. Surface observations were, on occasion, an order of magnitude higher than previously reported in the marine boundary layer, whilst upper-tropospheric data were up to 3 times higher than expected. In addition, we provide further evidence of an atmospheric transport mechanism whereby substantial amounts of industrial pollution from East Asia, including these chlorinated VSLSs, can rapidly, and regularly, be transported to tropical regions of the western Pacific and subsequently uplifted to the tropical upper troposphere. This latter region is a major provider of air entering the stratosphere, and so this mechanism, in conjunction with increasing emissions of Cl-VSLSs from East Asia, could potentially slow the expected recovery of stratospheric ozone.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1762
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1956 on: October 20, 2017, 04:06:16 PM »
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1957 on: October 21, 2017, 09:31:35 PM »
The linked reference provides paleo data (from the past 360,000 years) that the ENSO assumes a La Nina like pattern during glacial periods and assumes an El Nino like pattern during rapidly changing portions of interglacial periods.  As we are in the most rapidly changing interglacial period on record, this is not good news:

Zhang, S., Li, T., Chang, F. et al. Chin. J. (2017), "Correspondence between the ENSO-like state and glacial-interglacial condition during the past 360 kyr", Ocean. Limnol., 35: 1018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00343-017-6082-9

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00343-017-6082-9#citeas

Abstract: "In the warming world, tropical Pacific sea surface temperature (SST) variation has received considerable attention because of its enormous influence on global climate change, particularly the El Niño-Southern Oscillation process. Here, we provide new high-resolution proxy records of the magnesium/calcium ratio and the oxygen isotope in foraminifera from a core on the Ontong-Java Plateau to reconstruct the SST and hydrological variation in the center of the Western Pacific Warm Pool (WPWP) over the last 360 000 years. In comparison with other Mg/Ca-derived SST and δ18O records, the results suggested that in a relatively stable condition, e.g., the last glacial maximum (LGM) and other glacial periods, the tropical Pacific would adopt a La Niña-like state, and the Walker and Hadley cycles would be synchronously enhanced. Conversely, El Niño-like conditions could have occurred in the tropical Pacific during fast changing periods, e.g., the termination and rapidly cooling stages of interglacial periods. In the light of the sensitivity of the Eastern Pacific Cold Tongue (EPCT) and the inertia of the WPWP, we hypothesize an inter-restricted relationship between the WPWP and EPCT, which could control the zonal gradient variation of SST and affect climate change."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9613
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1958 on: October 26, 2017, 06:53:29 PM »
I recommend that common citizens should prepare for a climate change triggered socio-economic collapse in the approximately the 2045 to 2060 timeframe:

As a 60 year old businessman with an MBA and Economics degree from the University of Chicago, I believe the time frame suggested is highly accurate and almost certain. I base this on the interconnectedness of global capitalism, the absolute dependency of the system on the continued smooth flow of goods and financial capital across the planet.

SH,

It looks like the smart money agrees with you as the demand for billionaire bunkers has increased 300% since the November 2016 election of Donald J. Trump as the president of the USA.
...

The fatalistic tone of this thread makes another option -- moving to Mars -- seem much less outlandish.  Of course, that choice will not be, literally or figuratively, for everyone.  But Elon Musk thinks he can get the cost of transportation to Mars down to $200,000 or less.  If the dire events you describe begin to occur, and if the corrective or mitigative options on earth become increasingly unpalatable, the Mars option may become a surprisingly popular one.  Musk's vision of a million people on Mars by 2100, as a "backup" to earth civilization, could be viewed as a smart choice.

Musk's recent presentation (video):  http://www.spacex.com/mars

Edit: updated above link.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2017, 07:42:48 PM by Sigmetnow »
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1959 on: October 26, 2017, 07:28:13 PM »
The linked open access reference indicates that sea level rise projections using the new SSP forcing scenarios and emulating cliff failures and hydrofracturing leads to significantly higher estimates than were including in AR5:

Alexander Nauels , Joeri Rogelj, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner ,MalteMeinshausen and
MatthiasMengel (2017), "Linking sea level rise and socioeconomic indicators under the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways", Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 114002 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa92b6

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa92b6

Abstract: "In order to assess future sea level rise and its societal impacts, we need to study climate change pathways combined with different scenarios of socioeconomic development. Here, we present sea level rise (SLR) projections for the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) storylines and different year-2100 radiative forcing targets (FTs). Future SLR is estimated with a comprehensive SLR emulator that accounts for Antarctic rapid discharge from hydrofracturing and ice cliff instability. Across all baseline scenario realizations (no dedicated climate mitigation), we find 2100 median SLR relative to 1986–2005 of 89 cm (likely range: 57–130 cm) for SSP1, 105 cm (73–150 cm) for SSP2, 105 cm (75–147 cm) for SSP3, 93 cm (63–133 cm) for SSP4, and 132 cm (95–189 cm) for SSP5. The 2100 sea level responses for combined SSP-FT scenarios are dominated by the mitigation targets and yield median estimates of 52 cm (34–75 cm) for FT 2.6 Wm−2, 62 cm (40–96 cm) for FT 3.4 Wm−2, 75 cm (47–113 cm) for FT 4.5 Wm−2, and 91 cm (61–132 cm) for FT 6.0 Wm−2. Average 2081–2100 annual SLR rates are 5 mm yr−1 and 19 mm yr−1 for FT 2.6 Wm−2 and the baseline scenarios, respectively. Our model setup allows linking scenario-specific emission and socioeconomic indicators to projected SLR. We find that 2100 median SSP SLR projections could be limited to around 50 cm if 2050 cumulative CO2 emissions since pre-industrial stay below 850 GtC, with a global coal phase-out nearly completed by that time. For SSP mitigation scenarios, a 2050 carbon price of 100 US$2005 tCO2 −1 would correspond to a median 2100 SLR of around 65 cm. Our results confirm that rapid and early emission reductions are essential for limiting 2100 SLR."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1960 on: October 26, 2017, 07:31:49 PM »
The fatalistic tone of this thread makes another option -- moving to Mars -- seem much less outlandish.  Of course, that choice will not be, literally or figuratively, for everyone.  But Elon Musk thinks he can get the cost of transportation to Mars down to $200,000 or less.  If the dire events you describe begin to occur, and if the corrective or mitigative options on earth become increasingly unpalatable, the Mars option may become a surprisingly popular one.  Musk's vision of a million people on Mars by 2100, as a "backup" to earth civilization, could be viewed as a smart choice.

Hopefully, AR7/CMIP7 will add the GHGs emissions from all of those rockets to their radiative forcing scenarios, as they definitely are not in the current Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) scenarios.

Edit, maybe Musk should switch his reusable launch vehicles to be hydrogen fueled:

Erik J. L. Larson, Robert W. Portmann, Karen H. Rosenlof, David W. Fahey, John S. Daniel & Martin N. Ross (4 January 2017), "Global atmospheric response to emissions from a proposed reusable space launch system", Earth's Future, DOI: 10.1002/2016EF000399 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000399/full

Abstract: "Modern reusable launch vehicle technology may allow high flight rate space transportation at low cost. Emissions associated with a hydrogen fueled reusable rocket system are modeled based on the launch requirements of developing a space-based solar power system that generates present-day global electric energy demand. Flight rates from 104 to 106 per year are simulated and sustained to a quasisteady state. For the assumed rocket engine, H2O and NOX are the primary emission products; this also includes NOX produced during reentry heating. For a base case of 105 flights per year, global stratospheric and mesospheric water vapor increase by approximately 10 and 100%, respectively. As a result, high-latitude cloudiness increases in the lower stratosphere and near the mesopause by as much as 20%. Increased water vapor also results in global effective radiative forcing of about 0.03 W/m2. NOX produced during reentry exceeds meteoritic production by more than an order of magnitude, and along with in situ stratospheric emissions, results in a 0.5% loss of the globally averaged ozone column, with column losses in the polar regions exceeding 2%."
« Last Edit: October 26, 2017, 07:45:19 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

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9613
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1961 on: October 26, 2017, 07:52:00 PM »
The fatalistic tone of this thread makes another option -- moving to Mars -- seem much less outlandish.  Of course, that choice will not be, literally or figuratively, for everyone.  But Elon Musk thinks he can get the cost of transportation to Mars down to $200,000 or less.  If the dire events you describe begin to occur, and if the corrective or mitigative options on earth become increasingly unpalatable, the Mars option may become a surprisingly popular one.  Musk's vision of a million people on Mars by 2100, as a "backup" to earth civilization, could be viewed as a smart choice.

Hopefully, AR7/CMIP7 will add the GHGs emissions from all of those rockets to their radiative forcing scenarios, as they definitely are not in the current Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) scenarios.

Edit, maybe Musk should switch his reusable launch vehicles to be hydrogen fueled:
...

