April already? Time for a new climate science open thread…
Reader Interactions
339 Responses to "Unforced Variations: April 2015"
David B. Bensonsays
Chuck Hughes @97 — It is up to us to spread the word that Real Climate exists.
Chuck Hughessays
Chuck Hughes @97 — It is up to us to spread the word that Real Climate exists.
Comment by David B. Benson — 12 Apr 2015
I do that already but I’m not a scientist and I have no influence when it comes to persuading folks to actually read this or any other science web site. I am not a science teacher. I’m thinking in terms of the science classroom and what can and should be happening with the people who graduate with a degree in science and are charged with teaching children the basics. You’d have to teach in a public school to really understand the problem I’m talking about. It’s not as simple as showing a bunch of kids a web site. This information has to be accessible by science teachers in the classroom where they can point to it or show clips that explain the scientific process and how scientists arrive at their conclusions. Furthermore, science teachers must understand that it is their duty to teach this stuff. They need backup and support from the entire scientific community. Of course “it’s up to us” but obviously “us” isn’t working.
It really is the entire scientific process that is misunderstood. How do we KNOW vaccines prevent illness? How do we KNOW that CO2 and other Greenhouse gasses warm the climate? Your average High School student doesn’t know this. It’s a real problem and it’s not being taught for a variety of reasons. Students need direct access to the experts where they can ask questions and get REAL answers. Many have no such access and the teachers don’t feel a responsibility to grant them access. When I have students sitting in my classroom who’ve had Whooping Cough multiple times, that tells me that the word is not getting out about basic scientific truths.
I have been edited. Obviously clueless is more dire an insult than ill informed. Even in relation to the obvious lack of a predictive capability. Let me expand a little.
ENSO is obviously deterministic – as is everything in the physical system that is climate. No one has managed to predict ENSO at better than a random walk past three months – especially at this time of year. Webby doesn’t even try despite claiming that the QBO is more predictable than ENSO. It isn’t.
He starts with ‘sloshing’ that is in fact an analytic solution to the wave equation for standing waves in elliptical bathtubs with vertical sides and constant depth. To apply that to the Pacific basin stretches physical credibility. I tend to think it is indistinguishable from homeopathic magic. The solution looks like this.
To get it to look like ENSO – it is modulated by the QBO in webby’s scheme. But you may as well scale the QBO directly – see ENSO v QBO in the top panel here.
The QBO and ENSO are part of the same system in the atmosphere involving tropical upwelling and ozone dynamics.
Far more relevant to what I was saying – however – is the 20 to 30 year shifts in Pacific climate state – which are fundamental to climate evolution and far from being understood or modeled.
For the abrupt changes during the 1970s and 1990s they calculated predictions which began a few months prior to the beginning of the observed climate shifts. The average of all predictions for both abrupt changes shows good agreement with the observed climate development in the Pacific. “The winds change the ocean currents which in turn affect the climate. In our study, we were able to identify and realistically reproduce the key processes for the two abrupt climate shifts,” says Prof. Latif. “We have taken a major step forward in terms of short-term climate forecasting, especially with regard to the development of global warming. However, we are still miles away from any reliable answers to the question whether the coming winter in Germany will be rather warm or cold”. Prof. Latif cautions against too much optimism regarding short-term regional climate predictions: “Since the reliability of those predictions is still at about 50%, you might as well flip a coin”.
It goes to the core of climate predictability – and the implications of complexity science for climate prediction are fairly obvious.
‘In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.’ IPCC TAR 14.2.2.2
Determinism is far from implying climate predictability unless and until all of the complex interactions of the global system are understood and accounted for.
Miguelito, I think you’ve completely misinterpreted the pictures and ignored the analysis described in the text. Have you read the text? Are you reading someone else’s description of what’s in the paper?
”
It is also clear that science says something other than what webby claims on the basis of harmonic equations for standing waves in constant depth elliptical bathtubs (the ‘sloshing’ (sic) effect) even as modulated by the QBO.
“
The gist here seems to be the pattern of change, warming – plateau – warming. This observation of past abrupt change seems to fit into today’s pattern of hiatus (atmospheric evaluation), with anticipated warming projections.
ENSO is not predictable beyond a few months with any reliability – and at certain times of the year not at all. The multi-decadal shifts in the Pacific Ocean state are not predictable – according to the Latif quote I provided – with greater reliability than tossing a coin.
We can contrast the quotes I provided from Julia Slingo, Tim Palmer, Mojib Latif and the IPCC with a blog comment referenced by webby to determine who is closer to the scientific mark.
Unsettled Scientistsays
Sorry if this is a duplicate, I’m getting service not available on this site a lot tonight…
I’m looking for a fairly comprehensive glossary of climate science acronyms. Is there a page with something to this effect. Obviously it’s not going to be completely comprehensive, but I would like to bookmark and share with a few friends as big a glossary of acronyms as possible.
From 2007 onwards each discussion includes a model forecast. These forecasts have proven to be quite reliable – even those that are run around this time of year which is the predictability barrier, and when considered nine months out. However they are not very precise.
By this I mean that if you look at the model spread, the actual result is nearly always within the model spread, and therefore reliable. However the model spread tends to be quite wide, and so the prediction is not precise. However the prediction is still potentially useful and informative. The current range for dynamic models is from about 0.2 to 1.7 for December this year. So not precise enough to say whether or not we will have an el nino. But past reliability makes me reasonably confident that we won’t have a la nina, or an extremely strong el nino.
Pete Bestsays
Cubic Mile of Oil (CMO) – some idea of the scale of the issue we face today. Out world is warming due to burning and using carbon from fossil fuels and land use changes so what is to be done. Well our world currently burns 1.1 CMO of oil per annum and this means that in order to use something that is not carbon based we need to deploy 2500 nuclear reactors or 4.2 billion solar panels within 50 years (and all of the other technologies associated with this change of technology). Now call me a kill joy but it seems to me that presently the world appears to be believe that all can be the same in terms of energy usage we just have to change what we use and not use less and at the same time we can increase energy usage for those already using a lot and for those not using any meaning that come 2050 our total energy usage will rise from 3.4 CMO to around 6-7.
I think the world has a very serious issue here and presently our ideas on how to resolve the issue is incorrect. I doubt its possible keep on as we are (BAU) but just using wind or solar instead. Any one else have doubts ?
Killiansays
73 Jim Baird said, Of course the heat will return. Munk however estimates the upwelling of the Pacific is about 1cm/day or about 4 meters/year.(Caldeira used 60cm/sec?) At that rate heat moved to 1000 meters would take 250 years to return
If it will return, there is zero point in putting it there. Then there are the unintended consequences to the ocean ecosystem, on which we are equally dependent as the terrestrial.
I have zero trust in your 250 yr estimate. As I have repeated ad nauseum, this time is different. If the planet has never been forced like this, we can’t be sanguine about what we *think* it will do.
The problem is not the heat, it’s the continued imbalance of heat retained. That is what needs addressing.
Scale. Just how many of these units would we need? MAterials needed? Etc.?
Finally, never forget this is not a climate issue, it’s an Earth system issue. Resources are as important as climate, and collapse will come from that alone if we do not address the entire system. This heat transfer system is yet another unnecessary waste of resources, which edges us closer to collapse.
Since global warming is 93% ocean warming, the conversion of as much of this heat to productive use is the only way it can be dealt with.
How about we actually solve the problem of too much CO2, with things like soil and plants, instead, and get all kinds of follow-on benefits, too boot?
Seeking tech solutions is simple laziness. You’re going to have to consume less. Get used to it.
A reservoir of abiotic methane has been discovered in the Arctic Ocean. This means that there is more of the greenhouse gas trapped under the seabed than previously thought.
between 10:15-1032 of the full James White presentation he makes a point about the ability of the system to adapt. The analogy is three glasses of water, one with very little, one half full and one almost full. The last one is today.
