JJ, the models are, thus far, using what’s actually measured, if it’s enough to matter. Using the numbers is the traditional way of doing this, and we do have numbers. There’s a methane hot spot all right — in the US Southwest at a coal mining site. Remember the satellite pictures posted previously? And how about the Arctic? They’re looking hard.
… we have carried out work around Svalbard to look for methane hydrate emissions off the west coast of the archipelago …
… rendezvous with the Norwegian research ship, the RV Helmer Hanssen, currently carrying out a survey of the methane above seabed bubble plumes, and looking for elevated methane in the atmosphere. …
… Methane seemed to increase very slightly after reaching open water but changes were not much above instrument measurement precision….
The answers to these puzzles is what we’re trying to find out….
MAMM Flights to the High Arctic
Our MAMM flights are designed to measure the Arctic winds. If the 8 million ton per year methane emission inferred by Shakhova et al (2010) is already happening, this outpouring will produce an excess of methane in the polar air above the regional temperate background. If the winds are suitable, we should be able to detect that as we fly north in the polar air….
Mark Twain warned that it can be dangerous to read medical books, because you could die of a typographical error.
Reading climate blogs may carry similar risks. I don’t know if you’re 13, or 19 — high school or college. Pick the sources you read carefully, try to get a class in statistics — Stat 101 can change how you see the world in ways that help a lot.
“Nothing is being done” is a bit like “everybody’s talking about xyz”. Yes, technically, neither are true but each can seem like they are close to being true. There is nothing effective being done to mitigate warming, because CO2 keeps rising (even accelerating) and the planet continues to warm, with some tipping points (e.g. WAIS demise) appearing to be crossed.
I think it’s fair to say that, effectively, nothing is being done. Most likely, we’ll have to wait for nature to take whatever course it will (some of which may impact societies and thus have a negative impact on warming – you never know).
jyyhsays
“Now Scared Teen: So your (#229 and #242) sayin by 2030-2050 Climate Change or global warming will cause and end of the world event that will lead to ppl dying out?”
not as such, but people fighting for food yes, people moving out of too wet, too dry, too hot, too under the sea and maybe too impossible to live in places yes.
the estimates of the sea level rise vary wildly the IPCC estimate is possibly way in the low side, the impossible places to live in are mainly tropical and subtropical locations when the likely 4 degree warming has spread there, too wet places is hard to say, it’s possible that many riversides get too soggy by the incessant rains from the 7%more moist atmosphere, too dry places like US western plains will not support modern agriculture. Since the atmosphere will change so the gradients are smaller the rains and dry spells get unpredictable and there’s no easy telling which place is good for agriculture. ANYWAY, there could be well over a billion people on the move by 2100 fighting for everything, unless they’re willing to die in place. But I’d guess those who survive the years 2080-2250 will get a pretty ok weather in the normal anthropocene weather though the seas are still rising and nearly a third of agricultural land has been lost. Maybe this is too bleak for you too. But, there are of course better scenarios some of which Susan already mentioned, thank you.
I guess future historians will consider this upcoming period of global hassle a second migration period or some such, of course they’d be more correct (in my mind) to call it the Copenhagen failure period.
“So your (#229 and #242) sayin by 2030-2050 Climate Change or global warming will cause and end of the world event that will lead to ppl dying out?”
We really don’t know what will happen when temperature increases get to the order of ~2 C, or greater. Michael Mann showed recently that temperature increases could be on the order of 2 C in twenty years, and that’s without the major carbon feedbacks kicking in. Add in the major feedbacks, continue on some semblance of BAU, as we seem to be doing, and we could be in very serious trouble. In spite of the soothing words you might see here, the posters have no idea of what will happen. We cannot model it accurately. That’s why I have stated we are conducting a global experiment whose consequences we do not know at present, whether with BAU, with mitigation, or with geo-engineering. It is beyond irresponsible!
Hank – you’re present on RC enough to know very well how the dynamics of discussion work here, so I’m hoping you can resolve a puzzle for me.
At 208 I posted some propositions and questions around the NAS report on options for geoengineering alongside emissions control as the necessary and potentially sufficient response to resolving AGW, but this has so far generated zero responses in subsequent comments.
I rather doubt that I could have ended all interest in this option, or have so neatly advocated it as to end all opposition to its research.
So given that it’s subject to intense coverage and controversy across the rest of the web, how is it that none here are disucussing it ?
There are a lot of reasons to think that climate change will be mitigated. An organization called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established under the UN has demonstrated that it costs very little to avoid dangerous climate change. You can read their report here: http://www.ipcc.ch/ Start with the summary for policymakers. You’ll have questions, but they can be answered at this site. You can also get involved with making progress on this by getting involved at http://350.org
Jasper Jaynessays
Hank#252,
The Nafeez reversal is old hat. I saw that back in 2013. All we know is that he appears to have softened/partially reversed his position on paper. We do not know WHY he reversed his position. He could have made the change after seeing more data, or he could have been pressured into reversing his position. Reporters have been known to buckle under pressure, and to try and base some argument on a reporter’s flip-flop is taking desperation to support the official government position to new heights.
I’ve examined Shakhova’s publications over the past year or so, and I notice subtle but important differences between what gets reported in the literature, and what she said in the interviews with Nick Breeze. When I consider the physics, the politics, and her published and spoken words, I weight her interview statements the highest. As Shakhova stated in her interviews I referenced, there are sufficient carbon reserves and sufficient pathways through which they can be released to cause major damage for the one source she discussed. Add in the effects of the other sources, and their cro$ss-coup$ling, and it becomes obvious that the omissions could be extremely significant. The American and Russian governments would not hesitate for one second to ‘throw her under the bus’ if she were to strongly emphasize the severity of the situation.
[Response: Nonsense. If there were actually evidence of unstable shallow hydrates, or evidence of increasing emissions of methane in Arctic monitoring, or evidence of previous episodes of large methane releases at periods warmer than today, then people would take these projections more seriously. But there isn’t. – gavin]
Ray Ladburysays
JJ: “I am surprised at you, Ray, for such a poorly considered statement.”
Well, I might be bothered to devote more effort to it if I thought you were saying anything worth a response. Science is constrained by facts. Scientists do not just arbitrarily change things in their model. They do so when data suggest a reason for doing so. There is nothing out there stopping you, though. There are climate models out there in the public domain ranging from simple two-box models to fairly complicated GCMs. Feel free to investigate to your heart’s content and do let us know if you find anything, preferably through the peer reviewed literature.
Matthew R Marlersays
Two of my latest readings, which I recommend to anyone who might be interested.
1. Thermal Physics of the Atmosphere, byt Maarten H. P. Ambaum, published by Wiley-Blackwell. Blessedly short at only 210 pp, hence less comprehensive than Modern Thermodynamics by Kondepudi and Prigogine, but all the developments are focused on the atmosphere, whereas K&P have mostly examples from chemistry. Chapter 10 relaxes the “equilibrium” assumption as derives results for “steady state”, thus somewhat less inaccurate as regards the weather. K&P is still better for non-equilibrium thermodynamics, as they have examples of chaotic systems (computational and chemical.)
2. “Constrained work output of the moist atmospheric heat engine in a warming climate” by Laliberte et al, Science, 347, 540 (2015), plus supporting online material. They examine how less powerful the climate “heat engine” will be due to lower efficiency at the higher specific humidity levels that result from higher water vapor pressure at higher surface temperature. They cited the book by Ambaum, which was why I bought it. Following him, they relaxed the “equilibrium” assumption and considered the steady-state approximation.
#255–I love that as a brief scenario sketch (though not, perhaps needless to say, as a potential reality.)
But note the chronological disjunction between question–which was asking about 2030-2050–and answer, which specifically cites 2080-2250.
My personal order of magnitude estimate is that climate change so far has probably cost several hundreds of billions of dollars in economic loss and at least 100,000 premature deaths. It sounds like a lot, but this is a big world, and those sorts of losses aren’t extraordinary. Still, it’s pretty clear that people are dying of climate change now.
If you compare a couple of benchmark numbers for Global Mean Temperature Anomaly, you can get some sense of what is likely over those kinds of timespans. I’ll pull a couple of them from AR5, chapter 11, which is about near-term projections of various sources. Table 11-3 compares 4 emissions ‘pathways’, of which I’ll only mention RCP 2.6 (which is probably more optimistic than we can now achieve) and RCP 8.5 (which we are more or less on now, but which I think we will be gradually ‘falling away’ from.)
According to the table, we’re going to hit 1C by 2050, no matter what, and there’s an excellent chance we’ll hit it before 2035.)
But for 2 C–our much-mooted ‘sort of safe’ value, beyond which we still aspire not to go, mostly–it’s a different story. Under 2.6, there’s a small chance, perhaps 16%, of hitting that level of warming by mid-century (or so–the table actually specifies 2046-2065.) For RCP 8.5, that’s 95%. And only 8.5 gives any chance of hitting 3 degrees by mid-century.
Conversely, the table gives no chance of seeing 2 C by 2035.
And I should add that those percentages aren’t the last word; the table says that there are additional sources of uncertainty not accounted for in the calculations.
For me there are a couple of takeaways. One is that it is certainly premature to proclaim that it’s ‘game over’; while we won’t affect 2035 much by our choices over the next few years, we will affect 2050 and beyond.
Another is that jyyh’s timeframe is probably the better of the two to consider, if we’re looking at really bad cases. If we hit 1.5 C by 2030, I suspect the real-world results will be such as to render climate denialism ‘quaint’ (in the morbid way that, say, Medieval justice is now seen as ‘quaint.’) We’ll see a lot more people dying, and a lot more economic loss. But it won’t (yet) be civilization-wrecking.
It has limitations, in comparison to the full-blown IPCC estimates I quoted, but is still worth considering–particularly in connection with the vexed issue of climate sensitivity.
One thought that came to mind in reading it arose from this bit:
if we are to limit global warming to below two degrees C forever, we need to keep CO2 concentrations far below twice preindustrial levels, closer to 450 ppm. Ironically, if the world burns significantly less coal, that would lessen CO2 emissions but also reduce aerosols in the atmosphere that block the sun (such as sulfate particulates), so we would have to limit CO2 to below roughly 405 ppm.