The SpaceX Mars Raptor rockets will be fueled by Methane and Oxygen.  These can be sourced from carbon dioxide via the Sabatier Reaction -- the planned method of creating the fuel on Mars for return trips to earth, since the Martian atmosphere is CO2-rich.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_(rocket_engine_family)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

GeoffBeacon

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 289
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1962 on: October 26, 2017, 08:44:06 PM »
James Hansen has just released Scientific Reticence: a DRAFT Discussion

I am writing Scientific Reticence and the Fate of Humanity in response to a query from the editor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics who handled Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and Superstorms. 1 That paper, together with Young People’s Burden, 2 makes the case for a low global warming  target and the urgency of phasing out fossil fuel emissions. We argue that global warming of 2°C, or even 1.5°C, is dangerous, because these levels are far above Holocene temperatures and even warmer than best estimates for the Eemian, when sea level reached 6-9 meters (20-30 feet) higher than today. Earth’s history shows that sea level adjusts to changes in global  temperature. We conclude that eventual sea level rise of several meters could be locked in, if rapid emission reductions do not begin soon, and could occur within 50-150 years with the extraordinary climate forcing of continued “business-as-usual” fossil fuel emissions.

The editor noted that the Ice Melt paper was not highly cited or mainstream in climate impact discussions, and he was concerned because he thought it important for peer-reviewed extreme scenarios to be included in the upcoming IPCC AR6 cycle 3 . It might be added that both papers received VERY extensive peer review, all of which is available on the journals’ web sites.

I responded that I was not surprised by the minimal of citations. A public affairs person handling media contacts for the Ice Melt paper reported that a leading science reporter decided not to write about the paper, and later declined to write about the Burden paper, because 5 of the 6 experts he contacted advised against reporting on it. If the top people in a field are negative and do not cite a paper, it is license for others to ignore it, perhaps even a warning to younger researchers...
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1963 on: November 02, 2017, 01:57:32 PM »
Tens of millions of climate refugees in the next decade.  Maybe scientists should add hundreds of millions of such refugees in the 2040's, to their scenarios (w.r.t. deforestation, wars, etc.):

Title: "Climate change 'will create world's biggest refugee crisis'"

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/02/climate-change-will-create-worlds-biggest-refugee-crisis

Extract: "Tens of millions of people will be forced from their homes by climate change in the next decade, creating the biggest refugee crisis the world has ever seen, according to a new report.

Senior US military and security experts have told the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) study that the number of climate refugees will dwarf those that have fled the Syrian conflict, bringing huge challenges to Europe."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1964 on: November 06, 2017, 04:05:03 PM »
The linked reference demonstrates how two different numerical methods can be used to significantly reduce the uncertainty of the timeframes in which different climate thresholds (with regard to anthropogenic ability to adapt to climate change) will be crossed.  Such methods have been known for a long time and the fact that the IPCC has not adopted such methodologies for say AR5 is an example of 'othering', where the IPCC officials pass risk off on to others in order to make their lives easier:

L. K. Gohar, J. A. Lowe & D. Bernie (3 November 2017), "The impact of bias correction and model selection on passing temperature thresholds", JGR, DOI: 10.1002/2017JD026797

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017JD026797/abstract?utm_content=buffer7f90d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Abstract: "Knowledge of when specific global or local temperature levels are reached is important for decision makers in that it provides a time frame over which adaptation strategies for temperature related climate impacts need to be put in place. The time frame varies depending on the adaptation strategy but can range from a few years to the order of decades. Climate models, however, show a high degree of uncertainty in the timing of passing specific warming levels, limiting their use in adaptation policy development. This study examines the impact of two approaches, which may reduce the uncertainty in modeled timing of reaching specific warming levels. Firstly, the use of different performance metrics to preferentially weight model ensembles and secondly, the application of four bias correction approaches. Using the CMIP5 simulations of the RCPs, our results show that selecting models based on performance or bias correcting model data both reduce the spread in timing of specific warming levels reached in the first half of the century by up to 50% in some regions. This implies the potential of these approaches to support adaptation planning."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Daniel B.

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1965 on: November 06, 2017, 04:18:25 PM »
That appears to be a decrease from their earlier claims:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/oct/12/naturaldisasters.climatechange1

In 2005, they wrote:

"Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade [2010], experts warn today. Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn, said creeping environmental deterioration already displaced up to 10 million people a year, and the situation would get worse."

"There are well-founded fears that the number of people fleeing untenable environmental conditions may grow exponentially as the world experiences the effects of climate change," Dr Bogardi said. "This new category of refugee needs to find a place in international agreements. We need to better anticipate support requirements, similar to those of people fleeing other unviable situations."

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1966 on: November 06, 2017, 05:40:12 PM »
That appears to be a decrease from their earlier claims:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/oct/12/naturaldisasters.climatechange1

All climate change information (data, projections, assumed scenarios, etc)comes with plus/minus uncertainty bands.  That is why the scientific method is iterative in its effort to reduce uncertainty and to enhance the signal.  Thus it is and example 'othering' to assume that your position is entitled to 100% certainty while 'others' are assumed carry all of the burden of uncertainty.

There is only one planet that we all live on; and with such potentially severe consequences, I believe that it is reasonable to apply the Precautionary Principle (see the extract below):

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

Extract: "The precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) generally defines actions on issues considered to be uncertain, for instance applied in assessing risk management. The principle is used by policy makers to justify discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from making a certain decision (e.g. taking a particular course of action) when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2315
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1967 on: November 06, 2017, 06:04:59 PM »
Risk avoidance is routinely used by businesses in the form of decision tree analysis. In the picture below, if choosing 1 (BAU) has a probability of Outcome 1 (extinction level event) of only 8%, you would still choose not to go down that path. Even if the probability of C (implement carbon sequestration technologies) ameliorated the outcome, you would still choose reducing CO2 emissions.

The point being, if the outcome is a freaking disaster, it does not matter whether the probability is low, you would still choose another path.

Daniel B.

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1968 on: November 06, 2017, 08:07:54 PM »
That appears to be a decrease from their earlier claims:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/oct/12/naturaldisasters.climatechange1

All climate change information (data, projections, assumed scenarios, etc)comes with plus/minus uncertainty bands.  That is why the scientific method is iterative in its effort to reduce uncertainty and to enhance the signal.  Thus it is and example 'othering' to assume that your position is entitled to 100% certainty while 'others' are assumed carry all of the burden of uncertainty.

There is only one planet that we all live on; and with such potentially severe consequences, I believe that it is reasonable to apply the Precautionary Principle (see the extract below):

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

Extract: "The precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) generally defines actions on issues considered to be uncertain, for instance applied in assessing risk management. The principle is used by policy makers to justify discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from making a certain decision (e.g. taking a particular course of action) when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result."

"The biggest problem with the precautionary principle is that it does not clearly enhance the protection of public health and the environment. As University of Texas law professor Frank Cross observes, “The truly fatal flaw of the precautionary principle, ignored by almost all the commentators, is the unsupported presumption that an action aimed at public health protection cannot possibly have negative effects on public health.”24 In any policy decision, policy makers can make two potential errors regarding risk. On the one hand, policy makers may err by failing to adopt measures to address a health or environmental risk that exists. On the other hand, policy makers may adopt regulatory measures to control a health or environmental risk that does not exist. Both types of error can increase risks to public health."

http://www.aei.org/publication/the-problems-with-precaution-a-principle-without-principle/

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2241
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1969 on: November 06, 2017, 08:15:35 PM »
Because Texas law professors have such a deep understanding of such matters.  8)


Terry

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1970 on: November 06, 2017, 10:19:23 PM »
Because Texas law professors have such a deep understanding of such matters.  8)


Terry

As I concur that that Texas (and the current Federal Administration) could learn something about climate change and the Precautionary Principle from others, I provide the linked open access European document that addresses this matter:

Science for Environment Policy (2017) The Precautionary Principle: decision making under uncertainty. Future Brief 18. Produced for the European Commission DG Environment by the Science Communication Unit, UWE, Bristol.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/precautionary_principle_decision_making_under_uncertainty_FB18_en.pdf

Extract: "Several studies show that the idea of ‘full scientific proof ’ can be misleading, and that risks, value and knowledge are contingent and evolving. Hence, the precautionary principle may prove useful in identifying the complexities of decision-making in the face of uncertainty."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Iceismylife

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 182
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1971 on: November 07, 2017, 12:06:34 AM »
I recommend that common citizens should prepare for a climate change triggered socio-economic collapse in the approximately the 2045 to 2060 timeframe:

<snip>

In 2007/2008, we witnessed the impact that a housing crisis or bubble that originated in the U.S. but was contributed to by bubbles in other countries (Spain being a notable example) disrupted the flow of financial capital across the planet. The system ground to a halt and a planet wide depression was narrowly averted due to a coordinated effort on the part of governments across the system to flood the system with liquidity. Essentially, they lubricated the system to get it working again. This drove interest rates nominally to 0% and excess liquidity continues to prop up the financial system which explains the historically low interest rates that still exist.

This was the result of a housing bubble which will pale in comparison to the shocks to the financial system that will occur due to climate change!!

<snip>

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

The debt bubble is still there.  We need something like a $30hr minimum wage to keep it from popping.  That would get enough inflation to require the FED to Raise its rates.