I am relieved to have a scientists articulate a point I have relied on significantly in foreseeing faster change than is expected by the vast majority, be they scientists or laypersons: The entire system is already degraded. There is virtually no shock absorbing capacity in the system because of this. I believe this is part of the reason positive feedbacks have had such strong effect so much more quickly than generally expected…. and why this will only get worse as we move forward.
Those 5-10C changes in a few years, or a human lifetime, he talks about?
Pete @109.
You throw out 4.2 billion solar panels over 50 years as an unsurmountably large challenge. Yet that is roughly a half a panel per person on the planet. The manufacturing price per panel will soon be a hundred dollars. So your fifty year huge project requires only a few days of present world GDP. The problem is not scale, the problem is will.
Thomas O'Reillysays
#109 Pete Best (the drummer?) – “meaning that come 2050 our total energy usage will rise from 3.4 CMO to around 6-7.”
Well Pete, one can write that up in numerous ways, but being called a kill joy will be the least of your problems. You’ll be called much much worse than that. And definitely don’t mention it at COP21 in Paris. 8^)
If we are really lucky, the news will come out that 30,000 climate scientists have all been on Opium and AGW/CC is really just a joke and not based on any evidence at all. If only.
If I was a betting man though, using mathematical probabilities, it looks more likely systemic collapse will kick in very “unexpectedly” and all the projections for climate and energy use will just go up in smoke. Serious issues have a way of morphing into completely different serious issues without notice.
And you were worried about being called a “kill joy”. 8^)
Look on the Real Climate right sidebar and scroll down through “Recent Comments” and “ …With Inline Responses” to “Pages” and click ”Acronym index.”
Steve
Steve Fishsays
Re- Comment by Pete Best — 14 Apr 2015 @ 5:13 AM, ~# 109
Pete, your comment- “I doubt its possible keep on as we are (BAU)…” -is a well-known truism. The least expensive technology with the greatest gain (low hanging fruit) in the mix for converting the world to non-fossil carbon energy is conservation. This can be done with very little sacrifice of quality of life.
1177 B.C., the year a perfect storm destroyed civilization
Recent high-resolution pollen analysis of a core taken from the Sea of Galilee, by Dafna Langgut and Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University and Thomas Litt of the University of Bonn, has irrefutably shown that the years between 1250 BCE- 1100 BCE were the driest seen throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages. This corroborates with the information from clay tablets found in Afek in Israel, Hattusa in Turkey, Emar in Mesopotamia, and Ugarit in Syria, that record a terrible drought, and the resulting difficulties attributed to it.
“There is evidence in the archaeological record of climatic changes such as climate change, drought (resulting in famine), earthquakes, invasions and internal rebellions at this time. Normally if a culture is faced with just one of these tragedies, it can survive it, but what if they all happened at once, or in quick succession?” asks Cline. “It seems that this is what happened between about 1225 BCE and 1175 BCE, and I think that the Late Bronze Age civilizations were simply unable to weather the ‘perfect storm’ and came crashing down.”
Those 5-10C changes in a few years, or a human lifetime, he talks about?
Expect them. What’s to stop it?
Yeah, well nothing. You either make it through the storm or not. Given the rate of emissions, plus a different atmospheric composition, laden with synthetic greenhouse gases (CFC’s) (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php), now we prime many systems to fire their potential. Either over time or rapidly. We can try to minimize the effects, increase climate resilience, and our future emissions determine how far we will increase sea level height. Ofc, this could end in doom or worst case scenarios, especially if there are abrupt developments. But if we manage to stop our emissions and reverse the trends, we could help the planet to sustain pre-Anthropocene climate – or return to stable conditions. Current development is that we accelerate emissions.. and positive feedbacks like the thaw of permafrost will soon take over, maybe make our affords meaningless for real. But we have to try at least, synergistic effects could help system stabilize affords.
NASA GISS has posted the anomaly for March at +0.84ºC, an increase on February (Both RSS & UAH showed a decline.) and the 5th warmest on record. That makes half the top ten monthly anomalies have now occurred in the last twelve months!
Jan 2007 – +0.93ºC
Mar 2002 – +0.88ºC
Mar 2010 – +0.87ºC
Feb 1998 – +0.86ºC
Mar 2015 – +0.84ºC
Apr 2010 – +0.82ºC
Sep 2014 – +0.81ºC
Feb 2015 – +0.78ºC
May 2014 – +0.78ºC
Oct 2014 – +0.77ºC
Dan Csays
I stumbled onto this webpage doing a search for “Wind Map”.
‘If as suggested here, a dynamically driven climate shift has occurred, the duration of similar shifts during the 20th century suggests the new global mean temperature trend may persist for several decades. Of course, it is purely speculative to presume that the global mean temperature will remain near current levels for such an extended period of time. Moreover, we caution that the shifts described here are presumably superimposed upon a long term warming trend due to anthropogenic forcing. However, the nature of these past shifts in climate state suggests the possibility of near constant temperature lasting a decade or more into the future must at least be entertained. The apparent lack of a proximate cause behind the halt in warming post 2001/02 challenges our understanding of the climate system, specifically the physical reasoning and causal links between longer time-scale modes of internal climate variability and the impact of such modes upon global temperature. Fortunately, climate science is rapidly developing the tools to meet this challenge, as in the near future it will be possible to attribute cause and effect in decadal-scale climate variability within the context of a seamless climate forecast system [Palmer et al., 2008]. Doing so is vital, as the future evolution of the global mean temperature may hold surprises on both the warm and cold ends of the spectrum due entirely to internal variability that lie well outside the envelope of a steadily increasing global mean temperature.’ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022/full
Abrupt change and dynamic sensitivity are the defining mechanism of the climate system. It will happen regardless of anthropogenic influences. Inevitable suprises – more or less extreme and rapid change – at multidecadal intervals whose scope, timing and even direction are unknowable beforehand.
In the context of an abruptly shifting climate and ecological systems – greenhouse gas emissions are potentially problematic in adding to changes to the system. These emissions go well beyond electricity generation – which is some 26% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The solutions are diverse – needing new technology, land use changes, restoration of agricultural soils, conservation and restoration of ecosystems and multiple gas and aerosol strategies.
Killiansays
#113 Thomas said, Pete @109.
You throw out 4.2 billion solar panels over 50 years as an unsurmountably large challenge. Yet that is roughly a half a panel per person on the planet. The manufacturing price per panel will soon be a hundred dollars. So your fifty year huge project requires only a few days of present world GDP. The problem is not scale, the problem is will.
Really? And what about the resources needed? What about all the other resources needed to meet the needs currently met by the fungible nature of oil? but let’s keep this simple, and go back to the original 4.2 billion.
So, we should have solar power for one generation? No? Longer? Then: 4.2 billion x 3 per century x number of centuries you want electricity.
Nope…. no problem here.
#118 Chris Machens said, Killian #112
Those 5-10C changes in a few years, or a human lifetime, he talks about?
Expect them. What’s to stop it?
Yeah, well nothing… But we have to try at least, synergistic effects could help system stabilize affords.
It was kind of rhetorical since most here know I’m what you might call a doomertopian: I know how bad it is, and most people I come across consider my views apocalyptic, but I also see very clearly a very, very achievable path back to less than 300 ppm.
My point was really aimed at the system itself, the built in hysteresis: There is precious little of that given the entire system is being simultaneously stressed.
#120 Rob Ellison said, The solutions are diverse – needing new technology, land use changes, restoration of agricultural soils, conservation and restoration of ecosystems and multiple gas and aerosol strategies.
I doubt Joseph Tainter or Jared Diamond would agree with this, as one says reduced complexity is required and the other simplification. Complex responses to complexity issues tend to result in, “Fall down, go boom!” scenarios, historically speaking.