Sobering, in that the first ‘flickers’ of 405 (to use Ralph Keeling’s term) will probably appear in 2016 or 2017. We’re awfully close.
But that’s maybe the most potentially sensible scenario for the stratospheric sulphur spray: use it as FF use declines, to smooth out the decline in negative aerosol forcings, and phase it out as radiative GHG forcings equilibrate.
On another topic, I’ve often clashed with Jasper here for various reasons. Nonetheless, to his comment that:
…we are conducting a global experiment whose consequences we do not know at present, whether with BAU, with mitigation, or with geo-engineering. It is beyond irresponsible!
(He also has an excellent response on his new blog that he sends in reply to letters from the ch*mtr*ils people)
Killiansays
233 Barton Paul Levenson says JJ (230): Show me one study (of the many that have been referenced in RC) that examines the consequences of mitigation or BAU and uses a model that includes all the major carbon cycle feedbacks.
BPL: This is a serious suggestion. If you feel there’s a deficiency of such studies, why not write one up yourself? I’ll help if you need it. Seriously, build a model, run it, see what you get. Submit it to a journal.
I’ve made the suggestion to model what would happen if you reduced atmospheric GHGs back down to pre-industrial and see what happens many times, both here and elsewhere, to individual scientists and generally. That suggestion has been met with science.
Heck, don’t bother with the how, even, just put in the falling emissions over 50 years enough to get back to 300 and see how it responds. If something cool happens, then model it.
Yes, I believe we can model the solution with real people from all over the world.
Note the year: 2009. Six years wasted.
#237 Kevin McKinney says, Here’s a nice précis of a recent piece in “Global Change Biology” looking at mitigation potential for Ag, Forest & Land Use (AFOLU.)
I found that far too vague, unexplained and shallow to be of any use. The Rodale multi-decade study is the one to look at if you want to understand the significance of regenerative farming.
Consider if Rodale is only half right: That’s 50% reduction in emissions. If we reduce another 90% with societal changes, we’re now going backwards.
Then add reforestation, aforestation, and a LOT more land being used regeneratively than the Rodale study indicates since they only considered farmland. We are talking about making all our green spaces regenerative, returning a lot to natural states, etc. The largest crop in the U.S. is lawn. We change that, too.
We could be going significantly backward with atmospheric GHGs in a very short time.
It’s a matter of getting over wanting what people want and doing what Nature is quite clearly impelling us to do. It’s all a lot easier to understand when one starts with the ecosystem rather than keeping a McMansion.
#243 SecularAnimist said Killian wrote: “… sustainable has to mean it can go on indefinitely excepting some external shock to the system, like an expanding sun.”
Arguing about the true meaning of “sustainable” is completely irrelevant to anthropogenic global warming, which is an urgent, short-term, specific, technical problem, which must be solved within YEARS
Analogy: Like arguing defining what a given forest would look like in an aforestation project is stupid to do.
If you don’t understand what parameters you *need* to design to, how do you design appropriately? Your comment literally contradicts itself. I’m guessing you do not design sustainable systems for a living.
#231 BPL says predicting that global agriculture will collapse completely around the year 2028, with big error bars, depending on our rate of CO2 emissions. Remember you heard it here first.
During winter and spring 2011/12 we had weird weather, including a very warm March in the Midwest followed by a very normal April. Lots of fruit bloomed and was lost in the normal frosts. (The months could have been April and May…) Michigan, e.g., lost 95% of their grape crops, but lots of different crops were lost over many states.
Also, grains production had been below consumption for 8 of 10 previous years.
The light bulb went on: Our biggest threat in the short term? Food. And it is *already* collapsing. I started telling people, posting things like, “It’s the food supply, people. It’s the extremes, not the averages. Things are going to get a lot worse than you expect a lot faster than you expect because these disruptive extremes hit many years before the averages are reached.”
How long that process takes is the question. Your analysis may be accurate. Seems a decent guess.However, what if Mann, et al. are correct and we hit 2C by 2036? The food supply is in deep trouble long before that. And, we’ve already had multiple climate/food-related crises (Syria), so, like I said, it’s already in progress.
alan2102says
Someone mentioned high-speed rail in the U.S.
I recently wrote to a friend:
High-speed rail, kilometers:
China, year 2000: 0
China, end 2013: 11,085
China, end 2020: 25,000 (est)
U.S.A., year 2000: 0
U.S.A., end 2013: 0 *
U.S.A., end 2029: 600? **
* U.S. has a few hundred miles of slightly-upgraded old-style track, sometimes described as “high speed”, but nothing high speed in the modern (China) sense.
** If the California Bay-to-LA line is built (problematic; supposedly by 2029 if it happens). Numerous proposals exist; no clear funding or action.
Killiansays
I said I’ve made the suggestion to model what would happen if you reduced atmospheric GHGs back down to pre-industrial and see what happens many times, both here and elsewhere, to individual scientists and generally. That suggestion has been met with science.
Should have read I’ve made the suggestion to model what would happen if you reduced atmospheric GHGs back down to pre-industrial and see what happens many times, both here and elsewhere, to individual scientists and generally. That suggestion has been met with silence.
Funny… LOL…
James McDonaldsays
Barton (#221) — thanks for the reply, but I was looking for a comprehensive survey of all the contrarian papers.
I’m guessing it wouldn’t be that hard to prepare for any expert so inclined, and could even be a publishable paper.
Politically, it would be valuable to have a single source to cite that summarized the state of contrarian climate science.
skeptical science does something sort of like this, but without a focus on actual peer-reviewed contrarian papers.
James McDonaldsays
Barton (#221) — thanks for the reply, but I was looking for a comprehensive review of the contrarian literature. Linzen could be beating a dead horse, but others could still have viable arguments. It would be helpful (a la skeptical science) to have a single source to cite that summarizes the legitimacy of the contrarian arguments that have made it into the peer-reviewed literature. Who knows, maybe such a survey would be worth journal publication?
[Btw, the captcha mechanism is annoying — too easy to a lose an entire post if you forget to scroll down to it.]
Jon Kellersays
Hi all,
I don’t know if anybody here uses MATLAB, but I spent a few hours today creating a useful trend calculator for temperature time series’. It functions similar to other trend calculators you may have seen, with the difference that it can extrapolate the trend similar to the technique seen on Tamino’s blog. It can also hide data not used in the trend calculation, for demonstration purposes (see 2nd screen). Generates nice graphs that can be further edited by checking “New Window”. If anyone is interested I can send the code your way.
“Heck, don’t bother with the how, even, just put in the falling emissions over 50 years enough to get back to 300 and see how it responds”
Again you are using words but you are so unfamiliar with the subject matter that they have little meaning. From a current concentration of about 400 ppm, cutting emissions entirely leaves about 40% of the excess concentration above 280 ppm in the atmosphere for thousands of years. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.full.pdf+html
You only get back to about 330 ppm eventually. What you suggest just isn’t how the world works. People have already modeled that so they know and your suggestion is like a four year old asking someone to unscramble eggs. However, unlike the four year old, it isn’t a teaching moment because you’ll just sputter and not learn anything.
Jasper Jaynessays
Gavin#260,
“[Response: Nonsense. If there were actually evidence of unstable shallow hydrates, or evidence of increasing emissions of methane in Arctic monitoring, or evidence of previous episodes of large methane releases at periods warmer than today, then people would take these projections more seriously. But there isn’t. – gavin]”
That’s your opinion, and I respect it. But, it’s not the only expert opinion. It would also be valuable to hear Shakhova’s response to your comments above. Last September, an important Royal Society meeting took place that presented important research on the current state of the Arctic. Called ‘Arctic sea ice reduction: the evidence, models, and global impacts’, the event was held in London, England. You were invited, and Shakhova et al were not. Shakhova et al wrote a letter to the Royal Society President, Sir Paul Nurse, asking for an opportunity to present their findings, including contributions from over 30 scientists working in the region for over 20 years. The letter can be seen in its entirety here: http://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/blogs/99-russian-scientists-excluded-from-presenting-important-research-as-nasa-goddard-director-tries-to-discredit-observational-scientific-research.
It is clear to me that there is not a level playing field on the methane release issue. [edit – OT] Is Natalia Shakhova the whistleblower of climate change?
[Response: Breeze’s comments were bizarre and totally unfounded. No ‘attacks’ were made, nor was there any attempt to discredit Shakhova’s decades of research. The only points of discussion were the credibility of their projections of massive methane emissions to come. Wadhams presented their ideas on the first day (so, no, they weren’t excluded), and I presented some reasons to be sceptical in my talk. The audio is available at the RS site (Wadhams, me) and you can hear for yourself what was said. My slides are also available. I have no idea why Breeze and co are so wrapped in this that they misrepresent what happened (including to Shakhova herself), but they are not credible sources. – gavin]
He urges that warming is not anthropogenic and is often cited by Senator Inhofe.
fergus brownsays
to JM @ 211:
(assume a helpful & friendly tone): the contrarian papers amount to a minuscule percentage of the published material. Each one was extensively championed by vested interests, and each subsequently shown, either through follow-up papers, or critiques, to contain significant flaws which rendered their conclusions invalid. Thus, as things stand, there is no credible scientific literature of climate contrarianism. What there is is a sophisticated mechanism of denial which throws out curve-balls every month or two, with the aim of ‘keeping the debate alive’, i.e., supporting uncertainty and procrastination. Typically, in the absence of new material to peddle from legitimate scientific journals, these depend on half-assed pseudo-scientific re-wrokings of previous efforts, or just blow-hard rhetoric with inaccurate graphs put in to make them look like science.
So, here is your summary of contrarian literature; none of it, note, none, has passed the criteria required to be considered viable alternative hypotheses. If you don’t believe me, read them all, and the responses to them, and reach your own conclusions.
James McDonald @269.
I think you ask rather a lot if you ask for a list of “contrarian literature” that contain “viable arguments.” Although if such “viable arguments” were original and worthy of further work, I think it is safe to say that they probably wouldn’t drift off into obscurity without due process.