Iceismylife

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 182
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1972 on: November 07, 2017, 12:15:45 AM »
Because Texas law professors have such a deep understanding of such matters.  8)


Terry

As I concur that that Texas (and the current Federal Administration) could learn something about climate change and the Precautionary Principle from others, I provide the linked open access European document that addresses this matter:

Science for Environment Policy (2017) The Precautionary Principle: decision making under uncertainty. Future Brief 18. Produced for the European Commission DG Environment by the Science Communication Unit, UWE, Bristol.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/precautionary_principle_decision_making_under_uncertainty_FB18_en.pdf

Extract: "Several studies show that the idea of ‘full scientific proof ’ can be misleading, and that risks, value and knowledge are contingent and evolving. Hence, the precautionary principle may prove useful in identifying the complexities of decision-making in the face of uncertainty."
Too much CH4 from ESAS. We are going to melt All the ice on the planet.  We don't need full scientific proof.  Time to start talking about not opening N reactors below what is the number of feet above sea level? 200?  It will take time but not thousands of years, more like 200.  We have a mess to clean up before it gets inundated. and we need to start now.  We are past the point of no return on melting all ice on the planet.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1973 on: November 07, 2017, 10:50:38 PM »
No matter how much reticence that consensus climate scientists have (or have not) exhibited; I believe that climate science has presented adequate information (even considering the associated uncertainties) for global decision makers to take far greater measures to fight climate change then what they currently have planned.  Until decision makers are willing to open their collective eyes and take the large number of fat-tailed risks that we face serious; the only out-come that I can see for the path that we are currently taking is socio-economic collapse sometime before 2060.

Title: "A Failure of Imagination on Climate Risks"

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-07-26/a-failure-of-imagination-on-climate-risks/

Extract: "Climate change is an existential risk that could abruptly end human civilisation because of a catastrophic “failure of imagination” by global leaders to understand and act on the science and  evidence before them.

At the London School of Economics in 2008, Queen Elizabeth questioned: “Why did no one foresee the timing, extent and severity of the Global Financial Crisis?” The British Academy answered a year later: “A psychology of denial gripped the financial and corporate world… [it was] the failure of the collective imagination of many bright people… to understand the risks to the system as a whole”.

A “failure of imagination” has also been identified as one of the reasons for the breakdown in US intelligence around the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

A similar failure is occurring with climate change today.

The problem is widespread at the senior levels of government and global corporations. A 2016 report, Thinking the unthinkable, based on interviews with top leaders around the world, found that:

“A proliferation of ‘unthinkable’ events… has revealed a new fragility at the highest levels of corporate and public service leaderships. Their ability to spot, identify and handle unexpected, non-normative events is… perilously inadequate at critical moments… Remarkably, there remains a deep reluctance, or what might be called ‘executive myopia’, to see and contemplate even the possibility that ‘unthinkables’ might happen, let alone how to handle them."

Such failures are manifested in two ways in climate policy. At the political, bureaucratic and business level in underplaying the high-end risks and in failing to recognise that the existential risk of climate change is totally different from other risk categories. And at the research level in underestimating the rate of climate change impact and costs, along with an under-emphasis on, and poor communication of, those high-end risks."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1974 on: November 09, 2017, 11:57:52 PM »
The linked open access Harvard report about addressing deep and persistent uncertainty about climate sensitivity, concludes: "The massive uncertainties afflicting climate change should be a prod to policy action."  Unfortunately, decision makers tend to use uncertainties about climate sensitivity as an excuse to take limited action rather than as '… a prod to policy action'.

Gernot Wagner & Richard J. Zeckhauser, (27 October 2017) "Confronting Deep and Persistent Climate Uncertainty", JEL codes: Q54, D81.

http://gwagner.com/wp-content/uploads/Wagner-Zeckhauser-HKS-2017-Deep-and-persistent-climate-uncertainty.pdf

Abstract: "Deep-seated, persistent uncertainty is a pernicious feature of climate change. One key parameter, equilibrium climate sensitivity, has eluded almost all attempts to pin down more precisely than a ‘likely’ range that has stalled at 1.5–4.5°C for over thirty-five years.
The marginal damages due to temperature increase rise rapidly. Thus, uncertainty in climate sensitivity significantly raises the expected costs of climate change above what they would be if the temperature increases were known to be close to a mean value 3.0°C. The costs of this uncertainty are compounded given that the distribution of possible temperature changes is strongly skewed toward higher values."

Extract: "Climate change has been labelled as “the greatest market failure the world has ever seen” (Stern, 2006), and “the mother of all externalities” (Tol, 2009). Tol (2009) continues by calling it: “larger, more complex, and more uncertain than any other environmental problem.” It is. And the uncertainty itself has multiple dimensions.

Despite important advances in other areas of climate science, we have discovered new uncertainties that make us even less confident about the range of equilibrium climate sensitivity than we were before the latest IPCC report was published. Given the increasing marginal costs of global warming, greater uncertainty, other factors equal, raises the returns from curbing greenhouse gases. The massive uncertainties afflicting climate change should be a prod to policy action."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1975 on: November 10, 2017, 02:44:42 AM »
It appears likely that ice sheets may be less stable than consensus scientists previously thought:

Title: "Collapse Raises Warning About Climate Change "

https://www.courthousenews.com/new-timeline-ancient-ice-sheet-collapse-raises-warning-climate-change/

Extract: "New evidence has led to an update of when an ancient ice sheet that used to cover large portions of North America melted – a discovery has implications for modern ice sheets and glaciers in the face of climate change.

The findings, published Thursday in the journal Science, suggest that the Cordilleran ice sheet had largely melted as early as 14,000 years ago, a revision of previous estimates that much of western Canada remained covered in ice as late as 12,500 years ago."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1710
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1976 on: November 10, 2017, 06:07:46 AM »
Science has a perspectives article by Marcott and Shakun for a picture of what Menounos et al. claim happened to the Cordilleran ice sheet. I attach the figure in Marcott.

sidd

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1977 on: November 10, 2017, 05:21:53 PM »
Further to sidd's post, the linked reference studies the paleo decay of the Cordilleran ice sheet and finds that it lost most of its ice mass earlier than consensus science previously thought, and it lost much of its ice mass over a relatively short period.  CMIP6 models should be calibrated with such information which indicates that dry land ice sheets may be less stable during global warming periods.  Personally, I am concerned about the impact of rainfall at increasingly high latitudes (with warming) on both the Greenland Ice Sheet, on Arctic permafrost, and on the WAIS:

B. Menounos et al (10 Nov 2017), "Cordilleran Ice Sheet mass loss preceded climate reversals near the Pleistocene Termination", Science, Vol. 358, Issue 6364, pp. 781-784, DOI: 10.1126/science.aan3001

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6364/781

Abstract: "The Cordilleran Ice Sheet (CIS) once covered an area comparable to that of Greenland. Previous geologic evidence and numerical models indicate that the ice sheet covered much of westernmost Canada as late as 12.5 thousand years ago (ka). New data indicate that substantial areas throughout westernmost Canada were ice free prior to 12.5 ka and some as early as 14.0 ka, with implications for climate dynamics and the timing of meltwater discharge to the Pacific and Arctic oceans. Early Bølling-Allerød warmth halved the mass of the CIS in as little as 500 years, causing 2.5 to 3.0 meters of sea-level rise. Dozens of cirque and valley glaciers, along with the southern margin of the CIS, advanced into recently deglaciated regions during the Bølling-Allerød and Younger Dryas."

Disappearance of an ice sheet

The Cordilleran Ice Sheet is thought to have covered westernmost Canada until about 13,000 years ago, even though the warming and sea level rise of the last deglaciation had begun more than a thousand years earlier. This out-of-phase behavior has puzzled glaciologists because it is not clear what mechanisms could account for it. Menounos et al. report measurements of the ages of cirque and valley glaciers that show that much of western Canada was ice-free as early as 14,000 years ago—a finding that better agrees with the record of global ice volume (see the Perspective by Marcott and Shakun). Previous reconstructions seem not to have adequately reflected the complexity of ice sheet decay.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1978 on: November 10, 2017, 05:34:00 PM »
The linked open access article indicates that the cooling effects of future volcanic eruptions will be less with continued global warming.  This implies that ECS will be a little bit higher than consensus science has previously assumed, both with regard to paleo data and future projections:

Peter O. Hopcroft, Jessy Kandlbauer, Paul J. Valdes& R. Stephen J. Sparks (2017), "Reduced cooling following future volcanic eruptions", Climate Dynamics, pp 1–15, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3964-7

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-017-3964-7

Abstract: "Volcanic eruptions are an important influence on decadal to centennial climate variability. Large eruptions lead to the formation of a stratospheric sulphate aerosol layer which can cause short-term global cooling. This response is modulated by feedback processes in the earth system, but the influence from future warming has not been assessed before. Using earth system model simulations we find that the eruption-induced cooling is significantly weaker in the future state. This is predominantly due to an increase in planetary albedo caused by increased tropospheric aerosol loading with a contribution from associated changes in cloud properties. The increased albedo of the troposphere reduces the effective volcanic aerosol radiative forcing. Reduced sea-ice coverage and hence feedbacks also contribute over high-latitudes, and an enhanced winter warming signal emerges in the future eruption ensemble. These findings show that the eruption response is a complex function of the environmental conditions, which has implications for the role of eruptions in climate variability in the future and potentially in the past."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1979 on: November 12, 2017, 12:38:43 AM »
It is clear example of scientific reticence that consensus climate science has not highly cited Hansen et al. (2016), " Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise, and Superstorms", as fresh water hosing is an important feedback mechanism that was left out of CMIP5/AR5 projections but should be included in CMIP6/AR6 climate projections:

Title: "Scientific Reticence: a DRAFT Discussion:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2017/20171026_ScientificReticence.pdf

Extract: "Frank Dentener, an editor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, in a recent note to me observed that Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise, and Superstorms, hereafter Ice Melt, was not highly cited or mainstream in climate impact discussions. He was concerned because he thought it important for peer-reviewed extreme scenarios to be included in the upcoming IPCC AR6 cycle."