Mal Adaptedsays
Chris Machens “1177 B.C., the year a perfect storm destroyed civilization”
YACT (Yet Another Cautionary Tale): the Ancestral Pueblan culture of the Colorado Plateau appears to have suffered a similar series of unfortunate events in the late 13th century CE, with severe and prolonged drought the last straw:
Killian wrote: “Seeking tech solutions is simple laziness. You’re going to have to consume less.”
In the absence of a “tech solution” for zero-emission electricity generation (currently 40 percent of US emissions according to EPA), YOU are going to have to consume ZERO electricity.
Since you are adamantly opposed to any such solutions, I suggest you start now.
5-10C changes in a few years, or a human lifetime… expect them…
Uh-huh. Well, if we take 2100 as our approximation for the ‘human lifetime’, then according to AR5, 5C would be just outside the ‘worst case’ range for the worst emissions scenario, RCP 8.5, for which the projected range is 2.6-4.8C.
As Hank likes to say, the reality is scary enough.
When important climate dynamical modes are synchronized, or alternatively resonate, the climate system appears to be particularly sensitive to the possibility of a shift.
Still reading the open access study, but if the projections are correct and if you correlate them with past events, then, well. Try to imagine 1 degree in 1 year?
Inevitable suprises – more or less extreme and rapid change – at multidecadal intervals whose scope, timing and even direction are unknowable beforehand.
Pattern of abrupt change suggest that you can math them, understand timings. For instance, there might be things you can sense beforehand, just like before a tsunami, or pattern, or thresholds emerge. The questions is rather, how much before you can know them, and what is the difference? And are we even looking for such events?
On the origins of decadal climate variability: a network perspective
The central point is that a network of coupled nonlinear subsystems may at times begin to synchronize. If during synchronization the coupling between the subsystems increases, the synchronous state may, at some coupling strength threshold, be destroyed shifting climate to a new regime. This climate shift manifests itself as a change in global temperature trend. This mechanism, which is consistent with the theory of synchronized chaos, appears to be a very robust mechanism of the climate system. It is found in the instrumental records, in forced and unforced climate simulations, as well as in proxy records spanning several centuries.
Topics: Chemicals Environment and health Various other issues
EEA Report No 1/2013
The 2013 Late lessons from early warnings report is the second of its type produced by the European Environment Agency (EEA) in collaboration with a broad range of external authors and peer reviewers…..
”
Abrupt change and dynamic sensitivity are the defining mechanism of the climate system. It will happen regardless of anthropogenic influences. Inevitable suprises – more or less extreme and rapid change – at multidecadal intervals whose scope, timing and even direction are unknowable beforehand.
In the context of an abruptly shifting climate and ecological systems – greenhouse gas emissions are potentially problematic in adding to changes to the system. These emissions go well beyond electricity generation – which is some 26% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
“
First paragraph is just an assertion on your part. Then you lay some skid marks down and leave a non sequitor.
This is getting tedious. Yes there is electricity generation but there is also combustion of fossil fuels for transportation and heating.
You can get away with this stuff on the Climate Etc blog, but you can’t here where the readers won’t be swayed by fallacious arguments, designed to further some agenda.
Thomas O'Reillysays
84 Thomas O’Reilly RE [Response: Case of mistaken identity…..]
Thanks Gavin. That kind of thing happens to everyone, everywhere. I do it myself. 8^)
You’re referring to Tsonis et al. — don’t forget Al.
And don’t forget that one of the two Al., coauthor of that paper Kyle Swanson, has a topic here.
You’re referring to A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts
Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson and Sergey Kravtsov
DOI: 10.1029/2007GL030288
discussed extensively already, you needn’t start as though nobody’s heard of it before.
You know how to find this stuff: ‘oogle with this search string:
site:realclimate.org tsonis
That’ll find you — among much other discussion — this:
It’s painfully easy to paint oneself logically into a corner by arguing that either (i) vigorous natural variability caused 20th century climate change, but the climate is insensitive to radiative forcing by greenhouse gases; or (ii) the climate is very sensitive to greenhouse gases, but we still are able to attribute details of inter-decadal wiggles in the global mean temperature to a specific forcing cause. Of course, both could be wrong if the climate is not behaving as a linear forced (stochastic + GHG) system.
With that in mind, our paper is fundamentally about inter-decadal variability in the climate system and its role in the evolution of the 20th century climate trajectory, as well as in near-future climate change….
This is my EGU 2015 poster which I am presenting this evening. Poster B25…
With my coauthors Kira Rehfeld and Scott St George, I have done a systematic review of high-resolution proxy data to detect possible solar-signals. It is an attempt to avoid the publication bias and methodological problems in the existing literature on solar-palaeoproxy relationships….
(Shorter: No.)
Killiansays
#126 SecularAnimist prevaricated, Since you are adamantly opposed to any such solutions, I suggest you start now.
When you have zero understanding on a point, resist the urge to open your mouth. I have never in my life stated opposition to the use of renewables. Lying is bad. Don’t lie.
Killiansays
#127 Kevin McKinney hung himself on his own petard, saying, 5-10C changes in a few years, or a human lifetime… expect them…
Uh-huh. Well, if we take 2100 as our approximation for the ‘human lifetime’, then according to AR5, 5C would be just outside the ‘worst case’ range for the worst emissions scenario, RCP 8.5, for which the projected range is 2.6-4.8C.
As Hank likes to say, the reality is scary enough.
I’m glad you think soothsaying is reality. That is, 1. IPCC is, if anything, conservative. I’ve been more accurate. 2. The same logic you apply to me applies to anyone else: Forward-looking statements are ALL speculative, not just mine. All you’ve said is, “You can’t know! Neither can we! Don’t say things that aren’t proven, ’cause only we should!”
Not logical. So, if you think the overly-conservative IPCC, whose projections are constantly trying to keep up with actual changes is more reliable about future events than I am, whose projections have been much closer to actual events, so be it. But belittling my views is plain stupid given my track record, and even more so from a risk perspective.
Dr. White and I see the same problem with no buffer in the system. Our view meets the reality far better than what anyone else is saying. And I said it 5+ years ago.
We need a name for ultra-conservative non-scientists. Pooh-poohists? Minimalists? Minimizers? Ostriches?
Killiansays
#129 Chris Machens asked about tipping points.
What I recall from the last several years:
* Wobbles are detectable in some chaotic systems.
* If at the point of wobbles, probably too late to prevent bifurcation.
* A period of seeming stability my precede a bifurcation. (Not sure if this is pre- or post-wobbles.)
* Non-linear systems, as opposed to chaotic, should be mathematically predictable, e.g. pile of sand.
* Chaotic systems, IIRC, may have predictable phases, but even then the order of phases is unpredictable.
[Note: Gavin has said climate system is non-chaotic.]
I rarely comment anywhere anymore because of empty comments such as the one above. In the context it asserts that what is widely understood of the nature of the complex and dynamic climate system is an unsupported assertion, babbles about skid marks and trails off into personal disparagement.
The emissions from fossil fuels are some 57% of the total greenhouse gas emissions – and this doesn’t include black carbon.
A comprehensive response – in an abruptly changing system – requires a multi-gas strategy including aerosols, conservation and restoration of ecosystems, enhancing organic content of agricultural soils, etc. This is only possible with continuing global economic development. The other side of the problem is population restraint in the context of better health and education outcomes.
The solutions for carbon dioxide – in both electricity (26% of greenhouse gases) and transport (13%) are technological. This is happening as a result of concerns with emissions – but perhaps primarily in response to higher prices and prospective scarcity of fossil fuels.
The reality is that climate is fairly obviously a complex and dynamic system – with all that implies in the light of complexity science.
‘The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change… Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation.’ Wally Broecker
‘Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age. Human civilizations arose after those extreme, global ice-age climate jumps. Severe droughts and other regional climate events during the current warm period have shown similar tendencies of abrupt onset and great persistence, often with adverse effects on societies.’ http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=1
There is a 1-D model from Michael Ghil described here – in the context of the Earth climate system. In a complex and dynamic climate sensitivity is highest as the system approaches a tipping point. Hence dynamic.