Of course, it is normal for a researcher to develop their own theories but these “contrarians” appear mainly unable to manage such a task and generally act as though it was all ‘job done’.
From memory, do I recall two grand contrarian theories that did have a grain of original veracity in them and thus did then get a proper analysis by others.
Svenmark’s cosmic rays was certainly one. Cosmic rays have been shown to exert a small effect in a manner described by Svenmark but are nothing like that required to match the claims of Sevnmark.
And Spencer & Bradwell (2011) did identify some small effect (See here.) but that finding was unrecognisable from the crazy disproof of AGW that Spencer described in his subsequent book.
fergus brownsays
To various ‘concerned teens’:
How much you have to worry about your future is a vexed question without an easy answer, but the news is not all bad, and the implications in terms of present action are less variable than the consequences of present pathways.
For one, credible, imaginative and not impossible future, try reading ‘The Bone Clocks’ – the last 70-odd pages contain a vision of the future which is chilling, though not completely apocalyptic. Note that the author, David Mitchell, makes no effort to guess what might happen in the USA, beyond the notion that nobody in Europe is clear at the time because of problems with international transport and communications, and an implied breakdown of social order. This is an example of a dark vision which is not a ‘doomer’ scenario.
In terms of the present, nobody sensible is proposing that we ignore the risks and just carry on as we always have, but in spite of this, to a certain extent it is what is happening – why this should be so is open to debate, but the fact is that not enough is changing, fast enough, to allow us to sustain our present lives without some form of modification. Unless you live in one of the more vulnerable areas, there is no reason to assume you can’t survive, but beyond this, you might consider carefully what social changes might happen which would render some areas of the world more insecure outside (but because of) climate changes.
Your best hope, and that of future generations, is to challenge and change the paradigms by which we conduct contemporary society. You can do this by political engagement and lifestyle choices, through communication and interaction. What you can be fairly sure of is that the world is changing in ways we may not be able to control or alter, so your middle-age could be substantially different to mine.
RCP4.5 has emissions increasing out to about 2040 and falling thereafter. So, Kevin’s statement about what wealthy countries need to do must include an assumption that other countries must increase emissions if the total is to increase until 2040.
Another thing that may be going on is that there is uncertainty both in the transient climate response and the Charney sensitivity. If the latter is high, then the forcing corresponding to 2 C will end up lower. If the former is high, then there is less lag that could be used to allow forcing to go a little high then bring it down again keeping below 2 C. But, these two kind of counter each other. A higher transient response than is considered likely means our sensitivity estimates are probably too high so a higher final forcing would correspond to 2 C.
Regardless, some people look at the uncertainty in the Charney sensitivity and say to be sure of 2 C, we must use the higher sensitivity estimates and so less in the way of emissions can be allowed.
Millennium development goals don’t really require fossil fuel use so the wealthy/developing divide may not be such an issue regarding the 2 C limit.
Killiansays
#213 Barton Paul Levenson says, BPL: I found your post extremely offensive and needlessly hostile… I can’t read your mind, but I can certainly read what you write, and how you write it.
And you can take responsibility for layering it with your own issues.
Killiansays
#214 Chris Dudley says You want things to happen quickly, yet it all has to be permaculture, which is slow and painstaking.
You need to not discuss permaculture because you clearly understand little of it. “Slow”, applying permaculture, can potentially mean beginning reversing CO2 concentration in as little as 5 years.
I responded here because you misrepresent the design process, and only for that reason. [edit – focus on ideas not people]
Jasper Jaynessays
Gavin#276,
” [Response: Breeze’s comments were bizarre and totally unfounded. No ‘attacks’ were made, nor was there any attempt to discredit Shakhova’s decades of research. The only points of discussion were the credibility of their projections of massive methane emissions to come. Wadhams presented their ideas on the first day (so, no, they weren’t excluded), and I presented some reasons to be sceptical in my talk. The audio is available at the RS site (Wadhams, me) and you can hear for yourself what was said. My slides are also available. I have no idea why Breeze and co are so wrapped in this that they misrepresent what happened (including to Shakhova herself), but they are not credible sources. – gavin]”
Appreciate your links to the audio. I listened to both you and Wadhams. Wadhams may have presented ‘their ideas’ from your perspective, but unless Shakhova et al authorized Wadhams to speak on their behalf, he did not represent them. Unfortunately, what we’re doing now is a repeat of what happened at the Royal Society. We’re having a one-sided discussion on Shakhova’s findings and, more importantly, her projections. She was not part of the debate at the Royal Society, and she is not part of the debate here and now.
There were a number of posts on the Web relative to the Royal Society non-invitation of Shakhova. I’ll provide links to a couple.
I sincerely respect Dr. Schmidt. However, I cannot abide the shortsightedness of his interpretation of the paleo data.
1. Claim: No Holocene emissions.
1. rebuttal: The inundation of the ESAS had only recently occurred. Of course there would be no signal, it would not be expected. The decomposition depth profile had not reached adequate depth. How can one miss this obvious modelling error?
2. Claim: No Eemian peak CH4 spike (above Holocene)
2. rebuttal: Of course there would be no spike in the ice core data, the CH4 signal is smoothed over 400 years in the record. In addition, claiming analogous warming profiles in the Eemian to RCP 8.5 is not technically accurate. While the Eemian was warmer than today, it likely took thousands of years to reach that warmer state from current temperatures. We would then expect a slower release mechanism. This slower release would fail to produce a significant spike in the ice-core data due to the smoothing of the signal described above and due to atmospheric decomposition.
Summary: claiming that there is an analog in the 800Ka ice core record to the RCP 8.5 potential warming event is absolutely not technically accurate. Not including the effects of time-dependent heat/depth profiles and slower warming rates in the paleo record is poor science. Claiming that this somehow insulates us for the technical potential of an ESAS release under RCP 8.5 after an unprecedented (over the past 3.5 million years) jump in arctic temperatures is foolhardy, shortsighted and rash.
“… this inadvertent experiment has driven the climate system out of equilibrium” — V. Ramanathan
Science 15 April 1988: DOI: 10.1126/science.240.4850.293
The Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change: A Test by an Inadvertent Global Experiment
(clickable links are in the original post above)
Brief excerpt follows:
… when world leaders meet this July in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, at the Conference on Financing for Development, the financial industry should be ready to offer practical, global solutions to the challenges associated with financing economic growth, poverty reduction, and environmental sustainability.
We have now entered the Year of Sustainable Development. At three back-to-back global summits – the conference in Addis Ababa, September’s meeting at the United Nations to adopt Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris in December – 193 governments will attempt to ensure that global growth and poverty reduction continue within a safe natural environment.
It will be a close call. The global economy, despite all of the huge bumps in the road, is delivering aggregate annual growth of 3-4%, leading to a doubling of output every generation. Yet the global economy is not delivering sustainable growth in two basic senses….
Eric Swansonsays
Chris Dudley @ #277 – I wonder whether Soon, Monckton, et al. will be forced to retract their recent paper which appeared in the Chinese Science Bulletin. That paper is an obvious denialist attack, as it contains several errors, both in fact and in analysis, while showing some lovely colored graphics. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the paper referenced by Senator Inhofe and friends in spite of it’s errors. Indeed, the distorted graphics have already appeared on Tony Watts’ site…
One place where Kevin Anderson gets it both right and wrong at the same time is in picking a slow-to-deploy technology as an example. He is correct that nuclear energy takes a very long time to deploy, but that is not an argument for slow clean energy deployment since other technologies are factory made and thus scale very quickly. The US completed 2 Essex class carriers during WWII but built 102,000 tanks. Factories are faster.
Killiansays
#275 Dudley said, *
Please ignore the hecklers. They have no interest in accuracy.
For those willing to apply mind and set aside childish things, the study in question does not address what I have proposed. Not surprisingly, like Dudley, Guy McPherson also misrepresents that study to convince people there is no hope because we are stuck with current levels of CO2 for centuries, if not thousands of years, but to die happy, all the time ignoring we can sequester carbon and we can simplify.
What that study does not address in any way is sequestration. It only addresses cessation of emissions then the natural response from that point. Natural, geological sequestration (as opposed to anthropogenic sequestration) *is* slow and won’t get us back to @ 300ppm any time soon.
Anthropogenic sequestration can possibly get us to negative emissions even if we do not cut emissions at all. Cut emissions to a fraction of current *and* engage in active sequestration and we can literally be back to less than 300 in a human lifetime.
If you do not know who Albert Bates is, and you are interested in solving problems rather than distracting from them, you should. A brilliant man. If you are not familiar with some of the rather incredible history of The Farm, you might want to look at what these “hippies” have accomplished over the last 40 years or so. I was amazed to learn of some of the tech they have developed. Hippies and the US gov’t working together. Hmmm…
And anthropogenic sequestration using regenerative processes HAS NOT been modeled by anyone, anywhere that I am aware of. If it has, please link. Had I a computer capable of doing it, I’d run the models myself, but I do not.
The silence on this is deafening. Just what is it all you weekend warrior scientists (I do not mean this pejoratively; some of you play with models, no?) are afraid of learning? That I get it better than you? That there are solutions and all your talk is no longer relevant? That you can’t have 300ppm and your lattes, too? What? What is keeping those of you who claim modeling skills from modeling this simple scenario? Or do models not allow for negative emissions/sequestration?
If you were at all serious, one of you would run this scenario to see how the system responds.
I am not convinced any of you are interested in more than seeing your own words in print given I have suggested this for **years** and provided evidence all this sequestration is possible.
Show me more than words: Model it. If there is something about the models that don’t allow this, then please explicate so that someone might address this or a different way of testing this can be determined.
(To be absolutely clear, I am challenging the amateurs, not the blog owners.)
I take the jist of your response to mean that there is no point in discussing the governance of Geo-E research until emissions control is operational. Is this correct ?
If so it seems oddly irrational given the ten to twenty years of research needed after governance is negotiated to identify a reliably benign means of Albedo Restoration before its deployment could be considered. Particularly when it appears that within ten to twenty years we are liable to see the onset of serial global crop failures resulting in geopolitical destabilization potentially making the requisite global co-operation untenable.