Edit: Particularly in light of the findings of DeConto & Pollard 2016 w.r.t. the stability of the WAIS.

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

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

« Last Edit: November 12, 2017, 09:14:07 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

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1980 on: November 12, 2017, 08:53:58 AM »
As a follow-on to my last post, the Mid-Brunhes Event (MBE) coincides with MIS 11 (the Holsteinian) about 400,000 to 350,000 years ago, and marks a major transition to subsequent enhanced Arctic Amplification as discussed in the open access linked reference (see the first three attached images while the fourth image from another source help to clarify that after the MBE interglacial peak global mean peak temperatures have been higher).  Furthermore, the reference associates this change with the bipolar seesaw and episodic collapses of the WAIS.  This research clearly associates the bipolar seesaw mechanism with Hansen's ice-climate feedback and with Arctic Amplification. 

Cronin et al (2017), "Enhanced Arctic Amplification Began at the Mid-Brunhes Event ~400,000 years ago", Scientific Reports 7, Article No. 14475, doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-13821-2

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-13821-2

Extract: "Enhanced Arctic amplification at the MBE suggests a major climate threshold was reached at ~400 ka involving Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), inflowing warm Atlantic Layer water, ice sheet, sea-ice and ice-shelf feedbacks, and sensitivity to higher post-MBE interglacial CO₂ concentrations.

Southern Hemisphere ocean-atmosphere-sea ice processes are critical for understanding the MBE, specifically the idea that there is a bipolar seesaw operating between Northern and Southern Hemispheres on millennial timescales explain warmer interglacial condition in the Southern Hemisphere.  Barker et al. (2011) demonstrated that abrupt millennial-scale AMOC variability characterized the last 800 ka, albeit without the large amplitude shift seen in our Arctic records.  Holden et al. proposed a role for decreased stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet following the MBE, leading to AMOC slowdown during deglacials.  Thus, it is possible that ice sheet/ice shelf instability characterized both hemispheres providing the necessary non-linear dynamics to explain large amplitude temperature events in the Arctic Ocean.  However establishing the relationship between bottom temperature, sea ice and productivity during stadial and interstadial periods – require better sediment core resolution in the Arctic.  Nonetheless, the large shift in Arctic land ice, ice shelves and sea ice at the MBE, suggests an amplification of Arctic climate sensitivity related to higher interglacial CO₂ concentrations and associated feedbacks involving ice shelves and ice sheets, Heinrich-like events, AMOC-forcing Arctic Ocean temperature oscillations, and deeper submergence of Atlantic water in the central Arctic Basin."

Furthermore, the next linked reference studies the Last Glacial Termination, LGT, from 18,000 to 11,650 kya, and reconstructs the dynamic response of the Antarctic ice sheets to warming in this period and it clarifies the important role that the Pacific Ocean (and the ENSO) plays in both the bipolar seesaw and the ice-climate feedback mechanism.  The abstract from the linked reference concludes: "Given the anti-phase relationship between inter-hemispheric climate trends across the LGT our findings demonstrate that Southern Ocean-AIS feedbacks were controlled by global atmospheric teleconnections.  With increasing stratification of the Southern Ocean and intensification of mid-latitude westerly winds today, such teleconnections could amplify AIS mass loss and accelerate global sea-level rise."

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

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

See also the associated article entitled: "How Antarctic ice melt can be a tipping point for the whole planet’s climate"

https://theconversation.com/how-antarctic-ice-melt-can-be-a-tipping-point-for-the-whole-planets-climate-83776

Extract: "To explore how melting Antarctic ice might cause such dramatic change in the global climate, we used a climate model to simulate the release of large volumes of freshwater into the Southern Ocean. The model simulations all showed the same response, in agreement with our climate reconstructions: regardless of the amount of freshwater released into the Southern Ocean, the surface waters of the tropical Pacific nevertheless warmed, causing changes to wind patterns that in turn triggered the North Atlantic to warm too."

Such references provide clear paleo-examples of climate attractor behavior that illustrate the synergy not only between Hansen's ice-climate mechanism and the bipolar seesaw, but support possible further synergy via: ENSO strengthening, increased ECS (via changes in tropical cloud cover), degradation of tropical rainforests, and possibly increased Arctic methane emissions (via both methane hydrate and permafrost degradation).
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1762
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1981 on: November 12, 2017, 12:26:04 PM »
I note that this effect could also be responsible for the presence of hippos in England during the last interglacial maximum.  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016787809000054

However, it is unclear (to me) how much of this is driven by WAIS impact (since WAIS was intact at last holocene maximum) and how much is an effect of arctic melt and higher latitude (north) solar insolation.
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1982 on: November 12, 2017, 08:48:14 PM »
I note that this effect could also be responsible for the presence of hippos in England during the last interglacial maximum.  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016787809000054

However, it is unclear (to me) how much of this is driven by WAIS impact (since WAIS was intact at last holocene maximum) and how much is an effect of arctic melt and higher latitude (north) solar insolation.

jai,
Properly responding to your issues/questions would take a full dynamical reinterpretation of both the paleo-record and current ESM projections partially calibrated to the paleo-record, which would take for effort than I currently have time for, so I offer the following partial response.  First, current ESM models cannot accurately represent Arctic Amplification, AA, higher than that demonstrated during the Holocene, and the Cronin et al. (2017) reference primarily addresses evidence of feedback mechanisms that contribute to enhanced AA beyond the Holocene response.  Such enhanced AA behavior would likely dynamically in the paleo-record as illustrated in the last image of my last post for MIS 11.3 and MIS 5.5, but not in MIS 7.5 as climate attractor mechanisms are somewhat chaotic.

Current (CMIP5) projections largely ignore the ice-climate feedback climate attractor mechanism as they treat such fresh water hosing events as noise in the climate trends as illustrated by my first two attached images (the first of hosing events during the Holocene and the second by Hansen showing how ESMs calibrate response functions given noise to be either slow response, intermediate response or fast response).  The third image shows how the portion of the WAIS ice sheet that use to be in front of the Pine Island Glacier collapsed abruptly during the past 12,300 to 11,200 years due to cliff failures.  Lastly, the fourth attached image shows how DeConto & Pollard shows how many remaining portions of the WAIS could collapse this century as we approach 2.7C GMSTA.  Which then takes us to the Fogwill et al. (2017) reference that uses an ESM of intermediate complexity to examine the global consequences of possible future fresh water hosing events such as DeConto & Pollard (2016)'s scenario with continued BAU warming.

Best,
ASLR
« Last Edit: November 12, 2017, 11:59:43 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

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1762
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1983 on: November 12, 2017, 11:33:21 PM »
I would also expect that the PIG collapse during the early Holocene was also caused by rapid SLR due to freshwater pulses.  Thank you for your in depth response. 
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1984 on: November 13, 2017, 12:48:24 AM »
I would also expect that the PIG collapse during the early Holocene was also caused by rapid SLR due to freshwater pulses.  Thank you for your in depth response.

jai,
Per Wikipedia, the Holocene began 11.7 kya, while the retreat of the Pine Island Glacier that I referenced occurred sometime between 12.3 kya and 11.2 kya; so it may have been the event that helped to trigger the Holocene.

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

But in response to your comment, it is most likely that this 12.3 to 11.2 kya retreat was triggered by local ocean warming in the Amundsen Sea Embayment, possibly due to a Heinrich event in the NH which due to the bipolar seesaw would cause the Southern Ocean to warm (while the North Atlantic would cool).  The first attached image of the ice sheet in the Wilkes Basin illustrates how a local pinning point can cause an ice plug to make a marine glacier stable for a relatively long period until ocean heat causes a sufficient retreat down a negative bottom slope for cliff failures to drive a rapid retreat to the next pinning point.  This next pinning point probably has kept the remaining portion of the WAIS stable throughout the Holocene (see the second attached image) for 11,700 years.  However, we are now in the Anthropocene (not the Holocene anymore) and a combination of the human induced Antarctic ozone hole that lead to the upwelling of warmer Circumpolar Deep Water into the Amundsen Sea Embayment since the 1970's and the ice mass loss from Greenland which may have nudged the bipolar seesaw mechanism (via a slowing of the MOC) to warm the Southern Ocean, and also ENSO activity that also pushes ocean heat from the Tropical Pacific to the Southern Ocean; has now started to unpin the PIG and Thwaites ice plugs so that cliff failures can begin again as projected by DeConto and Pollard 2016.

The third figure shows the actual climate response function assumed by Hansen et al 2016, which does not consider such considerations as: (a) Shewood's deep atmospheric convection (see the 4th image) in the Tropical Pacific triggered by ice-climate feedback; and (b) the fact that the Arctic submerged and dryland permafrost has already experienced 11,700 years of warming (which is not the case during the MIS 11.3 or the MIS 5.5) and thus this source of both methane gas and CO₂ gas emissions is primed for release much more readily than in either MIS 11.3 or MIS 5.5.