In the Earth system tipping points happen every 2 to 3 decades. Here is the original 2007 paper in the series from Tsonis et al. It gives the backstory for the network analysis. It is the most significant advance in climate science this century.
I seem to have lost a comment that dispassionately discussed this previously. The rationale for this censorship obviously eludes me – but seems to typify the nature of the partisan discourse. I am not sure why it is such a difficult proposition – other than that it requires a rethink of both the nature of climate and the appropriate responses to emissions from both sides of the divide. With people like webby who have been so wrong and so aggressive and disparaging for so long it’s personal.
For me – it seems the worst of all possible worlds. The likelihood of little if any surface warming at least for decades from 2002 – and an inherent instability in the system in response to small changes.
‘Warming, interrupted: Much ado about natural variability — A guest commentary by Kyle Swanson.’
I have referred to this discussion endlessly. There is a graph there that shows temperature being stable to 2020 (the paper talks about an indeterminate period) and the rate of warminf between the 76/77 and 98/01 climate shifts. These are interesting points.
But let’s look at a paper that says the same as the excerpt you quoted.
‘A vigorous spectrum of interdecadal internal variability presents numerous challenges to our current understanding of the climate. First, it suggests that climate models in general still have difficulty reproducing the magnitude and spatiotemporal patterns of internal variability necessary to capture the observed character of the 20th century climate trajectory. Presumably, this is due primarily to deficiencies in ocean dynamics. Moving toward higher resolution, eddy resolving oceanic models should help reduce this deficiency. Second, theoretical arguments suggest that a more variable climate is a more sensitive climate to imposed forcings (13). Viewed in this light, the lack of modeled compared to observed interdecadal variability (Fig. 2B) may indicate that current models underestimate climate sensitivity. Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full
This admirably describes the quandary we find ourselves in. Sensitivity here is a dynamic sensitivity – it varies with the distance to tipping points. As in the Ghil model I describe in the paper you have read in sufficient detail to correct a typo in the reference list.
It is the new climate paradigm – and understanding of how this new idea works is woefully inadequate. It was first numerically described as a ‘new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts’– btw – in a network model by Tsonis and colleagues in 2007 – although an appreciation of the nature of the system from data happened in the last decade of the 20th century.
Sensitivity here is a dynamic sensitivity – it varies …
You’re using the wrong word, or trying your own definition — this doesn’t further the discussion.
Pretend for the moment you accept the standard definition — the change in temperature at the future time when the earth system has reattained radiative equilibrium.
Are you arguing for a range of possible climate sensitivity numbers because the actual future is the end result of one of many possible courses of events (a probability distribution when viewed from now; actual history once finished)?
Because we know that, I think. Isn’t that taken for granted?
Overcome the deep rooted fire-adapted perennials in the Americas with the shallow-rooted fire-adapted annuals of Europe and Asia — big change in fire regimes, big alteration in sediment transport and many other things. Big hit.
Wipe out the wrong coccolithophore and primary productivity takes a hit that changes everything else, for a while
Breed a bacterium so happy it thrives at the bottom of the stratosphere and changes albedo for a while — a different hit.
Something evolves in the thin surface layer of the oceans that alters the ocean/air interaction — a different hit again, for a while.
Biological diversity recovers and eventually radiative equilibrium is attained. That’s the number we want.
And that’s just the biology — and each previous ice age cycle has gotten rather different _transient_ results as evolution happened, although they all ended up at about the same point and same climate sensitivity end number.
Maybe our own case is excepted. But why should it be? Asteroid, Deccan Traps, or smart hominids burning coal — the planet has recovered with a wide variety of behaviors and ended up in about the same condition each time. More life, more and different biodiversity.
Other scientists will have other ideas from their own fields about what various paths can occur. No doubt all the synthetic chemicals we’ve put out there suggest some interesting combinations not heretofore experienced.
What’s new and interesting about all this?
Lesson #1 of ecology: Don’t keep all your eggs in one planet.
Joseph O'Sullivansays
I’m having an interesting discussion with someone over at Grist. Grist put up a post about a new study that questions some of the dire predictions about the “Arctic methane bomb”. Some of the commenters are unhappy about this and kept going on about Shakhova’s studies and public statements.
I countered this, and I cited and quoted RC’s posts about this issue extensively. I stated that environmentalists have the facts on their side and don’t need to exaggerate.
Apparently, the scientists who run RC are hacks, and I’m a shill for the oil industry. Incidentally, I work for an environmental group.
I think there are more than a few Manchurian Candidate types in the environmental movement.
Not logical. So, if you think the overly-conservative IPCC, whose projections are constantly trying to keep up with actual changes is more reliable about future events than I am, whose projections have been much closer to actual events, so be it. But belittling my views is plain stupid given my track record, and even more so from a risk perspective.
Dr. White and I see the same problem with no buffer in the system. Our view meets the reality far better than what anyone else is saying. And I said it 5+ years ago.
We need a name for ultra-conservative non-scientists. Pooh-poohists? Minimalists? Minimizers? Ostriches?
Comment by Killian — 16 Apr 2015 @ 1:12 PM
Killian, your highly defensive tone is boorish and tiring. Chill a bit… mKay? You make some good points but it’s hard to read.
Killiansays
138 Rob Ellison said, !
NOTE: The one above yours is about Chaos. Try including the post # for clarity.
Sensitivity increases moving towards a tipping point. In the real world this happens every 2 to 3 decades and we really can’t anticipate the size or direction of the shift with any confidence.
To quote the actual paper.
‘… the future evolution of the global mean temperature may hold surprises on both the warm and cold ends of the spectrum due entirely to internal variability that lie well outside the envelope of a steadily increasing global mean temperature.’ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022/full
Sensitivity is not constant – and that you fail to understand this or appreciate the ‘mathematical theory of climate sensitivity’ presented by Ghil is your problem and not mine. ‘Not adding to the discourse’ is the result of your inability to move beyond the definition you are used to. I suggest you study the Ghil paper.
JCHsays
So let’s look at what Swanson said.
The period from 1979 to 1998 is the true forced warming trend: .13C per decade.
The period from 1998 through 2008 is the stasis in warming, which they extend to 2020 as a red flat line.
If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020.
The warming from 1998 to present is .08C per decade, and 2010 and 2014 are warmest years, and it’s looking like 2015 could shatter 2014.
Speaking of the various “Monte Carlo” (can I say that?) various paths on the way from here to climate sensitivity final result, here’s one such:
Failure to bloom: Intense upwelling results in negligible phytoplankton response and prolonged CO2 outgassing over the Oregon shelf
Wiley Evans et al.
First published: 5 March 2015
DOI: 10.1002/2014JC010580
Multiple platforms capture biogeochemical response to intense upwelling; Phytoplankton response is greatest only after intense upwelling ceases; Projected sustained upwelling has implications for CO2 uptake on this shelf.
… Chlorophyll levels, as a proxy for phytoplankton biomass, were low (< 2 mg m−3) on the shelf during the period of most intense upwelling, and satellite data showed no evidence of a downstream phytoplankton bloom. A small chlorophyll increase to ∼4 mg m−3 was observed at our buoy site following a decrease in the strength of southward wind stress 10 days after upwelling initiated. Chlorophyll levels further increased to ∼10 mg m−3 only after a cease in upwelling. These higher levels were coincident with the appearance of water masses having temperature and salinity properties distinct from recently upwelled water. We suggest that rapid offshore transport and subsequent subduction before phytoplankton populations could respond is the most likely explanation for the persistent low chlorophyll and elevated surface-water pCO2 throughout the July upwelling event. This mechanism likely dominates under conditions of strong and persistent upwelling-favorable winds that coincide with close proximity of low-density offshore waters, which may have implications for the biogeochemical functioning of this system under future climate.
although as time goes on it will matter more and more but for the 1.5 billion who presently have no access to energy it might matter but I doubt they know it does. Water and Soil are big looming issues as is a wealthy population that can afford to use a lot of energy. The average European uses 125 KWh/d and the average USA citizen 250 Kwh/d which is a lot. I imagine that the average american reducing their emissions to a Europeans levels is possible but not something they would like, small houses and small cars, fewer and smaller commutes etc, all possible but what about the psychology of that possibility, take a few generations to change thinking perhaps.