In the event of that onset, the upshot of a lack of timely development of the governance of Geo-E research, and of the forum for collective decision-making on any deployment, and of the agreement that no such decision is valid before a credibly stringent emissions control treaty is in force, would quite predictably be the bilateral emergency application of stratospheric sulphate aerosols as the only demonstrated means of rapid global cooling.
From this perspective self-censorship on the issue of appropriate Geo-E governance seems 180 degrees counter-productive.
With regard to your closely cropped quote from the NAS report, it should be observed that research and trials of the Carbon Recovery mode of Geo-E is no less in need of stringent supervision and governance worldwide. From the obviously hazardous, such as ocean fertilization risking major oceanic anoxic zones and hydrogen sulphide production, through to the potentially highly benign, such as native coppice afforestation for biochar soil-moisture regulation and fertilization, which could, in the absence of supervision, impose widespread eviction of subsistence farmers, clearance of old forest and establishment of biocide-dependent exotic monoculture forestry for a corrupt carbon-offsets industry, governance is plainly critical to a desirable outcome.
The cropped quote can be read to imply, wrongly, that the Carbon Recovery options are not relevant before emissions are declining, which may be a further 5 to 20 yrs hence. Given the lead time required for any significant carbon sequestration to begin (at least 25 years for the native coppice afforestation approach) and given that like Albedo Restoration there are no quotes from reputable people proposing its use other than alongside emissions control, I’m at a loss to understand your apparent dismissal of it.
You are no doubt aware that under even a best case of emissions control (say near-zero global GHG output by 2050) together with timelagged warming to the 2080s driving ongoing outputs of CO2 from at least four major feedbacks (soil desiccation, fertilized peatbog decay, forest dieback and wildfire and ice-cap carbon delivery) the increase of ocean acidification can be expected to impose massive damage to its ecology. The sooner a global program of Carbon Recovery is operational, the lower the peak of airborne CO2 will be and the less the damage to the ecosphere.
If the core reason that Geo-E is not discussed here is that scientists are straying far from their fields of expertise and making a political judgement by assuming it would have a malign effect on emissions control negotiations, surely that should be made explicit and be subject to scrutiny ?
Regards,
Lewis
Jon Kellersays
“Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher”
VOX is a very credible political/news source and the article itself seems to be well sourced which is exactly what I would expect from Ezra Klein. I don’t thing anyone wants to give up hope for a solution to our Climate problems but it’s always helpful to have a sober examination of the FACTS and a REALISTIC assessment of the most probable outcomes. I see various experts who are’t afraid to call it as they see it but others simply avoid making any sort of predictions.
I would prefer that ALL Climate Scientists be straightforward and frank about our future IF they know what it’s going to look like. Tell it like it is. Otherwise our political “leaders” (and I use that term loosly) will err on the side of sunny optimism every time because it fits their economic/religious/political dreams. Life is harsh and always has been as far as I can tell. Why should it be any different today? I’m glad I’m not a teenager today. I have a teenage daughter and I try to prepare her for what’s coming but I have to have an accurate, sober assessment to hang my hat on.
Does this article provide that? Probably but who’s willing to validate it? I tend to go with things being worse than we think they are. We’ve never warmed things up this quickly and there are not examples of what we’re doing in the Climate record to reference. Warmer periods YES but NOT warming at the current rate taking into account human population and pollution and plastic garbage islands the size of Texas. It’s not just a Climate problem…. it’s a human impact problem. Eric Rignot already stated that Scientists make poor public relations experts. It’s not what they’re trained to do. No offense intended because this site in particular is one of the best there is but too many are still not getting the message. My own family doesn’t want to discuss it. I don’t know of anyone outside the science blogs that is even interested in the topic. It’s a sad situation we’re in.
He says early on the he has presented to many groups of climate scientists and had many private discussions with them, and that he has yet to meet one who thinks we can stay within the 2 degree C limit (though he doesn’t say what time scale they are talking about). Is that pretty much what other people’s impression is of where climate scientists really think we are, at this point?
So, Chris, I agree that we _could_ do a massive build out of renewables, but at this point that would mostly be reliant on mostly fossil fuel energy. We should do it, but it won’t give us the immediate reductions he says we need. That can only come from direct reductions in emissions. He points out a number of relatively easy ways of getting some rather large reductions in emissions, but again, no one else much is really talking about doing any of even these.
As to RCP 4.5, is that really doable anymore? Do you find the IPCC numbers completely reliable? Do they rely on massive amounts of sequestration that we don’t really know how to do yet? As I understand him, Anderson is saying that all of these projections are relying on just such pipe dreams. I have to confess that I have not read them in detail, so maybe someone here knows better than K. Anderson??
Anyway, thanks again for discussing this important presentation.
Jasper Jaynessays
Killian#288,
“That there are solutions and all your talk is no longer relevant?”
There are solutions in theory, and solutions that are acceptable in the real world. I think you’re in the ballpark from a theoretical point of view, but the change in lifestyle that you seem to require is a non-starter in the real world. Sustainability; forget it.
That’s the dilemma we face. The solar-fueled fossil-enabled and wind-fueled fossil-enabled technologies, misnamed as ‘clean and ‘renewable’, as well as the nuclear/fusion-fueled fossil-enabled technologies, will not cut fossil emissions fast enough to alter the end result, but might be acceptable by not providing too great a decrement in lifestyle. Even then, we seem to be having little success in implementing these non-clean and non-renewable technologies at a rapid pace. In fact, we are having zero success in modifying the Keeling Curve (in the right direction), or reducing emissions or fossil fuel usage.
“I am not convinced any of you are interested in more than seeing your own words in print”
If you substitute “promoting your own agenda” for “seeing your own words in print”, you will have hit the nail on the head.
Yes, it’s mitigation; for new readers who don’t know how to find the information, one OT reply about the science on biological sequestration.
First, you need baselines — where and how much — against which to make comparisons, to see if your changes are making any difference.
Try, e.g. searching with Scholar:
A quantitative understanding of the rate at which land ecosystems are sequestering or losing carbon at national, regional and state-level scales is needed to develop policies to mitigate climate change. In this study, a new improved historical land-use and land-cover change (LULCC) dataset is developed and combined with a process-based ecosystem model to estimate carbon sources and sinks in land ecosystems of the conterminous United States for the contemporary period (2001–2005), and over the last three centuries. We estimate that land ecosystems in the conterminous United States sequestered 323 Tg C yr−1 at the beginning of the 21st century with forests accounting for 97% of this sink. This land carbon sink varied substantially across the conterminous United States, with the largest sinks occurring in the Southeast. Land sinks are large enough to completely compensate fossil fuel emissions in Maine and Mississippi, but nationally carbon sinks compensate for only 20% of U. S. fossil fuel emissions. We find regions that are currently large carbon sinks (e.g., Southeast) tend to have been large carbon sources over the longer historical period…. new land management opportunities for sequestering carbon need to be explored. Opportunities include reforestation and managing forest age structure. These opportunities will vary from state to state and over time across the United States.
Abstract
What will large-scale global bioenergy production look like? We investigate this question by developing a detailed representation of bioenergy in a global economy-wide model….
You know how to find this stuff. Or, if not,
— Scholar has ample help available on the search pages.
— ask a librarian for help.
SecularAnimistsays
Killian:
FWIW, I for one am skipping past your posts at this point. They are self-indulgently long, they are rambling to the point of incoherence, they consist mostly of repetitions of the same heap of disjointed ideas with few if any references to actual facts, and they are increasingly focused on belligerent insults towards other commenters rather than saying anything of substance. I have yet to see you offer a thoughtful response to any of your critics — you appear to have only one response to criticism, which is to attack the critic.
If your intent here is to inspire annoyance and boredom, you are succeeding.
I have not seen that piece but the instructions to authors says the cover letter has to disclose and the manuscript must include:
“i. Disclosure of potential Conflict of interests
Authors must disclose all relationships or interests that could influence or bias the work. Examples of potential conflicts of interests that are directly
or indirectly related to the research may include but not limited to the following:
Research grants from funding agencies (please give the research funder and the grant number)
Honoraria for speaking at symposia
Financial support for attending symposia
Financial support for educational programs
Employment or consultation
Support from a project sponsor
Position on advisory board or board of directors or other type of management relationships
Multiple affiliations
Financial relationships, for example equity ownership or investment interest
Intellectual property rights (e.g. patents, copyrights and royalties from such rights)
Holdings of spouse and/or children that may have financial interest in the work
In addition, interests that go beyond financial interests and compensation (non-financial interests) that may be important to readers should be
disclosed. These may include but are not limited to personal relationships or competing interests directly or indirectly tied to this research, or professional
interests or personal beliefs that may influence your research.
The corresponding author will include a summary statement in the text of the manuscript in a separate section before the reference list. An examples
of disclosures is shown below:
Conflict of interest: Author A has received research grants from Company A. Author B has received a speaker honorarium from Company X and owns
stock in Company Y. Author C is a member of committee Z.
If no conflict exists, the authors should state:
Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.” http://www.springer.com/new+%26+forthcoming+titles+%28default%29/journal/11434
So, if the piece does not include that, then perhaps it should be revised or withdrawn.
K (289): The silence on this is deafening. Just what is it all you weekend warrior scientists (I do not mean this pejoratively; some of you play with models, no?) are afraid of learning? That I get it better than you? That there are solutions and all your talk is no longer relevant? That you can’t have 300ppm and your lattes, too? … I am not convinced any of you are interested in more than seeing your own words in print
BPL: Why don’t you look up what the cake said to Alice?
JJ, the models are, thus far, using what’s actually measured, if it’s enough to matter. Using the numbers is the traditional way of doing this, and we do have numbers. There’s a methane hot spot all right — in the US Southwest at a coal mining site. Remember the satellite pictures posted previously? And how about the Arctic? They’re looking hard.
Here’s blogging from a ship and aircraft checking for methane levels in the Arctic Ocean:
Oh, and:
https://arcticmethane.wordpress.com/2013/09/22/using-the-methane-telerhino-as-a-fox-sniffs-the-chicken-coop/
This is how it’s done:
Enough? Enough, surely.