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

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1985 on: November 13, 2017, 03:56:19 AM »
It is my general impression that most readers of my posts do not yet understand how a dynamical reinterpretation of current Earth System Model projections could highlight the potential consequences of current ESM assumptions/limitations that could transform what are commonly perceived as fat-tail risks into stark reality later this century, with continuing global warming.  Hansen's ice-climate feedback (triggered by fresh water hosing events) can interact synergistically with mechanisms such as: (a) the bipolar seesaw; (b) Arctic Amplification; (c) positive cloud feedback in the tropics; (d) methane releases from Arctic continental shelves/slopes including the ESAS; and (e) methane releases from Arctic permafrost thermokarst lakes; that are not included in the CMIP5 models nor in Hansen's model.

Furthermore, in the first attached image shows how high ECS is based on a dynamical interpretation of the paleo record as compared to what is assumed by CMIP5. The second attached image from PK17 [Proistosescu & Huybers (2017)] shows that when ECS values based on observed data are corrected for ocean heat content the likely values fall into the upper end of the AR5 range.  Additionally, the third image shows how climate attractors can ratchet up Earth System states in a stepwise fashion.

As an example of this dynamical response, I note that in the first linked research: "Severe testing is applied to observed global and regional surface and satellite temperatures and modelled surface temperatures to determine whether these interactions are independent, as in the traditional signal-to-noise model, or whether they interact, resulting in steplike warming."  The reference concludes that indeed steplike warming occurs due to "… a store-and-release mechanism from the ocean to the atmosphere…" like the classical Lorenzian attractor case of ENSO decadal cycles.  Such steplike behavior raises the issue of what I call "Ratcheting Quasi-static Equilibrium States" that can accelerate non-linear Earth Systems response beyond the linear Earth Systems response assumed by AR5/CMIP5 researchers.  As the authors point-out such AR5/CMIP5 researcher likely missed this behavior because: "This may be due in part to science asking the wrong questions."; and they advise that such AR5/CMIP5 researchers should change how they view the output from their models.  For example, the reference shows global warming increasing much faster for a steplike response if ECS is 4.5 than for a the traditional AR5/CMIP5 interpretation; which means that ESLD researchers are exposing society to far more risk of the consequences of high ECS values than AR5/CMIP5 are leading us to believe:

Jones, R. N. and Ricketts, J. H.: Reconciling the signal and noise of atmospheric warming on decadal timescales, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., doi:10.5194/esd-2016-35, in review, 2016.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-35/
&
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-35/esd-2016-35.pdf

The second linked reference indicates that the frequency of extreme El Nino events will increase rapidly with relatively minor increases in GMSTA; while the frequency of extreme La Nina events will increase relatively little between 1.5 and 2C GMSTA.  This indicates that climate sensitivity is higher than assumed in AR5:

Guojian Wang et al (2017), "Continued increase of extreme El Niño frequency long after 1.5 °C warming stabilization", Nature Climate Change  7, 568–572,  doi:10.1038/nclimate3351

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n8/full/nclimate3351.html?foxtrotcallback=true

The third linked reference indicates that the time required to recharge the Western Pacific warm water pool has decreased from 1.5–3.5 years, in the 1979–99 period, to 0.8–1.3 years, in the 2000–16 period.  This is a clear sign that climate sensitivity is likely accelerating from the recent past, due to increased El Nino events:

Zeng-Zhen Hu et al (2017), "On the Shortening of the Lead Time of Ocean Warm Water Volume to ENSO SST Since 2000", Scientific Reports 7, Article number: 4294, doi:10.1038/s41598-017-04566-z

http://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-04566-z

Next, I note that it is well known that the primary source of CO₂ fluctuations over the ENSO cycle is due to changes in land vegetation in the tropics (from 30N to 30S), rather than due to emissions from the ocean.  In this regards, the fourth reference shows that there has been a two-fold increase of carbon cycle sensitivity to tropical temperature variations over the past several decades. 

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


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

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

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

The fifth reference indicates global warming is increasing the frequency of extreme El Ninos.  As strong El Ninos increase both the temperature and induce droughts in the tropics it is clear that CO₂ emissions increase from the tropical land vegetation during strong El Ninos:

Wenju Cai, Agus Santoso, Guojian Wang, Sang-Wook Yeh, Soon-Il An, Kim M. Cobb, Mat Collins, Eric Guilyardi, Fei-Fei Jin, Jong-Seong Kug, Matthieu Lengaigne, Michael J. McPhaden, Ken Takahashi, Axel Timmermann, Gabriel Vecchi, Masahiro Watanabe & Lixin Wu (2015), "ENSO and greenhouse warming", Nature Climate Change, Volume: 5, Pages: 849–859, doi:10.1038/nclimate2743


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n9/full/nclimate2743.html

The sixth linked reference uses CMIP5 projections to estimate that increases in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations accelerate during El Nino events due to reductions in terrestrial productivity:

Jin-Soo Kim, Jong-Seong Kug, Jin-Ho Yoon and Su-Jong Jeong (2016), "Increased atmospheric CO2 growth rate during El Niño driven by reduced terrestrial productivity in the CMIP5 ESMs", Journal of Climate, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00672.1


http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00672.1

The seventh linked reference indicates that AR5 meaningfully underestimates future global warming from land use and land cover change (LULCC).  This is an example of a mechanisms that may result in more rapid warming in the coming decades than projected by CMIP5:

Natalie M Mahowald, Daniel Ward, Scott Doney, Peter Hess and James T Randerson (2017), "Are the impacts of land use on warming underestimated in climate policy?", Environmental Research Letters, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa836d

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa836d
&
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa836d/pdf

In the eighth linked reference, the authors found that sea surface temperatures from ENSO alone could not adequately explain the size and severity of the 2015-2016 drought in the Amazon. The paper reports that the 2015-2016 drought clearly exceeded that of the 100-year events in 2005 and 2010.  The tropical Pacific SST was unable to explain the severity of the 2015-2016 drought for a several reasons including: (a) land-use changes; and (b) warming from greenhouse gases.  Simply put, man-made warming is accelerating the movement of water through the Amazon ecosystem, which can cause drought even if precipitation does not decrease. Warming also causes changes in the large-scale patterns of air motion (atmospheric circulation) that reduces rainfall in this region.

Amir Erfanian, Guiling Wang, and Lori Fomenko (2017), "Unprecedented drought over tropical South America in 2016: significantly under-predicted by tropical SST", Sci Rep.; 7: 5811, doi:  10.1038/s41598-017-05373-2

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5517600/


Lastly, in the ninth linked reference, Shrivastava et al (2017) states: "Several SOA processes highlighted in this review are complex and interdependent, and have non-linear effects on the properties, formation and evolution of SOA.  Current global models neglect this complexity and non-linearity, and thus are less likely to accurately predict the climate forcing of SOA, and project future climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases."  Thus, climate change induced increases in extreme El Ninos, combined with land-use changes in the tropics can result in deforestation that decreases local cloud formation from VOC emissions.

Shrivastava M, Kappa CD, Fan J, et al. (2017), "Recent Advances in Understanding Secondary Organic Aerosol: Implications for global climate forcing", Reviews of Geophysics, DOI: 10.1002/2016RG000540
« Last Edit: November 13, 2017, 07:33:30 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1986 on: November 13, 2017, 10:34:47 AM »
My last post cited evidence for dynamical Earth Systems responses that are underestimated in AR5 that (among other things) links the projection increase in extreme El Nino occurrences to steplike degradation of the Amazon rainforest and to the associated reduction on low altitude cloud cover (the loss of this low altitude cloud cover results in a reduction of associated negative radiative forcing) over the Amazon.  In this post, I cite evidence that the increased frequency of extreme El Nino events (associated both with 267 years of 90% of anthropogenic heat going into the ocean together with future anthropogenic warming) can lead to steplike dynamical warming from the poleward migration of high altitude clouds in the Tropical Pacific, leading to an increase in positive radiative forcing.

First, I note that extreme El Nino events telecommunicate heat to the two poles (more specifically into the North Pacific and into Western Antarctica), as shown in the first attached image (from Fogt et al 2011).

Second, the first linked 2012 article and second attached image illustrate how the bipolar seesaw can alternate warming periods in the NH and SH depending on the MOC and triggering events.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/deep-atlantic-circulation-during-the-last-glacial-25858002

The second linked article is entitled: "Massive Antarctic volcanic eruptions linked to abrupt Southern hemisphere climate changes", and indicates that abrupt climate change ~17.7 kya was associated with a series of halogen rich eruptions from Mt Takahe in the Byrd Subglacial Basin; which trigger bipolar seesaw cooling other NH (see the second image) 

https://phys.org/news/2017-09-massive-antarctic-volcanic-eruptions-linked.html

The third linked reference, Praetorius & Mix (2014) provides paleo-evidence of the importance of the synchronization of the North Pacific, and the North Atlantic, Oceans on Arctic amplification via a climate attractor interaction with the ENSO:

Summer K. Praetorius, Alan C. Mix, (2014), "Synchronization of North Pacific and Greenland climates preceded abrupt deglacial warming", Science 25 July 2014: Vol. 345 no. 6195 pp. 444-448 DOI: 10.1126/science.1252000

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6195/444

Furthermore, the fourth linked reference indicates 14,000 years ago when the Laurentide Ice Sheet collapsed, the ENSO abruptly strengthened by about 25%:

Lu, Z., Liu, Z. & Zhu, J. (2016), "Abrupt intensification of ENSO forced by deglacial ice-sheet retreat in CCSM3", Clim Dyn,  46: 1877. doi:10.1007/s00382-015-2681-3


http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-015-2681-3

The fifth linked reference confirms that the AMOC will likely slowdown in coming decades; which will certainly cause both the ENSO cycle to strengthen and for the Southern Ocean to warm:

Olson, R., An, SI., Fan, Y. et al. (2017), "North Atlantic observations sharpen meridional overturning projections", Clim Dyn,  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3867-7

https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-017-3867-7


The sixth linked reference indicates that "… the equatorial Pacific acts as a nonlinear amplifier that allows global climate to transition from deglacial to full interglacial conditions once atmospheric CO2 levels reach threshold levels.