Puh-leeze. You’ve totally ‘jumped the shark’ with these comments. You’ve endlessly slagged renewables as unsustainable, thereby sparking any number of OT controversies, so don’t try to claim now that “I have never in my life stated opposition to the use of renewables.”
As you say, lying is bad.
Moreover, for you to claim that you are ‘more accurate than the IPCC’ is just ludicrous. With temperature projections specifically, observations are running to projected trend, and if anything, a bit on the low side. The IPCC reports are imperfect, as is any human endeavor, but they are also the state of the art.
I’d also be interested to know how those trends look in 2015, with the economy a bit more prosperous. Have to say, though, I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t be in favor of ‘smaller commutes.’ It’s making it happen that’s a bit more challenging.
Chuck Hughes @97 — It is up to us to spread the word that Real Climate exists.
Chuck Hughes @97 — It is up to us to spread the word that Real Climate exists.
Comment by David B. Benson — 12 Apr 2015
I do that already but I’m not a scientist and I have no influence when it comes to persuading folks to actually read this or any other science web site. I am not a science teacher. I’m thinking in terms of the science classroom and what can and should be happening with the people who graduate with a degree in science and are charged with teaching children the basics. You’d have to teach in a public school to really understand the problem I’m talking about. It’s not as simple as showing a bunch of kids a web site. This information has to be accessible by science teachers in the classroom where they can point to it or show clips that explain the scientific process and how scientists arrive at their conclusions. Furthermore, science teachers must understand that it is their duty to teach this stuff. They need backup and support from the entire scientific community. Of course “it’s up to us” but obviously “us” isn’t working.
It really is the entire scientific process that is misunderstood. How do we KNOW vaccines prevent illness? How do we KNOW that CO2 and other Greenhouse gasses warm the climate? Your average High School student doesn’t know this. It’s a real problem and it’s not being taught for a variety of reasons. Students need direct access to the experts where they can ask questions and get REAL answers. Many have no such access and the teachers don’t feel a responsibility to grant them access. When I have students sitting in my classroom who’ve had Whooping Cough multiple times, that tells me that the word is not getting out about basic scientific truths.
I have been edited. Obviously clueless is more dire an insult than ill informed. Even in relation to the obvious lack of a predictive capability. Let me expand a little.
ENSO is obviously deterministic – as is everything in the physical system that is climate. No one has managed to predict ENSO at better than a random walk past three months – especially at this time of year. Webby doesn’t even try despite claiming that the QBO is more predictable than ENSO. It isn’t.
He starts with ‘sloshing’ that is in fact an analytic solution to the wave equation for standing waves in elliptical bathtubs with vertical sides and constant depth. To apply that to the Pacific basin stretches physical credibility. I tend to think it is indistinguishable from homeopathic magic. The solution looks like this.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/mathieuplots_zps3ec1411a.png
To get it to look like ENSO – it is modulated by the QBO in webby’s scheme. But you may as well scale the QBO directly – see ENSO v QBO in the top panel here.
e.g. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n5/fig_tab/ngeo2138_F2.html
The QBO and ENSO are part of the same system in the atmosphere involving tropical upwelling and ozone dynamics.
Far more relevant to what I was saying – however – is the 20 to 30 year shifts in Pacific climate state – which are fundamental to climate evolution and far from being understood or modeled.
http://www.geomar.de/en/news/article/klimavorhersagen-ueber-mehrere-jahre-moeglich/
It goes to the core of climate predictability – and the implications of complexity science for climate prediction are fairly obvious.
‘In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.’ IPCC TAR 14.2.2.2
Determinism is far from implying climate predictability unless and until all of the complex interactions of the global system are understood and accounted for.
Miguelito, I think you’ve completely misinterpreted the pictures and ignored the analysis described in the text. Have you read the text? Are you reading someone else’s description of what’s in the paper?
Ellison says:
A half-baked attempt at an attack with signs of defeat — “even as modulated by the QBO”. You lost the argument I am afraid. More here on John Carlos Baez’s Azimuth forum : https://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/comment/14488/#Comment_14488
There is now a 12 minute excerpt of Jim White’s last year’s AGU lecture on abrupt climate change. http://climatestate.com/2015/04/13/abrupt-climate-change-explained-by-jim-white-12-minutes-excerpt-agu-2014/
The gist here seems to be the pattern of change, warming – plateau – warming. This observation of past abrupt change seems to fit into today’s pattern of hiatus (atmospheric evaluation), with anticipated warming projections.
ENSO is not predictable beyond a few months with any reliability – and at certain times of the year not at all. The multi-decadal shifts in the Pacific Ocean state are not predictable – according to the Latif quote I provided – with greater reliability than tossing a coin.
We can contrast the quotes I provided from Julia Slingo, Tim Palmer, Mojib Latif and the IPCC with a blog comment referenced by webby to determine who is closer to the scientific mark.
Sorry if this is a duplicate, I’m getting service not available on this site a lot tonight…
I’m looking for a fairly comprehensive glossary of climate science acronyms. Is there a page with something to this effect. Obviously it’s not going to be completely comprehensive, but I would like to bookmark and share with a few friends as big a glossary of acronyms as possible.
Thanks in advance.
I do think many people underestimate ENSO predictability. Past discussion of ENSO can be found at http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/expert_assessment/ENSO_DD_archive.shtml
From 2007 onwards each discussion includes a model forecast. These forecasts have proven to be quite reliable – even those that are run around this time of year which is the predictability barrier, and when considered nine months out. However they are not very precise.
By this I mean that if you look at the model spread, the actual result is nearly always within the model spread, and therefore reliable. However the model spread tends to be quite wide, and so the prediction is not precise. However the prediction is still potentially useful and informative. The current range for dynamic models is from about 0.2 to 1.7 for December this year. So not precise enough to say whether or not we will have an el nino. But past reliability makes me reasonably confident that we won’t have a la nina, or an extremely strong el nino.
Cubic Mile of Oil (CMO) – some idea of the scale of the issue we face today. Out world is warming due to burning and using carbon from fossil fuels and land use changes so what is to be done. Well our world currently burns 1.1 CMO of oil per annum and this means that in order to use something that is not carbon based we need to deploy 2500 nuclear reactors or 4.2 billion solar panels within 50 years (and all of the other technologies associated with this change of technology). Now call me a kill joy but it seems to me that presently the world appears to be believe that all can be the same in terms of energy usage we just have to change what we use and not use less and at the same time we can increase energy usage for those already using a lot and for those not using any meaning that come 2050 our total energy usage will rise from 3.4 CMO to around 6-7.
I think the world has a very serious issue here and presently our ideas on how to resolve the issue is incorrect. I doubt its possible keep on as we are (BAU) but just using wind or solar instead. Any one else have doubts ?
73 Jim Baird said, Of course the heat will return. Munk however estimates the upwelling of the Pacific is about 1cm/day or about 4 meters/year.(Caldeira used 60cm/sec?) At that rate heat moved to 1000 meters would take 250 years to return
If it will return, there is zero point in putting it there. Then there are the unintended consequences to the ocean ecosystem, on which we are equally dependent as the terrestrial.
I have zero trust in your 250 yr estimate. As I have repeated ad nauseum, this time is different. If the planet has never been forced like this, we can’t be sanguine about what we *think* it will do.
The problem is not the heat, it’s the continued imbalance of heat retained. That is what needs addressing.
Scale. Just how many of these units would we need? MAterials needed? Etc.?