> Now Scared …
Mark Twain warned that it can be dangerous to read medical books, because you could die of a typographical error.
Reading climate blogs may carry similar risks. I don’t know if you’re 13, or 19 — high school or college. Pick the sources you read carefully, try to get a class in statistics — Stat 101 can change how you see the world in ways that help a lot.
Zachary,
“Nothing is being done” is a bit like “everybody’s talking about xyz”. Yes, technically, neither are true but each can seem like they are close to being true. There is nothing effective being done to mitigate warming, because CO2 keeps rising (even accelerating) and the planet continues to warm, with some tipping points (e.g. WAIS demise) appearing to be crossed.
I think it’s fair to say that, effectively, nothing is being done. Most likely, we’ll have to wait for nature to take whatever course it will (some of which may impact societies and thus have a negative impact on warming – you never know).
“Now Scared Teen: So your (#229 and #242) sayin by 2030-2050 Climate Change or global warming will cause and end of the world event that will lead to ppl dying out?”
not as such, but people fighting for food yes, people moving out of too wet, too dry, too hot, too under the sea and maybe too impossible to live in places yes.
the estimates of the sea level rise vary wildly the IPCC estimate is possibly way in the low side, the impossible places to live in are mainly tropical and subtropical locations when the likely 4 degree warming has spread there, too wet places is hard to say, it’s possible that many riversides get too soggy by the incessant rains from the 7%more moist atmosphere, too dry places like US western plains will not support modern agriculture. Since the atmosphere will change so the gradients are smaller the rains and dry spells get unpredictable and there’s no easy telling which place is good for agriculture. ANYWAY, there could be well over a billion people on the move by 2100 fighting for everything, unless they’re willing to die in place. But I’d guess those who survive the years 2080-2250 will get a pretty ok weather in the normal anthropocene weather though the seas are still rising and nearly a third of agricultural land has been lost. Maybe this is too bleak for you too. But, there are of course better scenarios some of which Susan already mentioned, thank you.
I guess future historians will consider this upcoming period of global hassle a second migration period or some such, of course they’d be more correct (in my mind) to call it the Copenhagen failure period.
CD (248). Thanks, Chris!
NowScaredTeen#249,
“So your (#229 and #242) sayin by 2030-2050 Climate Change or global warming will cause and end of the world event that will lead to ppl dying out?”
We really don’t know what will happen when temperature increases get to the order of ~2 C, or greater. Michael Mann showed recently that temperature increases could be on the order of 2 C in twenty years, and that’s without the major carbon feedbacks kicking in. Add in the major feedbacks, continue on some semblance of BAU, as we seem to be doing, and we could be in very serious trouble. In spite of the soothing words you might see here, the posters have no idea of what will happen. We cannot model it accurately. That’s why I have stated we are conducting a global experiment whose consequences we do not know at present, whether with BAU, with mitigation, or with geo-engineering. It is beyond irresponsible!
Hank – you’re present on RC enough to know very well how the dynamics of discussion work here, so I’m hoping you can resolve a puzzle for me.
At 208 I posted some propositions and questions around the NAS report on options for geoengineering alongside emissions control as the necessary and potentially sufficient response to resolving AGW, but this has so far generated zero responses in subsequent comments.
I rather doubt that I could have ended all interest in this option, or have so neatly advocated it as to end all opposition to its research.
So given that it’s subject to intense coverage and controversy across the rest of the web, how is it that none here are disucussing it ?
Regards,
Lewis
Teen (#249),
There are a lot of reasons to think that climate change will be mitigated. An organization called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established under the UN has demonstrated that it costs very little to avoid dangerous climate change. You can read their report here: http://www.ipcc.ch/ Start with the summary for policymakers. You’ll have questions, but they can be answered at this site. You can also get involved with making progress on this by getting involved at http://350.org
Hank#252,
The Nafeez reversal is old hat. I saw that back in 2013. All we know is that he appears to have softened/partially reversed his position on paper. We do not know WHY he reversed his position. He could have made the change after seeing more data, or he could have been pressured into reversing his position. Reporters have been known to buckle under pressure, and to try and base some argument on a reporter’s flip-flop is taking desperation to support the official government position to new heights.
I’ve examined Shakhova’s publications over the past year or so, and I notice subtle but important differences between what gets reported in the literature, and what she said in the interviews with Nick Breeze. When I consider the physics, the politics, and her published and spoken words, I weight her interview statements the highest. As Shakhova stated in her interviews I referenced, there are sufficient carbon reserves and sufficient pathways through which they can be released to cause major damage for the one source she discussed. Add in the effects of the other sources, and their cro$ss-coup$ling, and it becomes obvious that the omissions could be extremely significant. The American and Russian governments would not hesitate for one second to ‘throw her under the bus’ if she were to strongly emphasize the severity of the situation.
[Response: Nonsense. If there were actually evidence of unstable shallow hydrates, or evidence of increasing emissions of methane in Arctic monitoring, or evidence of previous episodes of large methane releases at periods warmer than today, then people would take these projections more seriously. But there isn’t. – gavin]
JJ: “I am surprised at you, Ray, for such a poorly considered statement.”
Well, I might be bothered to devote more effort to it if I thought you were saying anything worth a response. Science is constrained by facts. Scientists do not just arbitrarily change things in their model. They do so when data suggest a reason for doing so. There is nothing out there stopping you, though. There are climate models out there in the public domain ranging from simple two-box models to fairly complicated GCMs. Feel free to investigate to your heart’s content and do let us know if you find anything, preferably through the peer reviewed literature.
Two of my latest readings, which I recommend to anyone who might be interested.
1. Thermal Physics of the Atmosphere, byt Maarten H. P. Ambaum, published by Wiley-Blackwell. Blessedly short at only 210 pp, hence less comprehensive than Modern Thermodynamics by Kondepudi and Prigogine, but all the developments are focused on the atmosphere, whereas K&P have mostly examples from chemistry. Chapter 10 relaxes the “equilibrium” assumption as derives results for “steady state”, thus somewhat less inaccurate as regards the weather. K&P is still better for non-equilibrium thermodynamics, as they have examples of chaotic systems (computational and chemical.)
2. “Constrained work output of the moist atmospheric heat engine in a warming climate” by Laliberte et al, Science, 347, 540 (2015), plus supporting online material. They examine how less powerful the climate “heat engine” will be due to lower efficiency at the higher specific humidity levels that result from higher water vapor pressure at higher surface temperature. They cited the book by Ambaum, which was why I bought it. Following him, they relaxed the “equilibrium” assumption and considered the steady-state approximation.
#255–I love that as a brief scenario sketch (though not, perhaps needless to say, as a potential reality.)
But note the chronological disjunction between question–which was asking about 2030-2050–and answer, which specifically cites 2080-2250.
My personal order of magnitude estimate is that climate change so far has probably cost several hundreds of billions of dollars in economic loss and at least 100,000 premature deaths. It sounds like a lot, but this is a big world, and those sorts of losses aren’t extraordinary. Still, it’s pretty clear that people are dying of climate change now.
If you compare a couple of benchmark numbers for Global Mean Temperature Anomaly, you can get some sense of what is likely over those kinds of timespans. I’ll pull a couple of them from AR5, chapter 11, which is about near-term projections of various sources. Table 11-3 compares 4 emissions ‘pathways’, of which I’ll only mention RCP 2.6 (which is probably more optimistic than we can now achieve) and RCP 8.5 (which we are more or less on now, but which I think we will be gradually ‘falling away’ from.)
According to the table, we’re going to hit 1C by 2050, no matter what, and there’s an excellent chance we’ll hit it before 2035.)
But for 2 C–our much-mooted ‘sort of safe’ value, beyond which we still aspire not to go, mostly–it’s a different story. Under 2.6, there’s a small chance, perhaps 16%, of hitting that level of warming by mid-century (or so–the table actually specifies 2046-2065.) For RCP 8.5, that’s 95%. And only 8.5 gives any chance of hitting 3 degrees by mid-century.
Conversely, the table gives no chance of seeing 2 C by 2035.
And I should add that those percentages aren’t the last word; the table says that there are additional sources of uncertainty not accounted for in the calculations.
For me there are a couple of takeaways. One is that it is certainly premature to proclaim that it’s ‘game over’; while we won’t affect 2035 much by our choices over the next few years, we will affect 2050 and beyond.
Another is that jyyh’s timeframe is probably the better of the two to consider, if we’re looking at really bad cases. If we hit 1.5 C by 2030, I suspect the real-world results will be such as to render climate denialism ‘quaint’ (in the morbid way that, say, Medieval justice is now seen as ‘quaint.’) We’ll see a lot more people dying, and a lot more economic loss. But it won’t (yet) be civilization-wrecking.
Further to my last comment (still in moderation), the estimate by Dr. Mann referred to by Jasper is here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/
It has limitations, in comparison to the full-blown IPCC estimates I quoted, but is still worth considering–particularly in connection with the vexed issue of climate sensitivity.
One thought that came to mind in reading it arose from this bit:
Sobering, in that the first ‘flickers’ of 405 (to use Ralph Keeling’s term) will probably appear in 2016 or 2017. We’re awfully close.
But that’s maybe the most potentially sensible scenario for the stratospheric sulphur spray: use it as FF use declines, to smooth out the decline in negative aerosol forcings, and phase it out as radiative GHG forcings equilibrate.
On another topic, I’ve often clashed with Jasper here for various reasons. Nonetheless, to his comment that:
I can only agree, most heartily.
> geoengineering
One bit from one NAS chapter seems to cover it all:
and
Also re geoengineering, see:
https://kencaldeira.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/fast-cheap-and-easy-and-very-dangerous/
(He also has an excellent response on his new blog that he sends in reply to letters from the ch*mtr*ils people)
233 Barton Paul Levenson says JJ (230): Show me one study (of the many that have been referenced in RC) that examines the consequences of mitigation or BAU and uses a model that includes all the major carbon cycle feedbacks.
BPL: This is a serious suggestion. If you feel there’s a deficiency of such studies, why not write one up yourself? I’ll help if you need it. Seriously, build a model, run it, see what you get. Submit it to a journal.