Li Lo et. al. (2017), "Nonlinear climatic sensitivity to greenhouse gases over past 4 glacial/interglacial cycles", Scientific Reports 7, Article number: 4626, doi:10.1038/s41598-017-04031-x

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-04031-x.


The seventh linked reference discusses Hansen et al (2016)'s ice-climate feedback mechanism, where polar glacial ice sheet mass loss causes the MOC to slowdown and that in turn causes the equatorial oceans to heat up:

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

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


The eight linked reference provides field evidence supporting Hansen's ice-climate interaction mechanism.

Pepijn Bakker et al, Centennial-scale Holocene climate variations amplified by Antarctic Ice Sheet discharge, Nature (2016). DOI: 10.1038/nature20582

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature20582.html

The ninth linked reference illustrates how warming of the equatorial ocean increases deep atmospheric convective circulations (see the last image of Reply# 1984) that move high altitude clouds poleward (the third image shows how this deep convection interacts with the Hadley Cells), thus increasing solar warming of the tropical oceans (which increases ECS as indicated in the fourth attached image from Andrew (2015)'s presentation at the Ringberg workshop):
Sherwood, S.C., Bony, S. and Dufresne, J.-L., (2014) "Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing", Nature; Volume: 505, pp 37–42, doi:10.1038/nature12829

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

Also see Sherwood's (2015) presentation at the Ringberg workshop:

http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/atmosphaere/WCRP_Grand_Challenge_Workshop/Ringberg_2015/Talks/Sherwood_24032015.pdf


I further note that Trenberth criticized Hansen et al (2016) for not adequately accounting for influence of the ENSO and the Equatorial Pacific in general; which can telecommunicate energy (via both the atmosphere & the ocean) from the tropical Pacific directly to West Antarctica thereby warming the WAIS.

Finally, the tenth reference regarding the CloudSat & CALIPSO within the A-Train, shows a dramatic increase (more positive) in observed net cloud feedback as compared to prior assumptions, due both to an observed decrease in low altitude clouds and an increase in high altitude clouds:

Graeme Stephens et. al. (2017), "CloudSat and CALIPSO within the A-Train: Ten years of actively observing the Earth system", BAMS, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0324.1

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0324.1?utm_content=bufferebbb9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
or
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0324.1
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1987 on: November 13, 2017, 07:22:11 PM »
It is nice to know that at least 15,364 scientist signatories from 184 countries have issued a second warning to world about the potential consequences of the current pathway that the world is following:

William J. Ripple et al. (13 November 2017), "World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice", BioScience, bix125, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix125

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/doi/10.1093/biosci/bix125/4605229
&
http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/sw/files/Ripple_et_al.%20_7-31-17_scientists_warning.pdf

Extract: "To prevent widespread misery and catastrophic biodiversity loss, humanity must practice a more environmentally sustainable alternative to business as usual. This prescription was well articulated by the world's leading scientists 25 years ago, but in most respects, we have not heeded their warning. Soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory, and time is running out. We must recognize, in our day-to-day lives and in our governing institutions, that Earth with all its life is our only home."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1988 on: November 13, 2017, 08:22:45 PM »
Back to my point about the need for ESM projections to better address dynamical climate response, one can imagine how the timing of a rain-dominated Arctic will be affected by Hansen's ice-climate feedback mechanism driven by a WAIS collapse circa 2040-2060 (which almost all ESM projections currently ignore), and or pulses of methane emission from thermokarst lakes.  I also note that the linked reference assumes that ECS is only around 3C.

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

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

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

See also the second linked associated reference:

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

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

Extract: "Rain causes more (extensive) permafrost melt [Refs. 7,26], which most likely leads to enhanced emissions of terrestrial methane [Ref. 27] (a powerful greenhouse gas), more direct runoff (a smaller seasonal delay) and concurrent freshening of the Arctic Ocean [Ref 18]. Rainfall also diminishes snow cover extent and considerably lowers the surface albedo of seasonal snow, ice sheets and sea ice [Ref. 9] , reinforcing surface warming and amplifying the retreat of ice and snow; in fact, enhanced rainfall will most likely accelerate sea-ice retreat by lowering its albedo (compared with that of fresh snowfall) "
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1989 on: November 14, 2017, 07:49:30 PM »
The Global Carbon Project's estimates for 2017 anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are in (and such 2018 are projected to be higher than those for 2017) and at 37 billion tons of fossil fuel related CO₂ emissions and 41 billion tons of CO2 emissions in 2017 when considering deforestation, the first figure makes it clear that we are still following RCP 8.5, with regard to anthropogenic CO₂ emissions.  While the second image indicates that this 41 billion tons of anthropogenic CO₂ emissions is actually a drop from 2016 when deforestation was worse.  However, the third image shows that the measured CO₂ concentration at Mauna Loa is increasing in 2017 even those the anthropogenic CO₂ emissions (including deforestation) dropped from 2016 to 2017, thus proving that natural feedback mechanisms that emit CO₂ (such as from permafrost degradation) are accelerating.  This implies that the imaginary CO₂ pathways, shown in the fourth attached image, to limit GMSTA to 2C, are just wishful thinking.

Title: "After years of nearly flat growth, global fossil fuel emissions are inching up, according to report by Stanford-led group"

https://news.stanford.edu/2017/11/13/growing-carbon-emissions/

Extract: "Together, they forecast that global fossil fuel emissions will reach a record 37 billion tons of carbon dioxide in 2017, with total emissions reaching a record 41 billion tons, including deforestation. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration reached 403 parts per million in 2016, and is expected to increase by 2.5 parts per million in 2017.

… overall global carbon emissions are unlikely to decrease in 2018, according the researchers."

See also the article entitled: "Analysis: Global CO2 emissions set to rise 2% in 2017 after three-year ‘plateau’"

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-rise-2-percent-2017.html
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1990 on: November 15, 2017, 12:24:25 AM »
In my last post I showed that we are currently following RCP 8.5, which under the new Shared Socioeconomic Pathways, SSP, scenarios (see the first two summary images) roughly corresponds to SSP5 baseline.  Thus I provide a link to a reference that describes SSP5, from which I took the third attached image of SSP5's assumed world population (peaking at about 8.5 billion circa 2060), GDP, Energy Demand and Food Demand.  The fourth attached image shows the UN's 2017 world population projections that indicate a 50/50 chance of reaching a world population of over 10 billion by 2060 (which SSP3 assumes).  Thus either we had better get off our current BAU pathway immediately, or the world population will become unsustainable long before 2060:

Kriegler et al. (2017), "Fossil-fueled development (SSP5): An energy and resource intensive scenario for the 21st century", Global Environmental Change, Volume 42, January 2017, Pages 297-315, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.015

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300711?via%3Dihub

Abstract: "This paper presents a set of energy and resource intensive scenarios based on the concept of Shared Socio-Economic Pathways (SSPs). The scenario family is characterized by rapid and fossil-fueled development with high socio-economic challenges to mitigation and low socio-economic challenges to adaptation (SSP5). A special focus is placed on the SSP5 marker scenario developed by the REMIND-MAgPIE integrated assessment modeling framework. The SSP5 baseline scenarios exhibit very high levels of fossil fuel use, up to a doubling of global food demand, and up to a tripling of energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions over the course of the century, marking the upper end of the scenario literature in several dimensions. These scenarios are currently the only SSP scenarios that result in a radiative forcing pathway as high as the highest Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP8.5). This paper further investigates the direct impact of mitigation policies on the SSP5 energy, land and emissions dynamics confirming high socio-economic challenges to mitigation in SSP5. Nonetheless, mitigation policies reaching climate forcing levels as low as in the lowest Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP2.6) are accessible in SSP5. The SSP5 scenarios presented in this paper aim to provide useful reference points for future climate change, climate impact, adaption and mitigation analysis, and broader questions of sustainable development."

For SSP population information see:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378014001095

For a SSP Poster see:

https://unfccc.int/files/science/workstreams/research/application/pdf/part1_iiasa_rogelj_ssp_poster.pdf

For Current SSP information see the website entitled: "SSP Database (Shared Socioeconomic Pathways) - Version 1.1"

https://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at/SspDb/dsd?Action=htmlpage&page=about

« Last Edit: November 17, 2017, 07:04:15 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1991 on: November 15, 2017, 12:26:43 AM »
As a follow-on to my last post, I provide two different images comparing the world population scenarios assumed by SSP1 thru SSP5 (note that SSP1, SSP2, SSP4 and SSP5 have smaller world populations than projected by the UN):
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1992 on: November 15, 2017, 04:13:10 PM »
Kriegler et al. (2017) indicates that the SSP5 is not just once scenario but rather it is a family of scenarios that are very similar to the RCP scenarios (see the first attached image).  However, it notes that its highest scenario, comparable to RCP 8.5, is its baseline, and all other scenarios with lower radiative forcing are provided on the assumption that decision makers take strong mitigation action.  The following extract provides some feeling for how SSP5 (with significant reliance on fossil fuels and growth of GDP) compares to other SSP pathways like SSP1 (which focuses on human well-being and reduced wealth inequality).