Finally, never forget this is not a climate issue, it’s an Earth system issue. Resources are as important as climate, and collapse will come from that alone if we do not address the entire system. This heat transfer system is yet another unnecessary waste of resources, which edges us closer to collapse.
Since global warming is 93% ocean warming, the conversion of as much of this heat to productive use is the only way it can be dealt with.
How about we actually solve the problem of too much CO2, with things like soil and plants, instead, and get all kinds of follow-on benefits, too boot?
Seeking tech solutions is simple laziness. You’re going to have to consume less. Get used to it.
https://cage.uit.no/news/new-source-methane-discovered-arctic-ocean/
between 10:15-1032 of the full James White presentation he makes a point about the ability of the system to adapt. The analogy is three glasses of water, one with very little, one half full and one almost full. The last one is today.
I am relieved to have a scientists articulate a point I have relied on significantly in foreseeing faster change than is expected by the vast majority, be they scientists or laypersons: The entire system is already degraded. There is virtually no shock absorbing capacity in the system because of this. I believe this is part of the reason positive feedbacks have had such strong effect so much more quickly than generally expected…. and why this will only get worse as we move forward.
Those 5-10C changes in a few years, or a human lifetime, he talks about?
Expect them. What’s to stop it?
Abrupt Climate Change, James White
Pete @109.
You throw out 4.2 billion solar panels over 50 years as an unsurmountably large challenge. Yet that is roughly a half a panel per person on the planet. The manufacturing price per panel will soon be a hundred dollars. So your fifty year huge project requires only a few days of present world GDP. The problem is not scale, the problem is will.
#109 Pete Best (the drummer?) – “meaning that come 2050 our total energy usage will rise from 3.4 CMO to around 6-7.”
Well Pete, one can write that up in numerous ways, but being called a kill joy will be the least of your problems. You’ll be called much much worse than that. And definitely don’t mention it at COP21 in Paris. 8^)
If we are really lucky, the news will come out that 30,000 climate scientists have all been on Opium and AGW/CC is really just a joke and not based on any evidence at all. If only.
If I was a betting man though, using mathematical probabilities, it looks more likely systemic collapse will kick in very “unexpectedly” and all the projections for climate and energy use will just go up in smoke. Serious issues have a way of morphing into completely different serious issues without notice.
And you were worried about being called a “kill joy”. 8^)
Re- Comment by Unsettled Scientist — 13 Apr 2015 @ 11:04 PM, ~#108
Look on the Real Climate right sidebar and scroll down through “Recent Comments” and “ …With Inline Responses” to “Pages” and click ”Acronym index.”
Steve
Re- Comment by Pete Best — 14 Apr 2015 @ 5:13 AM, ~# 109
Pete, your comment- “I doubt its possible keep on as we are (BAU)…” -is a well-known truism. The least expensive technology with the greatest gain (low hanging fruit) in the mix for converting the world to non-fossil carbon energy is conservation. This can be done with very little sacrifice of quality of life.
Steve
1177 B.C., the year a perfect storm destroyed civilization
Killian #112
Yeah, well nothing. You either make it through the storm or not. Given the rate of emissions, plus a different atmospheric composition, laden with synthetic greenhouse gases (CFC’s) (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php), now we prime many systems to fire their potential. Either over time or rapidly. We can try to minimize the effects, increase climate resilience, and our future emissions determine how far we will increase sea level height. Ofc, this could end in doom or worst case scenarios, especially if there are abrupt developments. But if we manage to stop our emissions and reverse the trends, we could help the planet to sustain pre-Anthropocene climate – or return to stable conditions. Current development is that we accelerate emissions.. and positive feedbacks like the thaw of permafrost will soon take over, maybe make our affords meaningless for real. But we have to try at least, synergistic effects could help system stabilize affords.
K: Seeking tech solutions is simple laziness. You’re going to have to consume less. Get used to it.
BPL: Don’t worry, they will. Collapse in 13 +/- 6 years.
NASA GISS has posted the anomaly for March at +0.84ºC, an increase on February (Both RSS & UAH showed a decline.) and the 5th warmest on record. That makes half the top ten monthly anomalies have now occurred in the last twelve months!
Jan 2007 – +0.93ºC
Mar 2002 – +0.88ºC
Mar 2010 – +0.87ºC
Feb 1998 – +0.86ºC
Mar 2015 – +0.84ºC
Apr 2010 – +0.82ºC
Sep 2014 – +0.81ºC
Feb 2015 – +0.78ºC
May 2014 – +0.78ºC
Oct 2014 – +0.77ºC
I stumbled onto this webpage doing a search for “Wind Map”.
http://earth.nullschool.net/
Many of you may know of it from years past, but today the info here is amazing and real time.
‘If as suggested here, a dynamically driven climate shift has occurred, the duration of similar shifts during the 20th century suggests the new global mean temperature trend may persist for several decades. Of course, it is purely speculative to presume that the global mean temperature will remain near current levels for such an extended period of time. Moreover, we caution that the shifts described here are presumably superimposed upon a long term warming trend due to anthropogenic forcing. However, the nature of these past shifts in climate state suggests the possibility of near constant temperature lasting a decade or more into the future must at least be entertained. The apparent lack of a proximate cause behind the halt in warming post 2001/02 challenges our understanding of the climate system, specifically the physical reasoning and causal links between longer time-scale modes of internal climate variability and the impact of such modes upon global temperature. Fortunately, climate science is rapidly developing the tools to meet this challenge, as in the near future it will be possible to attribute cause and effect in decadal-scale climate variability within the context of a seamless climate forecast system [Palmer et al., 2008]. Doing so is vital, as the future evolution of the global mean temperature may hold surprises on both the warm and cold ends of the spectrum due entirely to internal variability that lie well outside the envelope of a steadily increasing global mean temperature.’ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022/full
Abrupt change and dynamic sensitivity are the defining mechanism of the climate system. It will happen regardless of anthropogenic influences. Inevitable suprises – more or less extreme and rapid change – at multidecadal intervals whose scope, timing and even direction are unknowable beforehand.
In the context of an abruptly shifting climate and ecological systems – greenhouse gas emissions are potentially problematic in adding to changes to the system. These emissions go well beyond electricity generation – which is some 26% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The solutions are diverse – needing new technology, land use changes, restoration of agricultural soils, conservation and restoration of ecosystems and multiple gas and aerosol strategies.
#113 Thomas said, Pete @109.
You throw out 4.2 billion solar panels over 50 years as an unsurmountably large challenge. Yet that is roughly a half a panel per person on the planet. The manufacturing price per panel will soon be a hundred dollars. So your fifty year huge project requires only a few days of present world GDP. The problem is not scale, the problem is will.
Really? And what about the resources needed? What about all the other resources needed to meet the needs currently met by the fungible nature of oil? but let’s keep this simple, and go back to the original 4.2 billion.
So, we should have solar power for one generation? No? Longer? Then: 4.2 billion x 3 per century x number of centuries you want electricity.
Nope…. no problem here.
#118 Chris Machens said, Killian #112
Those 5-10C changes in a few years, or a human lifetime, he talks about?
Expect them. What’s to stop it?
Yeah, well nothing… But we have to try at least, synergistic effects could help system stabilize affords.
It was kind of rhetorical since most here know I’m what you might call a doomertopian: I know how bad it is, and most people I come across consider my views apocalyptic, but I also see very clearly a very, very achievable path back to less than 300 ppm.
My point was really aimed at the system itself, the built in hysteresis: There is precious little of that given the entire system is being simultaneously stressed.
#120 Rob Ellison said, The solutions are diverse – needing new technology, land use changes, restoration of agricultural soils, conservation and restoration of ecosystems and multiple gas and aerosol strategies.
I doubt Joseph Tainter or Jared Diamond would agree with this, as one says reduced complexity is required and the other simplification. Complex responses to complexity issues tend to result in, “Fall down, go boom!” scenarios, historically speaking.