I’ve made the suggestion to model what would happen if you reduced atmospheric GHGs back down to pre-industrial and see what happens many times, both here and elsewhere, to individual scientists and generally. That suggestion has been met with science.
Heck, don’t bother with the how, even, just put in the falling emissions over 50 years enough to get back to 300 and see how it responds. If something cool happens, then model it.
I’m sure I’ve posted this here before, but maybe not: Perfect Storm World Simulation
Yes, I believe we can model the solution with real people from all over the world.
Note the year: 2009. Six years wasted.
#237 Kevin McKinney says, Here’s a nice précis of a recent piece in “Global Change Biology” looking at mitigation potential for Ag, Forest & Land Use (AFOLU.)
I found that far too vague, unexplained and shallow to be of any use. The Rodale multi-decade study is the one to look at if you want to understand the significance of regenerative farming.
Consider if Rodale is only half right: That’s 50% reduction in emissions. If we reduce another 90% with societal changes, we’re now going backwards.
Then add reforestation, aforestation, and a LOT more land being used regeneratively than the Rodale study indicates since they only considered farmland. We are talking about making all our green spaces regenerative, returning a lot to natural states, etc. The largest crop in the U.S. is lawn. We change that, too.
We could be going significantly backward with atmospheric GHGs in a very short time.
It’s a matter of getting over wanting what people want and doing what Nature is quite clearly impelling us to do. It’s all a lot easier to understand when one starts with the ecosystem rather than keeping a McMansion.
#243 SecularAnimist said Killian wrote: “… sustainable has to mean it can go on indefinitely excepting some external shock to the system, like an expanding sun.”
Arguing about the true meaning of “sustainable” is completely irrelevant to anthropogenic global warming, which is an urgent, short-term, specific, technical problem, which must be solved within YEARS
Analogy: Like arguing defining what a given forest would look like in an aforestation project is stupid to do.
If you don’t understand what parameters you *need* to design to, how do you design appropriately? Your comment literally contradicts itself. I’m guessing you do not design sustainable systems for a living.
#231 BPL says predicting that global agriculture will collapse completely around the year 2028, with big error bars, depending on our rate of CO2 emissions. Remember you heard it here first.
During winter and spring 2011/12 we had weird weather, including a very warm March in the Midwest followed by a very normal April. Lots of fruit bloomed and was lost in the normal frosts. (The months could have been April and May…) Michigan, e.g., lost 95% of their grape crops, but lots of different crops were lost over many states.
Also, grains production had been below consumption for 8 of 10 previous years.
The light bulb went on: Our biggest threat in the short term? Food. And it is *already* collapsing. I started telling people, posting things like, “It’s the food supply, people. It’s the extremes, not the averages. Things are going to get a lot worse than you expect a lot faster than you expect because these disruptive extremes hit many years before the averages are reached.”
How long that process takes is the question. Your analysis may be accurate. Seems a decent guess.However, what if Mann, et al. are correct and we hit 2C by 2036? The food supply is in deep trouble long before that. And, we’ve already had multiple climate/food-related crises (Syria), so, like I said, it’s already in progress.
Someone mentioned high-speed rail in the U.S.
I recently wrote to a friend:
High-speed rail, kilometers:
China, year 2000: 0
China, end 2013: 11,085
China, end 2020: 25,000 (est)
U.S.A., year 2000: 0
U.S.A., end 2013: 0 *
U.S.A., end 2029: 600? **
* U.S. has a few hundred miles of slightly-upgraded old-style track, sometimes described as “high speed”, but nothing high speed in the modern (China) sense.
** If the California Bay-to-LA line is built (problematic; supposedly by 2029 if it happens). Numerous proposals exist; no clear funding or action.
I said I’ve made the suggestion to model what would happen if you reduced atmospheric GHGs back down to pre-industrial and see what happens many times, both here and elsewhere, to individual scientists and generally. That suggestion has been met with science.
Should have read I’ve made the suggestion to model what would happen if you reduced atmospheric GHGs back down to pre-industrial and see what happens many times, both here and elsewhere, to individual scientists and generally. That suggestion has been met with silence.
Funny… LOL…
Barton (#221) — thanks for the reply, but I was looking for a comprehensive survey of all the contrarian papers.
I’m guessing it wouldn’t be that hard to prepare for any expert so inclined, and could even be a publishable paper.
Politically, it would be valuable to have a single source to cite that summarized the state of contrarian climate science.
skeptical science does something sort of like this, but without a focus on actual peer-reviewed contrarian papers.
Barton (#221) — thanks for the reply, but I was looking for a comprehensive review of the contrarian literature. Linzen could be beating a dead horse, but others could still have viable arguments. It would be helpful (a la skeptical science) to have a single source to cite that summarizes the legitimacy of the contrarian arguments that have made it into the peer-reviewed literature. Who knows, maybe such a survey would be worth journal publication?
[Btw, the captcha mechanism is annoying — too easy to a lose an entire post if you forget to scroll down to it.]
Hi all,
I don’t know if anybody here uses MATLAB, but I spent a few hours today creating a useful trend calculator for temperature time series’. It functions similar to other trend calculators you may have seen, with the difference that it can extrapolate the trend similar to the technique seen on Tamino’s blog. It can also hide data not used in the trend calculation, for demonstration purposes (see 2nd screen). Generates nice graphs that can be further edited by checking “New Window”. If anyone is interested I can send the code your way.
Screen 1
Screen 2
Kevin Anderson speaking at Exeter U. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEm42vKl4Ro
The quality of the video isn’t great and Kevin tends to talk a bit too fast. But the takeaway is at about 7:30:
In order to have a chance of staying below 2 degrees, wealthy countries need to reduce emissions 40% by 2018, 70% by 2024, and over 90% by 2030.
I’d love to hear what the climate scientists here have to say about this.
Here’s the full Anderson lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYAaQ4iwdtY
Killian (#266),
“Heck, don’t bother with the how, even, just put in the falling emissions over 50 years enough to get back to 300 and see how it responds”
Again you are using words but you are so unfamiliar with the subject matter that they have little meaning. From a current concentration of about 400 ppm, cutting emissions entirely leaves about 40% of the excess concentration above 280 ppm in the atmosphere for thousands of years. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.full.pdf+html
You only get back to about 330 ppm eventually. What you suggest just isn’t how the world works. People have already modeled that so they know and your suggestion is like a four year old asking someone to unscramble eggs. However, unlike the four year old, it isn’t a teaching moment because you’ll just sputter and not learn anything.
Gavin#260,
“[Response: Nonsense. If there were actually evidence of unstable shallow hydrates, or evidence of increasing emissions of methane in Arctic monitoring, or evidence of previous episodes of large methane releases at periods warmer than today, then people would take these projections more seriously. But there isn’t. – gavin]”
That’s your opinion, and I respect it. But, it’s not the only expert opinion. It would also be valuable to hear Shakhova’s response to your comments above. Last September, an important Royal Society meeting took place that presented important research on the current state of the Arctic. Called ‘Arctic sea ice reduction: the evidence, models, and global impacts’, the event was held in London, England. You were invited, and Shakhova et al were not. Shakhova et al wrote a letter to the Royal Society President, Sir Paul Nurse, asking for an opportunity to present their findings, including contributions from over 30 scientists working in the region for over 20 years. The letter can be seen in its entirety here: http://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/blogs/99-russian-scientists-excluded-from-presenting-important-research-as-nasa-goddard-director-tries-to-discredit-observational-scientific-research.
It is clear to me that there is not a level playing field on the methane release issue. [edit – OT] Is Natalia Shakhova the whistleblower of climate change?
[Response: Breeze’s comments were bizarre and totally unfounded. No ‘attacks’ were made, nor was there any attempt to discredit Shakhova’s decades of research. The only points of discussion were the credibility of their projections of massive methane emissions to come. Wadhams presented their ideas on the first day (so, no, they weren’t excluded), and I presented some reasons to be sceptical in my talk. The audio is available at the RS site (Wadhams, me) and you can hear for yourself what was said. My slides are also available. I have no idea why Breeze and co are so wrapped in this that they misrepresent what happened (including to Shakhova herself), but they are not credible sources. – gavin]
“Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher”
Wei-Hock Soon has received about $1.2 million from fossil fuel interests but failed to disclose this in publications where such disclosure is required by the journal. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html
He urges that warming is not anthropogenic and is often cited by Senator Inhofe.
to JM @ 211:
(assume a helpful & friendly tone): the contrarian papers amount to a minuscule percentage of the published material. Each one was extensively championed by vested interests, and each subsequently shown, either through follow-up papers, or critiques, to contain significant flaws which rendered their conclusions invalid. Thus, as things stand, there is no credible scientific literature of climate contrarianism. What there is is a sophisticated mechanism of denial which throws out curve-balls every month or two, with the aim of ‘keeping the debate alive’, i.e., supporting uncertainty and procrastination. Typically, in the absence of new material to peddle from legitimate scientific journals, these depend on half-assed pseudo-scientific re-wrokings of previous efforts, or just blow-hard rhetoric with inaccurate graphs put in to make them look like science.
So, here is your summary of contrarian literature; none of it, note, none, has passed the criteria required to be considered viable alternative hypotheses. If you don’t believe me, read them all, and the responses to them, and reach your own conclusions.
James McDonald @269.
I think you ask rather a lot if you ask for a list of “contrarian literature” that contain “viable arguments.” Although if such “viable arguments” were original and worthy of further work, I think it is safe to say that they probably wouldn’t drift off into obscurity without due process.
Of course, it is normal for a researcher to develop their own theories but these “contrarians” appear mainly unable to manage such a task and generally act as though it was all ‘job done’.
From memory, do I recall two grand contrarian theories that did have a grain of original veracity in them and thus did then get a proper analysis by others.
Svenmark’s cosmic rays was certainly one. Cosmic rays have been shown to exert a small effect in a manner described by Svenmark but are nothing like that required to match the claims of Sevnmark.
And Spencer & Bradwell (2011) did identify some small effect (See here.) but that finding was unrecognisable from the crazy disproof of AGW that Spencer described in his subsequent book.