Extract: "SSP5 combines the highest economic growth among the SSPs with strong reliance on fossil fuels and energy intensive consumption patterns because it was designed to describe a world with very large challenges to mitigation, and not because it hypothesizes high fossil fuel use and resource intensity to be a precondition of high growth. A scenario with high economic growth, but limited fossil fuel availability is also conceivable as for example described by the A1T scenario in the SRES (Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000) and the mitigation scenarios in this study. Moreover, the scenario literature has repeatedly highlighted transition scenarios with a focus on broader human well-being rather than rapid economic growth (Raskin et al., 2005). In the SSP family, this is represented by SSP1 with similarly rapid convergence of income levels as in SSP5, but a focus on resource efficiency, healthy diets and lowering environmental impacts."

In my mind this makes it clear that SSP5-Baseline should be the standard that science uses to hold decision makers accountable.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1993 on: November 15, 2017, 05:06:03 PM »
The first attached image comes from a presentation by Claudia Tebaldi, which illustrates the interaction of numerous issues for ScenarioMIP, which describe radiative forcing pathways used in CMIP6.  As her presentation was focused on Snowmass aspects of these scenarios, she circled the issues that she was going to talk about, but all of the cited issues are relevant to the SSP radiative forcing scenarios (as ScenarioMIP serves as the basis for the SSP pathways).

In this post I focus on the Systemic Biases cited in this image, as it has been documented that the more sophisticated CMIP5 projections show less biases than the less sophisticated CMIP5 projects (when compared to both the paleo and observed records).  Thus AR6 (which will use both CMIP6 projections) could improve the accuracy of their projections by weighting different ESM projection based on their know biases.

As the CMIP6 projections are not yet available, I instead note that the supplement to Proistosescu & Huybers (2017) (see the first link below), provides a breakdown by of the ECS range shown in the second image (from RealClimate, where PK17 is Proistosescu & Huybers (2017)), by each of the 23 different ESM projections that they used.

Cristian Proistosescu and Peter J. Huybers (05 Jul 2017), "Slow climate mode reconciles historical and model-based estimates of climate sensitivity", Science Advances, Vol. 3, no. 7, e1602821, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1602821

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/7/e1602821


Proistosescu and Huybers (2017) demonstrated conclusively that the observational based estimates of ECS ignored the slow response feedbacks associated with the ocean's uptake of heat since the being of the industrial age in 1750, and that when this feedback is added to the observational based estimates of ECS these corrected values are much closer to the higher ESM estimates of ECS this century.

The second linked article is entitled: "Reconciling predictions of climate change", & I provide the attached third associated image of a panel of the first supplemental figure from Proistosescu & Huybers (2017) that at for the relatively sophisticated (for the time) climate model HadGEM2-ES the posterior pdf for the near future ECS has a median value of 6C with right-tailed values in the range of 8C, which is very similar to PETM temperatures (see the fourth image).


http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/07/conflicting-estimates-of-rise-in-global-temperature-resolved/

While it is very difficult to say whether AR6 will weight ESM projections in order to reduce systemic model bias, it is clear to me that they should do so.

Also for HadGEM2-ES see:

Title: "Earth System Modelling" by Fiona M. O'Connor

http://www.ukca.ac.uk/images/7/76/2017_Foconnor_ESM_UKCAtraining_Jan2017.pdf

For information on UKESM, and HadGEM3-GC3, see:

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/latest/news/nerc/nc-webinar/ukesm/
&
http://www.jwcrp.org.uk/research-activity/ukesm.asp

And for information on HadGEM3-GC3.1 see:

Title: "HadGEM3-GC3.1: The physical coupled model core of UKESM1 now frozen"

http://www.jwcrp.org.uk/documents/ukesm-jan17hadgem3.pdf

Edit: Note that I do not provide a link to E3SM (previously known a ACME), which is scheduled to complete its Phase 1 study in December 2017, because I do not know how much know how much the Rick Perry administration at the US DOE will bias the findings of this state-of-the-art ESM.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 05:32:25 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1994 on: November 15, 2017, 05:21:27 PM »
In my last post I reiterated that Proistosescu & Huybers (2017) show the ECS this century will not only be based on fast response feedback mechanism (as AR5 assumed), but will also include input from the slow response oceanic feedback associated with the interaction of the Southern Ocean and the Tropical Pacific.  However, Proistosescu & Huybers (2017) do not evaluate the possible impacts of other dynamical feedback mechanisms such as the bipolar seesaw mechanism (including Hansen's ice-climate feedback), Polar Amplification and the fact that the submerged Arctic Basin permafrost/hydrate zones have been slowly absorbing heat for the past 11,700 years and thus certain susceptible areas of Arctic continental shelves/slopes may release significant quantities of previously capped free methane gas, this century.  The first attached image, from Friedrich, et al (2016), illustrates the bipolar seesaw risk, while the second image illustrates the risk of releasing previously capped free natural gas/methane from the high latitude, relatively shallow, seafloor .
« Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 11:48:02 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1995 on: November 16, 2017, 05:47:15 PM »
In my last post, I noted that if one corrects CMIP5 projections for model bias then climate sensitivity most likely will increase.  The linked reference demonstrates this consideration with regards to the critical issue of the ENSO variability increasing with continuing global warming:

Tim Li, Yongqiang Yu & Swadhin K. Behera (2017), "A possible explanation for the divergent projection of ENSO amplitude change under global warming ", Climate Dynamics, Volume 49, Issue 11–12, pp 3799–3811, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3544-x

https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-017-3544-x?utm_content=bufferb02a9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Abstract: "The El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is the greatest climate variability on interannual time scale, yet what controls ENSO amplitude changes under global warming (GW) is uncertain. Here we show that the fundamental factor that controls the divergent projections of ENSO amplitude change within 20 coupled general circulation models that participated in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase-5 is the change of climatologic mean Pacific subtropical cell (STC), whose strength determines the meridional structure of ENSO perturbations and thus the anomalous thermocline response to the wind forcing. The change of the thermocline response is a key factor regulating the strength of Bjerknes thermocline and zonal advective feedbacks, which ultimately lead to the divergent changes in ENSO amplitude. Furthermore, by forcing an ocean general circulation mode with the change of zonal mean zonal wind stress estimated by a simple theoretical model, a weakening of the STC in future is obtained. Such a change implies that ENSO variability might strengthen under GW, which could have a profound socio-economic consequence."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1996 on: November 16, 2017, 06:43:29 PM »
Just to verify that we are currently following the SSP5 baseline scenario (see the second panel of the first image),  I note that using NASA's GISTEMP LOTI data thru Oct 2017, the 12-month running average GMSTA (above pre-industrial) is about 1.159C.

Furthermore, the total radiative forcings, RFs, from the linked ORNL website article by Blasing, T.J. (that updates such RF values reported in April 2016, see the attached table in the second attached image) are used in the linked Wikipedia article to calculate a CO2e value of 526.6ppm; which assuming the current rate of annual increase in CO2e of about 3.5ppm indicates that early in 2017 CO2e exceeded 530ppm:

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


Extract: "To calculate the CO2e of the additional radiative forcing calculated from April 2016's updated data: ∑ RF(GHGs) = 3.3793, thus CO2e = 280 e3.3793/5.35 ppmv = 526.6 ppmv."

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html


This relatively high value of 530ppm for CO2e appears to be associated with RF associated with tropospheric ozone and its chemical interaction in the atmosphere with GHGs like methane, as discussed in the following linked references.

Stevenson et al (2013), "Tropospheric ozone changes, radiative forcing and attribution to emissions in the Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Model Intercomparison Project (ACCMIP),"Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 3063–3085, doi:10.5194/acp-13-3063-2013

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/9666974.pdf

Abstract. Ozone (O3) from 17 atmospheric chemistry models taking part in the Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Model Intercomparison Project (ACCMIP) has been used to calculate tropospheric ozone radiative forcings (RFs). All models applied a common set of anthropogenic emissions, which are better constrained for the present-day than the past. Future anthropogenic emissions follow the four Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios, which define a relatively narrow range of possible air pollution emissions. We calculate a value for the pre-industrial (1750) to present-day (2010) tropospheric ozone RF of 410mWm−2. The model range of pre-industrial to present-day changes in O3 produces a spread (±1 standard deviation) in RFs of ±17 %. Three different radiation schemes were used – we find differences in RFs between schemes (for the same ozone fields) of ±10 %. Applying two different tropopause definitions gives differences in RFs of ±3 %. Given additional (unquantified) uncertainties associated with emissions, climate-chemistry interactions and land-use change, we estimate an overall uncertainty of ±30% for the tropospheric ozone RF. Experiments carried out by a subset of six models attribute tropospheric ozone RF to increased emissions of methane (44±12 %), nitrogen oxides (31±9 %), carbon monoxide (15±3 %) and non-methane volatile organic compounds (9±2 %); earlier studies attributed more of the tropospheric ozone RF to methane and less to nitrogen oxides. Normalising RFs to changes in tropospheric column ozone, we find a global mean normalised RF of 42mWm−2 DU−1, a value similar to previous work. Using normalised RFs and future tropospheric column ozone projections we calculate future tropospheric ozone RFs (mWm−2; relative to 1750) for the four future scenarios (RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5) of 350, 420, 370 and 460 (in 2030), and 200, 300, 280 and 600 (in 2100). Models show some coherent responses of ozone to climate change: decreases in the tropical lower troposphere, associated with increases in water vapour; and increases in the sub-tropical to mid-latitude upper troposphere, associated with increases in lightning and stratosphere-to-troposphere transport. Climate change has relatively small impacts on global mean tropospheric ozone RF."