Chris Machens “1177 B.C., the year a perfect storm destroyed civilization”
YACT (Yet Another Cautionary Tale): the Ancestral Pueblan culture of the Colorado Plateau appears to have suffered a similar series of unfortunate events in the late 13th century CE, with severe and prolonged drought the last straw:
http://cpluhna.nau.edu/People/anasazi_collapse.htm
If only they had left a written record 8^(!
Killian wrote: “Seeking tech solutions is simple laziness. You’re going to have to consume less.”
In the absence of a “tech solution” for zero-emission electricity generation (currently 40 percent of US emissions according to EPA), YOU are going to have to consume ZERO electricity.
Since you are adamantly opposed to any such solutions, I suggest you start now.
Uh-huh. Well, if we take 2100 as our approximation for the ‘human lifetime’, then according to AR5, 5C would be just outside the ‘worst case’ range for the worst emissions scenario, RCP 8.5, for which the projected range is 2.6-4.8C.
As Hank likes to say, the reality is scary enough.
Great paper Rob posted above.
Still reading the open access study, but if the projections are correct and if you correlate them with past events, then, well. Try to imagine 1 degree in 1 year?
Pattern of abrupt change suggest that you can math them, understand timings. For instance, there might be things you can sense beforehand, just like before a tsunami, or pattern, or thresholds emerge. The questions is rather, how much before you can know them, and what is the difference? And are we even looking for such events?
On the origins of decadal climate variability: a network perspective
http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/19/559/2012/npg-19-559-2012.pdf
> are we even looking ….?
There’s quite an extensive literature; Google Scholar would be a place to start.
Or Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation
Topics: Chemicals Environment and health Various other issues
EEA Report No 1/2013
The 2013 Late lessons from early warnings report is the second of its type produced by the European Environment Agency (EEA) in collaboration with a broad range of external authors and peer reviewers…..
Ellison said:
First paragraph is just an assertion on your part. Then you lay some skid marks down and leave a non sequitor.
This is getting tedious. Yes there is electricity generation but there is also combustion of fossil fuels for transportation and heating.
You can get away with this stuff on the Climate Etc blog, but you can’t here where the readers won’t be swayed by fallacious arguments, designed to further some agenda.
84 Thomas O’Reilly RE [Response: Case of mistaken identity…..]
Thanks Gavin. That kind of thing happens to everyone, everywhere. I do it myself. 8^)
> Ellison … Tsonis
You’re referring to Tsonis et al. — don’t forget Al.
And don’t forget that one of the two Al., coauthor of that paper Kyle Swanson, has a topic here.
You’re referring to
A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shiftsAnastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson and Sergey Kravtsov
DOI: 10.1029/2007GL030288
discussed extensively already, you needn’t start as though nobody’s heard of it before.
You know how to find this stuff: ‘oogle with this search string:
site:realclimate.org tsonisThat’ll find you — among much other discussion — this:
Warming, interrupted: Much ado about natural variability — A guest commentary by Kyle Swanson
From Richard Telford’s blog:
Is there robust evidence of solar variability in palaeoclimate proxy data?
(Shorter: No.)
#126 SecularAnimist prevaricated, Since you are adamantly opposed to any such solutions, I suggest you start now.
When you have zero understanding on a point, resist the urge to open your mouth. I have never in my life stated opposition to the use of renewables. Lying is bad. Don’t lie.
#127 Kevin McKinney hung himself on his own petard, saying, 5-10C changes in a few years, or a human lifetime… expect them…
Uh-huh. Well, if we take 2100 as our approximation for the ‘human lifetime’, then according to AR5, 5C would be just outside the ‘worst case’ range for the worst emissions scenario, RCP 8.5, for which the projected range is 2.6-4.8C.
As Hank likes to say, the reality is scary enough.
I’m glad you think soothsaying is reality. That is, 1. IPCC is, if anything, conservative. I’ve been more accurate. 2. The same logic you apply to me applies to anyone else: Forward-looking statements are ALL speculative, not just mine. All you’ve said is, “You can’t know! Neither can we! Don’t say things that aren’t proven, ’cause only we should!”
Not logical. So, if you think the overly-conservative IPCC, whose projections are constantly trying to keep up with actual changes is more reliable about future events than I am, whose projections have been much closer to actual events, so be it. But belittling my views is plain stupid given my track record, and even more so from a risk perspective.
Dr. White and I see the same problem with no buffer in the system. Our view meets the reality far better than what anyone else is saying. And I said it 5+ years ago.
We need a name for ultra-conservative non-scientists. Pooh-poohists? Minimalists? Minimizers? Ostriches?
#129 Chris Machens asked about tipping points.
What I recall from the last several years:
* Wobbles are detectable in some chaotic systems.
* If at the point of wobbles, probably too late to prevent bifurcation.
* A period of seeming stability my precede a bifurcation. (Not sure if this is pre- or post-wobbles.)
* Non-linear systems, as opposed to chaotic, should be mathematically predictable, e.g. pile of sand.
* Chaotic systems, IIRC, may have predictable phases, but even then the order of phases is unpredictable.
[Note: Gavin has said climate system is non-chaotic.]
Chaos study
Detection
I rarely comment anywhere anymore because of empty comments such as the one above. In the context it asserts that what is widely understood of the nature of the complex and dynamic climate system is an unsupported assertion, babbles about skid marks and trails off into personal disparagement.
The emissions from fossil fuels are some 57% of the total greenhouse gas emissions – and this doesn’t include black carbon.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/GlobalGHGEmissionsByGas.png
There is some 26% from electricity generation and 13% from transportation.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/GlobalGHGEmissionsBySource.png
A comprehensive response – in an abruptly changing system – requires a multi-gas strategy including aerosols, conservation and restoration of ecosystems, enhancing organic content of agricultural soils, etc. This is only possible with continuing global economic development. The other side of the problem is population restraint in the context of better health and education outcomes.
The solutions for carbon dioxide – in both electricity (26% of greenhouse gases) and transport (13%) are technological. This is happening as a result of concerns with emissions – but perhaps primarily in response to higher prices and prospective scarcity of fossil fuels.
The reality is that climate is fairly obviously a complex and dynamic system – with all that implies in the light of complexity science.
‘The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change… Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation.’ Wally Broecker
‘Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age. Human civilizations arose after those extreme, global ice-age climate jumps. Severe droughts and other regional climate events during the current warm period have shown similar tendencies of abrupt onset and great persistence, often with adverse effects on societies.’ http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=1
There is a 1-D model from Michael Ghil described here – in the context of the Earth climate system. In a complex and dynamic climate sensitivity is highest as the system approaches a tipping point. Hence dynamic.
http://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/23/the-unstable-math-of-michael-ghils-climate-sensitivity/
In the Earth system tipping points happen every 2 to 3 decades. Here is the original 2007 paper in the series from Tsonis et al. It gives the backstory for the network analysis. It is the most significant advance in climate science this century.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030288/abstract
I seem to have lost a comment that dispassionately discussed this previously. The rationale for this censorship obviously eludes me – but seems to typify the nature of the partisan discourse. I am not sure why it is such a difficult proposition – other than that it requires a rethink of both the nature of climate and the appropriate responses to emissions from both sides of the divide. With people like webby who have been so wrong and so aggressive and disparaging for so long it’s personal.
For me – it seems the worst of all possible worlds. The likelihood of little if any surface warming at least for decades from 2002 – and an inherent instability in the system in response to small changes.
Hi Hank,
‘Warming, interrupted: Much ado about natural variability — A guest commentary by Kyle Swanson.’
I have referred to this discussion endlessly. There is a graph there that shows temperature being stable to 2020 (the paper talks about an indeterminate period) and the rate of warminf between the 76/77 and 98/01 climate shifts. These are interesting points.
But let’s look at a paper that says the same as the excerpt you quoted.