To various ‘concerned teens’:
How much you have to worry about your future is a vexed question without an easy answer, but the news is not all bad, and the implications in terms of present action are less variable than the consequences of present pathways.
For one, credible, imaginative and not impossible future, try reading ‘The Bone Clocks’ – the last 70-odd pages contain a vision of the future which is chilling, though not completely apocalyptic. Note that the author, David Mitchell, makes no effort to guess what might happen in the USA, beyond the notion that nobody in Europe is clear at the time because of problems with international transport and communications, and an implied breakdown of social order. This is an example of a dark vision which is not a ‘doomer’ scenario.
In terms of the present, nobody sensible is proposing that we ignore the risks and just carry on as we always have, but in spite of this, to a certain extent it is what is happening – why this should be so is open to debate, but the fact is that not enough is changing, fast enough, to allow us to sustain our present lives without some form of modification. Unless you live in one of the more vulnerable areas, there is no reason to assume you can’t survive, but beyond this, you might consider carefully what social changes might happen which would render some areas of the world more insecure outside (but because of) climate changes.
Your best hope, and that of future generations, is to challenge and change the paradigms by which we conduct contemporary society. You can do this by political engagement and lifestyle choices, through communication and interaction. What you can be fairly sure of is that the world is changing in ways we may not be able to control or alter, so your middle-age could be substantially different to mine.
Wili (#273),
Well RCP4.5 has a projection of 1.8 C warming in the 2080-2100 period http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathways#Projections_based_on_the_RCPs though it would get warmer later if forcing were maintained at 4.5 W/m^2 above preindustrial past 2100. But to maintain that forcing, ongoing emission are needed going from about 40% of current emissions to about 10% between 2100 and 2300. http://edoc.gfz-potsdam.de/pik/get/5095/0/0ce498a63b150282a29b729de9615698/5095.pdf (fig. 3 panel a). Stronger cuts after 2100 would cut the forcing and bring it down to the 2 C forcing level. So, the RCP4.5 path is the 2 C path in this century though maintaining 4.5 W/m^2 forcing thereafter would not be.
RCP4.5 has emissions increasing out to about 2040 and falling thereafter. So, Kevin’s statement about what wealthy countries need to do must include an assumption that other countries must increase emissions if the total is to increase until 2040.
Another thing that may be going on is that there is uncertainty both in the transient climate response and the Charney sensitivity. If the latter is high, then the forcing corresponding to 2 C will end up lower. If the former is high, then there is less lag that could be used to allow forcing to go a little high then bring it down again keeping below 2 C. But, these two kind of counter each other. A higher transient response than is considered likely means our sensitivity estimates are probably too high so a higher final forcing would correspond to 2 C.
Regardless, some people look at the uncertainty in the Charney sensitivity and say to be sure of 2 C, we must use the higher sensitivity estimates and so less in the way of emissions can be allowed.
The idea that, for example, India, must increase emissions out to 2040, seems a little silly when solar is leapfrogging their grid there. Even China cut coal use last year. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/China-coal-data-indicates-consumption-fell-in-2014-shows-peak-coal-achievable/
Millennium development goals don’t really require fossil fuel use so the wealthy/developing divide may not be such an issue regarding the 2 C limit.
#213 Barton Paul Levenson says, BPL: I found your post extremely offensive and needlessly hostile… I can’t read your mind, but I can certainly read what you write, and how you write it.
And you can take responsibility for layering it with your own issues.
#214 Chris Dudley says You want things to happen quickly, yet it all has to be permaculture, which is slow and painstaking.
You need to not discuss permaculture because you clearly understand little of it. “Slow”, applying permaculture, can potentially mean beginning reversing CO2 concentration in as little as 5 years.
I responded here because you misrepresent the design process, and only for that reason. [edit – focus on ideas not people]
Gavin#276,
” [Response: Breeze’s comments were bizarre and totally unfounded. No ‘attacks’ were made, nor was there any attempt to discredit Shakhova’s decades of research. The only points of discussion were the credibility of their projections of massive methane emissions to come. Wadhams presented their ideas on the first day (so, no, they weren’t excluded), and I presented some reasons to be sceptical in my talk. The audio is available at the RS site (Wadhams, me) and you can hear for yourself what was said. My slides are also available. I have no idea why Breeze and co are so wrapped in this that they misrepresent what happened (including to Shakhova herself), but they are not credible sources. – gavin]”
Appreciate your links to the audio. I listened to both you and Wadhams. Wadhams may have presented ‘their ideas’ from your perspective, but unless Shakhova et al authorized Wadhams to speak on their behalf, he did not represent them. Unfortunately, what we’re doing now is a repeat of what happened at the Royal Society. We’re having a one-sided discussion on Shakhova’s findings and, more importantly, her projections. She was not part of the debate at the Royal Society, and she is not part of the debate here and now.
There were a number of posts on the Web relative to the Royal Society non-invitation of Shakhova. I’ll provide links to a couple.
1. http://climatecrocks.com/2014/10/20/methane-bomb-squad-part-5-shakhova-schmidt/
Jai John Mitchell Says: (Comment)
October 22, 2014 at 2:52 pm
I am agog and flummoxed.
I sincerely respect Dr. Schmidt. However, I cannot abide the shortsightedness of his interpretation of the paleo data.
1. Claim: No Holocene emissions.
1. rebuttal: The inundation of the ESAS had only recently occurred. Of course there would be no signal, it would not be expected. The decomposition depth profile had not reached adequate depth. How can one miss this obvious modelling error?
2. Claim: No Eemian peak CH4 spike (above Holocene)
2. rebuttal: Of course there would be no spike in the ice core data, the CH4 signal is smoothed over 400 years in the record. In addition, claiming analogous warming profiles in the Eemian to RCP 8.5 is not technically accurate. While the Eemian was warmer than today, it likely took thousands of years to reach that warmer state from current temperatures. We would then expect a slower release mechanism. This slower release would fail to produce a significant spike in the ice-core data due to the smoothing of the signal described above and due to atmospheric decomposition.
Summary: claiming that there is an analog in the 800Ka ice core record to the RCP 8.5 potential warming event is absolutely not technically accurate. Not including the effects of time-dependent heat/depth profiles and slower warming rates in the paleo record is poor science. Claiming that this somehow insulates us for the technical potential of an ESAS release under RCP 8.5 after an unprecedented (over the past 3.5 million years) jump in arctic temperatures is foolhardy, shortsighted and rash.
2. https://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/10/15/ignoring-the-arctic-methane-monster-royal-society-goes-dark-on-arctic-observational-science/
I wonder when that realization first occurred to someone. Long ago?
“It is an experiment that is really wide open,” says McCarthy, “and many of us wish we were doing it in a laboratory rather than in the real world.”
http://harvardmagazine.com/2002/11/the-great-global-experim.html
“… this inadvertent experiment has driven the climate system out of equilibrium” — V. Ramanathan
Science 15 April 1988: DOI: 10.1126/science.240.4850.293
The Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change: A Test by an Inadvertent Global Experiment
Earlier examples?
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sustainability-finance-leaders-by-jeffrey-d-sachs-and-hendrik-j–du-toit-2015-02
(clickable links are in the original post above)
Brief excerpt follows:
Chris Dudley @ #277 – I wonder whether Soon, Monckton, et al. will be forced to retract their recent paper which appeared in the Chinese Science Bulletin. That paper is an obvious denialist attack, as it contains several errors, both in fact and in analysis, while showing some lovely colored graphics. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the paper referenced by Senator Inhofe and friends in spite of it’s errors. Indeed, the distorted graphics have already appeared on Tony Watts’ site…
One place where Kevin Anderson gets it both right and wrong at the same time is in picking a slow-to-deploy technology as an example. He is correct that nuclear energy takes a very long time to deploy, but that is not an argument for slow clean energy deployment since other technologies are factory made and thus scale very quickly. The US completed 2 Essex class carriers during WWII but built 102,000 tanks. Factories are faster.
#275 Dudley said, *
Please ignore the hecklers. They have no interest in accuracy.
For those willing to apply mind and set aside childish things, the study in question does not address what I have proposed. Not surprisingly, like Dudley, Guy McPherson also misrepresents that study to convince people there is no hope because we are stuck with current levels of CO2 for centuries, if not thousands of years, but to die happy, all the time ignoring we can sequester carbon and we can simplify.
What that study does not address in any way is sequestration. It only addresses cessation of emissions then the natural response from that point. Natural, geological sequestration (as opposed to anthropogenic sequestration) *is* slow and won’t get us back to @ 300ppm any time soon.
Anthropogenic sequestration can possibly get us to negative emissions even if we do not cut emissions at all. Cut emissions to a fraction of current *and* engage in active sequestration and we can literally be back to less than 300 in a human lifetime.
If you do not know who Albert Bates is, and you are interested in solving problems rather than distracting from them, you should. A brilliant man. If you are not familiar with some of the rather incredible history of The Farm, you might want to look at what these “hippies” have accomplished over the last 40 years or so. I was amazed to learn of some of the tech they have developed. Hippies and the US gov’t working together. Hmmm…
Anywho, here is Albert on dealing with climate:
Albert Bates on climate mitigation
And anthropogenic sequestration using regenerative processes HAS NOT been modeled by anyone, anywhere that I am aware of. If it has, please link. Had I a computer capable of doing it, I’d run the models myself, but I do not.
The silence on this is deafening. Just what is it all you weekend warrior scientists (I do not mean this pejoratively; some of you play with models, no?) are afraid of learning? That I get it better than you? That there are solutions and all your talk is no longer relevant? That you can’t have 300ppm and your lattes, too? What? What is keeping those of you who claim modeling skills from modeling this simple scenario? Or do models not allow for negative emissions/sequestration?
If you were at all serious, one of you would run this scenario to see how the system responds.
I am not convinced any of you are interested in more than seeing your own words in print given I have suggested this for **years** and provided evidence all this sequestration is possible.
Show me more than words: Model it. If there is something about the models that don’t allow this, then please explicate so that someone might address this or a different way of testing this can be determined.