See also:

https://tes.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/climateO3/

Extract: "Tropospheric O3 is also the source of the hydroxyl radical (OH), which controls the abundance and distribution of many atmospheric constituents (including greenhouse gases such as methane and hydrochlorofluorocarbons). Ozone makes a significant contribution to the radiative balance of the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, such that changes in the distribution of O3 in these atmospheric regions affect the radiative forcing of climate.

Climate Feedback and Forcing for Tropospheric Ozone

Climate forcing by O3 remains uncertain because O3 change as a function of altitude has been under-measured. In order to better understand the role of tropospheric O3 in climate, accurate temperature measurements are needed along with co-located O3 and CO profiles."

To point out the obvious, the ACCMIP reference shows significant increases in ozone RF by 2030 following a BAU pathway.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1997 on: November 17, 2017, 04:53:16 PM »
The linked opinion article focuses on the fact that the U.S. Climate Variability and Predictability (U.S. CLIVAR) program has made valuable contributions to improving the sophistication of advanced Earth System Models, but that the funding for this program is running out in 2017 and the Trump administration has not yet seen fit to provide it with funding for another phase of research.

I point this matter out in this thread as I have cited many examples of state-of-the-art research (whether on dynamical systems, cloud feedback mechanisms, or the potential collapse of the WAIS producing an armada of icebergs circling around Antarctica) that could significantly benefit from the U.S. CLIVAR program being renewed.  I realize that many consensus science projections are conservative because of both technical limits on models and because of limits on funding.  That said, AR6 should highlight (as opposed to burying) their assumptions and limitation, otherwise decision makers (like the Trump administration) will see no need to fund addition research.

Ummenhofer, C. C., A. Subramanian, and S. Legg (2017), Maintaining momentum in climate model development, Eos, 98, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017EO086501. Published on 15 November 2017

https://eos.org/opinions/maintaining-momentum-in-climate-model-development?utm_source=eos&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EosBuzz111717

Extract: "As the current funding for climate process teams comes to an end, scientists emphasize the continuing need for teams that translate basic research into improved climate models.

Climate models have gotten steadily more sophisticated over the past 5 decades, representing a wider range of timescales and spatial scales and capturing increasing degrees of complexity and interconnections among different components of the climate system. Climate models use mathematical tools to represent physical processes like evaporation of water from the ocean’s surface, moisture transport in the atmosphere, or mixing of heat in the ocean; the better the math is at mimicking the processes, the more accurately the models can explain past variations and predict future conditions.

Toward this end, in 2003 the U.S. Climate Variability and Predictability (U.S. CLIVAR) national research program, with funding from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), assembled a group of climate process teams (CPTs) to focus on improving global climate models. Each team comprised 7–12 principal investigators from academia, partners from modeling centers, and several postdoctoral researchers (some of whom were embedded at modeling centers)."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1998 on: November 17, 2017, 07:26:35 PM »
In Replies # 1990, 1991 and 1996, I noted that the SSP5 family of scenarios were comparable to the RCP family of radiative forcing scenarios, and that we are currently follow a BAU pathway comparable to SSP5 baseline (RCP 8.5); however, I give little discussion to the other SSPs.  To partially address this short-coming I provide the following linked reference that describes the process for developing the SSPs in consideration of the fact that in the Anthropocene human society is a major Earth System.  The first image characterizes the SSPs as follows:
1. SSP1 "(Low Challenges) Sustainability: Taking the Green Road"
2. SSP2 "(Intermediate Challenges) Middle of the Road"
3. SSP3 "(High Challenges) Regional Rivalry: A Rocky Road"
4. SSP4 "(Adapt. Challenges Dominate) Inequality: A Road Divided"
5. SSP5 "(Mit. Challenges Dominate) Fossil-fueled Development: Taking the Highway"

The second image shows the process by which climate scientists developed these different imaginary pathways.  The third image indicates some of the different elements that challenge these five imaginary pathways.  While the fourth image presents the five (plus variants) imaginary pathways as characterized by the elements of their narratives (storylines).

O'Neill et al. (2017), "The roads ahead: Narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century", Global Environmental Change, Volume 42, Pages 169-180, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.004

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378015000060#fig0005

Abstract: "Long-term scenarios play an important role in research on global environmental change. The climate change research community is developing new scenarios integrating future changes in climate and society to investigate climate impacts as well as options for mitigation and adaptation. One component of these new scenarios is a set of alternative futures of societal development known as the shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs). The conceptual framework for the design and use of the SSPs calls for the development of global pathways describing the future evolution of key aspects of society that would together imply a range of challenges for mitigating and adapting to climate change. Here we present one component of these pathways: the SSP narratives, a set of five qualitative descriptions of future changes in demographics, human development, economy and lifestyle, policies and institutions, technology, and environment and natural resources. We describe the methods used to develop the narratives as well as how these pathways are hypothesized to produce particular combinations of challenges to mitigation and adaptation. Development of the narratives drew on expert opinion to (1) identify key determinants of these challenges that were essential to incorporate in the narratives and (2) combine these elements in the narratives in a manner consistent with scholarship on their inter-relationships. The narratives are intended as a description of plausible future conditions at the level of large world regions that can serve as a basis for integrated scenarios of emissions and land use, as well as climate impact, adaptation and vulnerability analyses."


Caption for Fig. 1. Five shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) representing different combinations of challenges to mitigation and to adaptation. Based on Fig. 1from O’Neill et al. (2014), but with the addition of specific SSPs

Caption for Fig. 2. Flow diagram of process for developing SSP narratives.

Caption for Fig. 3. A summary of SSP elements that contribute to high or low challenges to mitigation (a) and adaptation (b). Elements listed toward the top or bottom of the challenges space in figure (a) apply to pathways with high or low challenges to mitigation, respectively, while elements listed toward the left or right side of the challenges space in figure (b) apply to pathways with low or high challenges to adaptation, respectively.

Caption for Fig. 4. Illustrative mapping of SSPs to a space defined by elements of the SSP narratives as opposed to consequences of the narratives for challenges to mitigation and adaptation.


See also, for background metadata:

http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/portals/shared-socioeconomic-pathways-ssps-database
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13283
    • View Profile
Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« Reply #1999 on: November 17, 2017, 10:13:41 PM »
As a follow-on to by last post, I note that while SSP5 represents a BAU pathway and SSP1 represents a green pathway, both with relatively low dead rates until 2050; SSP3 assumes a nationalist pathway characterized by kleptocracies (Feudalism 2.0) and SSP4 assumes a globalist pathway characterized by oligarchs (think dysfunctional 4th Industrial Revolution, with robots controlled by the 1% suppressing the masses), both with relatively high death rates until 2050;  while SSP2 represents an imaginary 'Goldilocks' pathway where bureaucrats/technocrats thread the eye of the needle.

Furthermore, as I have repeatedly noted, Earth Systems (including human socioeconomic systems in the SSPs) are best interpreted a dynamical chaotic system with strange attractors, the first attached image could be interpreted as a point attractor landscape where the depressions represent the different SSP pathways and the vertical axis represents a value function (or work function) of society's likelihood of being somewhere in the landscape. The second attached image shows how nudging (e.g. from the environment or government intervention) can be used to push an agent on the landscape into the strange attractor of a given SSP.  The third image show that for a given probability density function, pdf (or frequency function), and a given consequence (or magnitude) function, the value/work (or reduced entropy per information theory) function is the product of frequency and magnitude (i.e. you can move around the landscape either being pushed by climate risks or pulled by governmental nudging).  The fourth image shows that we are now in an 'overshoot' condition in the fourth industrial revolution/wave, and that depending on our skill in navigating the point attractor landscape we will either end up in socioeconomic collapse or in a more sustainable era.

While none of the SSPs project socioeconomic collapse, it is my believe that we will follow SSP5 baseline through at least 2040, then a variant of SSP4 (dysfunctional 4thIR) will get us to 2050, then a variant of SSP3 (Feudalism 2.0) will characterize a collapse from 2050 to 2060, followed by a low performance variant of SSP1 will be characterized by a much lower population era of sustainability for several/multiple centuries.  I note that as the probability density function, PDF, for ECS are all skewed to the right (see Reply #1993 where the UK Met Office has a model with a mean ECS of 6C and a right-tailed value of 8C), and as the consequence function (see the third image) may likely become steeper than consensus science currently believes, that it will likely take much more work/nudging (think the Paris Climate Accord) than most decision makers think to avoid socioeconomic collapse by 2050.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2017, 03:29:01 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