‘A vigorous spectrum of interdecadal internal variability presents numerous challenges to our current understanding of the climate. First, it suggests that climate models in general still have difficulty reproducing the magnitude and spatiotemporal patterns of internal variability necessary to capture the observed character of the 20th century climate trajectory. Presumably, this is due primarily to deficiencies in ocean dynamics. Moving toward higher resolution, eddy resolving oceanic models should help reduce this deficiency. Second, theoretical arguments suggest that a more variable climate is a more sensitive climate to imposed forcings (13). Viewed in this light, the lack of modeled compared to observed interdecadal variability (Fig. 2B) may indicate that current models underestimate climate sensitivity. Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full
This admirably describes the quandary we find ourselves in. Sensitivity here is a dynamic sensitivity – it varies with the distance to tipping points. As in the Ghil model I describe in the paper you have read in sufficient detail to correct a typo in the reference list.
http://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/23/the-unstable-math-of-michael-ghils-climate-sensitivity/
It is the new climate paradigm – and understanding of how this new idea works is woefully inadequate. It was first numerically described as a ‘new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts’– btw – in a network model by Tsonis and colleagues in 2007 – although an appreciation of the nature of the system from data happened in the last decade of the 20th century.
“… we hypothesize that the climate system will return to its signal as defined by its pre-1998 behavior in roughly 2020 and resume warming.” – See more at: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/
He’s “hung himself on his own petard” (TM Killian) with that prediction.
You’re using the wrong word, or trying your own definition — this doesn’t further the discussion.
Pretend for the moment you accept the standard definition — the change in temperature at the future time when the earth system has reattained radiative equilibrium.
Are you arguing for a range of possible climate sensitivity numbers because the actual future is the end result of one of many possible courses of events (a probability distribution when viewed from now; actual history once finished)?
Because we know that, I think. Isn’t that taken for granted?
Overcome the deep rooted fire-adapted perennials in the Americas with the shallow-rooted fire-adapted annuals of Europe and Asia — big change in fire regimes, big alteration in sediment transport and many other things. Big hit.
Wipe out the wrong coccolithophore and primary productivity takes a hit that changes everything else, for a while
Breed a bacterium so happy it thrives at the bottom of the stratosphere and changes albedo for a while — a different hit.
Something evolves in the thin surface layer of the oceans that alters the ocean/air interaction — a different hit again, for a while.
Biological diversity recovers and eventually radiative equilibrium is attained. That’s the number we want.
And that’s just the biology — and each previous ice age cycle has gotten rather different _transient_ results as evolution happened, although they all ended up at about the same point and same climate sensitivity end number.
Maybe our own case is excepted. But why should it be? Asteroid, Deccan Traps, or smart hominids burning coal — the planet has recovered with a wide variety of behaviors and ended up in about the same condition each time. More life, more and different biodiversity.
Other scientists will have other ideas from their own fields about what various paths can occur. No doubt all the synthetic chemicals we’ve put out there suggest some interesting combinations not heretofore experienced.
What’s new and interesting about all this?
Lesson #1 of ecology: Don’t keep all your eggs in one planet.
I’m having an interesting discussion with someone over at Grist. Grist put up a post about a new study that questions some of the dire predictions about the “Arctic methane bomb”. Some of the commenters are unhappy about this and kept going on about Shakhova’s studies and public statements.
I countered this, and I cited and quoted RC’s posts about this issue extensively. I stated that environmentalists have the facts on their side and don’t need to exaggerate.
Apparently, the scientists who run RC are hacks, and I’m a shill for the oil industry. Incidentally, I work for an environmental group.
I think there are more than a few Manchurian Candidate types in the environmental movement.
http://grist.org/science/permafrost-may-not-be-the-ticking-carbon-bomb-scientists-once-thought/#comment-1971635006
Not logical. So, if you think the overly-conservative IPCC, whose projections are constantly trying to keep up with actual changes is more reliable about future events than I am, whose projections have been much closer to actual events, so be it. But belittling my views is plain stupid given my track record, and even more so from a risk perspective.
Dr. White and I see the same problem with no buffer in the system. Our view meets the reality far better than what anyone else is saying. And I said it 5+ years ago.
We need a name for ultra-conservative non-scientists. Pooh-poohists? Minimalists? Minimizers? Ostriches?
Comment by Killian — 16 Apr 2015 @ 1:12 PM
Killian, your highly defensive tone is boorish and tiring. Chill a bit… mKay? You make some good points but it’s hard to read.
138 Rob Ellison said, !
NOTE: The one above yours is about Chaos. Try including the post # for clarity.
Killian – I’d suggest if you are truly interested to ctrl F skid marks. Seems to me to be hardly worth it.
Hank – a 1-D model of a complex and dynamic system is described by Ghil. I have previously referenced it.
Here’s a paper – http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.303.1951&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Sensitivity increases moving towards a tipping point. In the real world this happens every 2 to 3 decades and we really can’t anticipate the size or direction of the shift with any confidence.
To quote the actual paper.
‘… the future evolution of the global mean temperature may hold surprises on both the warm and cold ends of the spectrum due entirely to internal variability that lie well outside the envelope of a steadily increasing global mean temperature.’ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022/full
Sensitivity is not constant – and that you fail to understand this or appreciate the ‘mathematical theory of climate sensitivity’ presented by Ghil is your problem and not mine. ‘Not adding to the discourse’ is the result of your inability to move beyond the definition you are used to. I suggest you study the Ghil paper.
So let’s look at what Swanson said.
The period from 1979 to 1998 is the true forced warming trend: .13C per decade.
The period from 1998 through 2008 is the stasis in warming, which they extend to 2020 as a red flat line.
If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020.
The warming from 1998 to present is .08C per decade, and 2010 and 2014 are warmest years, and it’s looking like 2015 could shatter 2014.
And, the warming trend from 1979 to present is .16C per decade.
That is .04C higher that what he was claiming was the forced signal after 17 years of natural offset?
Speaking of the various “Monte Carlo” (can I say that?) various paths on the way from here to climate sensitivity final result, here’s one such:
Failure to bloom: Intense upwelling results in negligible phytoplankton response and prolonged CO2 outgassing over the Oregon shelf
Wiley Evans et al.
First published: 5 March 2015
DOI: 10.1002/2014JC010580
That’s primary productivity, base of the food chain, interrupted there.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JC010580/abstract
Climate Change is not the only issue the world faces:
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/getting-real-about-energy-in-cubic.html
although as time goes on it will matter more and more but for the 1.5 billion who presently have no access to energy it might matter but I doubt they know it does. Water and Soil are big looming issues as is a wealthy population that can afford to use a lot of energy. The average European uses 125 KWh/d and the average USA citizen 250 Kwh/d which is a lot. I imagine that the average american reducing their emissions to a Europeans levels is possible but not something they would like, small houses and small cars, fewer and smaller commutes etc, all possible but what about the psychology of that possibility, take a few generations to change thinking perhaps.
#135-136, Killian–
Puh-leeze. You’ve totally ‘jumped the shark’ with these comments. You’ve endlessly slagged renewables as unsustainable, thereby sparking any number of OT controversies, so don’t try to claim now that “I have never in my life stated opposition to the use of renewables.”
As you say, lying is bad.
Moreover, for you to claim that you are ‘more accurate than the IPCC’ is just ludicrous. With temperature projections specifically, observations are running to projected trend, and if anything, a bit on the low side. The IPCC reports are imperfect, as is any human endeavor, but they are also the state of the art.
You are just a guy on a blog.
– See more at: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/04/unforced-variations-april-2015/comment-page-3/#comment-628590
“…take a few generations to change thinking perhaps.”
Maybe. It’s interesting that American attitudes toward the automobile seem to have shifted a bit in recent years:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/31/american-driving-car-decl_n_5424867.html
I’d also be interested to know how those trends look in 2015, with the economy a bit more prosperous. Have to say, though, I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t be in favor of ‘smaller commutes.’ It’s making it happen that’s a bit more challenging.