(To be absolutely clear, I am challenging the amateurs, not the blog owners.)
Hank > geoengineering
I take the jist of your response to mean that there is no point in discussing the governance of Geo-E research until emissions control is operational. Is this correct ?
If so it seems oddly irrational given the ten to twenty years of research needed after governance is negotiated to identify a reliably benign means of Albedo Restoration before its deployment could be considered. Particularly when it appears that within ten to twenty years we are liable to see the onset of serial global crop failures resulting in geopolitical destabilization potentially making the requisite global co-operation untenable.
In the event of that onset, the upshot of a lack of timely development of the governance of Geo-E research, and of the forum for collective decision-making on any deployment, and of the agreement that no such decision is valid before a credibly stringent emissions control treaty is in force, would quite predictably be the bilateral emergency application of stratospheric sulphate aerosols as the only demonstrated means of rapid global cooling.
From this perspective self-censorship on the issue of appropriate Geo-E governance seems 180 degrees counter-productive.
With regard to your closely cropped quote from the NAS report, it should be observed that research and trials of the Carbon Recovery mode of Geo-E is no less in need of stringent supervision and governance worldwide. From the obviously hazardous, such as ocean fertilization risking major oceanic anoxic zones and hydrogen sulphide production, through to the potentially highly benign, such as native coppice afforestation for biochar soil-moisture regulation and fertilization, which could, in the absence of supervision, impose widespread eviction of subsistence farmers, clearance of old forest and establishment of biocide-dependent exotic monoculture forestry for a corrupt carbon-offsets industry, governance is plainly critical to a desirable outcome.
The cropped quote can be read to imply, wrongly, that the Carbon Recovery options are not relevant before emissions are declining, which may be a further 5 to 20 yrs hence. Given the lead time required for any significant carbon sequestration to begin (at least 25 years for the native coppice afforestation approach) and given that like Albedo Restoration there are no quotes from reputable people proposing its use other than alongside emissions control, I’m at a loss to understand your apparent dismissal of it.
You are no doubt aware that under even a best case of emissions control (say near-zero global GHG output by 2050) together with timelagged warming to the 2080s driving ongoing outputs of CO2 from at least four major feedbacks (soil desiccation, fertilized peatbog decay, forest dieback and wildfire and ice-cap carbon delivery) the increase of ocean acidification can be expected to impose massive damage to its ecology. The sooner a global program of Carbon Recovery is operational, the lower the peak of airborne CO2 will be and the less the damage to the ecosphere.
If the core reason that Geo-E is not discussed here is that scientists are straying far from their fields of expertise and making a political judgement by assuming it would have a malign effect on emissions control negotiations, surely that should be made explicit and be subject to scrutiny ?
Regards,
Lewis
“Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0
http://www.vox.com/2014/4/22/5551004/two-degrees
VOX is a very credible political/news source and the article itself seems to be well sourced which is exactly what I would expect from Ezra Klein. I don’t thing anyone wants to give up hope for a solution to our Climate problems but it’s always helpful to have a sober examination of the FACTS and a REALISTIC assessment of the most probable outcomes. I see various experts who are’t afraid to call it as they see it but others simply avoid making any sort of predictions.
I would prefer that ALL Climate Scientists be straightforward and frank about our future IF they know what it’s going to look like. Tell it like it is. Otherwise our political “leaders” (and I use that term loosly) will err on the side of sunny optimism every time because it fits their economic/religious/political dreams. Life is harsh and always has been as far as I can tell. Why should it be any different today? I’m glad I’m not a teenager today. I have a teenage daughter and I try to prepare her for what’s coming but I have to have an accurate, sober assessment to hang my hat on.
Does this article provide that? Probably but who’s willing to validate it? I tend to go with things being worse than we think they are. We’ve never warmed things up this quickly and there are not examples of what we’re doing in the Climate record to reference. Warmer periods YES but NOT warming at the current rate taking into account human population and pollution and plastic garbage islands the size of Texas. It’s not just a Climate problem…. it’s a human impact problem. Eric Rignot already stated that Scientists make poor public relations experts. It’s not what they’re trained to do. No offense intended because this site in particular is one of the best there is but too many are still not getting the message. My own family doesn’t want to discuss it. I don’t know of anyone outside the science blogs that is even interested in the topic. It’s a sad situation we’re in.
“You can’t have everything. Where would you put it?”
It’d be OT here. You want a governance discussion, that’s down the hall.
Chris Dudley: Thanks for your thoughtful comments on the presentation by Kevin Anderson. (For those of you who don’t know him, Anderson is the Deputy Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Anderson_%28scientist%29). Here is the power point presentation from that talk–it is rather hard to read many of the screens in the rather poor recording of the lecture: http://l.facebook.com/lsr.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.exeter.ac.uk%2Fcodebox%2Fexeterevents%2Fdownload.php%3Fid%3D583&ext=1424636144&hash=Ack9k9xj-O_hP-wfRxjSO9qzZOFwLS4qUGjVY3eafjLOdFPd
He says early on the he has presented to many groups of climate scientists and had many private discussions with them, and that he has yet to meet one who thinks we can stay within the 2 degree C limit (though he doesn’t say what time scale they are talking about). Is that pretty much what other people’s impression is of where climate scientists really think we are, at this point?
So, Chris, I agree that we _could_ do a massive build out of renewables, but at this point that would mostly be reliant on mostly fossil fuel energy. We should do it, but it won’t give us the immediate reductions he says we need. That can only come from direct reductions in emissions. He points out a number of relatively easy ways of getting some rather large reductions in emissions, but again, no one else much is really talking about doing any of even these.
As to RCP 4.5, is that really doable anymore? Do you find the IPCC numbers completely reliable? Do they rely on massive amounts of sequestration that we don’t really know how to do yet? As I understand him, Anderson is saying that all of these projections are relying on just such pipe dreams. I have to confess that I have not read them in detail, so maybe someone here knows better than K. Anderson??
Anyway, thanks again for discussing this important presentation.
Killian#288,
“That there are solutions and all your talk is no longer relevant?”
There are solutions in theory, and solutions that are acceptable in the real world. I think you’re in the ballpark from a theoretical point of view, but the change in lifestyle that you seem to require is a non-starter in the real world. Sustainability; forget it.
That’s the dilemma we face. The solar-fueled fossil-enabled and wind-fueled fossil-enabled technologies, misnamed as ‘clean and ‘renewable’, as well as the nuclear/fusion-fueled fossil-enabled technologies, will not cut fossil emissions fast enough to alter the end result, but might be acceptable by not providing too great a decrement in lifestyle. Even then, we seem to be having little success in implementing these non-clean and non-renewable technologies at a rapid pace. In fact, we are having zero success in modifying the Keeling Curve (in the right direction), or reducing emissions or fossil fuel usage.
“I am not convinced any of you are interested in more than seeing your own words in print”
If you substitute “promoting your own agenda” for “seeing your own words in print”, you will have hit the nail on the head.
Yes, it’s mitigation; for new readers who don’t know how to find the information, one OT reply about the science on biological sequestration.
First, you need baselines — where and how much — against which to make comparisons, to see if your changes are making any difference.
Try, e.g. searching with Scholar:
Limited to 2015 only, and looking at the first page of results, there’s, e.g., these two examples. Much more there of course.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JG002818/abstract
Land Carbon Sequestration within the Conterminous United States: Regional- and State-level Analyses Xiaoliang Lu et al.
DOI: 10.1002/2014JG002818
and
The Contribution of Biomass to Emissions Mitigation under a Global Climate Policy
Niven Winchester and John M. Reilly
You know how to find this stuff. Or, if not,
— Scholar has ample help available on the search pages.
— ask a librarian for help.
Killian:
FWIW, I for one am skipping past your posts at this point. They are self-indulgently long, they are rambling to the point of incoherence, they consist mostly of repetitions of the same heap of disjointed ideas with few if any references to actual facts, and they are increasingly focused on belligerent insults towards other commenters rather than saying anything of substance. I have yet to see you offer a thoughtful response to any of your critics — you appear to have only one response to criticism, which is to attack the critic.
If your intent here is to inspire annoyance and boredom, you are succeeding.
Eric (#287),
I have not seen that piece but the instructions to authors says the cover letter has to disclose and the manuscript must include:
“i. Disclosure of potential Conflict of interests
Authors must disclose all relationships or interests that could influence or bias the work. Examples of potential conflicts of interests that are directly
or indirectly related to the research may include but not limited to the following:
Research grants from funding agencies (please give the research funder and the grant number)
Honoraria for speaking at symposia
Financial support for attending symposia
Financial support for educational programs
Employment or consultation
Support from a project sponsor
Position on advisory board or board of directors or other type of management relationships
Multiple affiliations
Financial relationships, for example equity ownership or investment interest
Intellectual property rights (e.g. patents, copyrights and royalties from such rights)
Holdings of spouse and/or children that may have financial interest in the work
In addition, interests that go beyond financial interests and compensation (non-financial interests) that may be important to readers should be
disclosed. These may include but are not limited to personal relationships or competing interests directly or indirectly tied to this research, or professional
interests or personal beliefs that may influence your research.
The corresponding author will include a summary statement in the text of the manuscript in a separate section before the reference list. An examples
of disclosures is shown below:
Conflict of interest: Author A has received research grants from Company A. Author B has received a speaker honorarium from Company X and owns
stock in Company Y. Author C is a member of committee Z.
If no conflict exists, the authors should state:
Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.” http://www.springer.com/new+%26+forthcoming+titles+%28default%29/journal/11434
So, if the piece does not include that, then perhaps it should be revised or withdrawn.
Killian (#289),
“Or do models not allow for negative emissions/sequestration?”
As you have been told, RCP3.0 models negative emissions. It has already been done. Read the IPCC report.
K (289): The silence on this is deafening. Just what is it all you weekend warrior scientists (I do not mean this pejoratively; some of you play with models, no?) are afraid of learning? That I get it better than you? That there are solutions and all your talk is no longer relevant? That you can’t have 300ppm and your lattes, too? … I am not convinced any of you are interested in more than seeing your own words in print
BPL: Why don’t you look up what the cake said to Alice?