U.S. Labs Study Abrupt Climate Change
Four Horrifying Scenarios Under Consideration
Scientists from six national laboratories in the U.S. have been assigned to study the potential of sudden and potentially devastating climate change, driven by feedback mechanisms that could produce centuries of warming in only a few decades
Saying that a 10 degree Celsius rise in global temperatures is not unlikely, the scientists are looking at four global warming feedbacks that have the capacity to trigger abrupt climate change.
1. Instability among marine ice sheets, particularly the West Antarctic ice sheet (which have already started to peel off)
2. Positive feedback mechanisms in subarctic forests and arctic ecosystems, leading to rapid methane release or large-scale changes in the surface energy balance (See Ross's story today)
3. Destabilization of methane hydrates - vast deposits of methane gas caged in water ice - particularly in the Arctic Ocean
4. Feedback between biosphere and atmosphere that could lead to megadroughts in North America
The research project is called IMPACTS, which stands for Investigation of the Magnitudes and Probabilities of Abrupt Climate Transitions.
we could also get hit by a giant space rock
we could get into a nuclear war
we could get devastated by some new terrifying virus
we could enter into an economic meltdown that brings on total society breakdown.
all of those things including the killer climate scenarios are beyond our individual control. You can't change the climate anymore than you can change the trajectory of a big meteor on an Earth collision course.
Hmm, let's see, in as much as political will and action has anything to do with individual control and individual attitudes, which of these things do people spend time preparing for and trying to prevent?
Answer: All of them.
Rick, think before you post.
Thanks for ordering me what to do with my mind and fingers master. I live to do your bidding.
I did think a little before I posted. Perhaps I didn't express my thoughts perfectly. I could have stopped with the space rock example.
Controlling the climate - controlling space rocks - controlling internet commentary
some things are impossible.
Okay, don't think before you post comments. I'll remember that next time I consider reading one of them. Too late for this one, though...
Did you know that considerable effort is spent trying to identify space rocks and figure out what to do to prevent catastrophe if one is found that immediately endangers the life on Earth? It's a reasonable use of resources, in my opinion.
First off, 10C is alarmism at it's best. In what time frame? 10C in decades? Right.
In perspective. 55myo the planet was 8C warmer than today. Tropical forests grew up to the Arctic Circle. Palm trees grew in Greenland. The Sahara was a tropical forest. It saw the rise of the great mammalian radiation.
The geology shows that at every time we had global warming the planet was awash in life. The great oil fields were deposited by life that existed during these great warming trends.
But let's look at the facts, not the alarmist nonsense.
1. Instability among marine ice sheets, particularly the West Antarctic ice sheet (which have already started to peel off)
The Antarctic ice sheet is growing in size, the largest it's been in 50 years.
Antarctica Ice Cap Growth Reaches Record High Levels (Photos)
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/10/antarctica-ice-cap-growth-reaches.html
Positive Mass Balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica
Ian Joughin,1* Slawek Tulaczyk2*
Science 18 January 2002:
Vol. 295. no. 5554, pp. 476 - 480
We have used ice-flow velocity measurements from synthetic aperture radar to reassess the mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica. We find strong evidence for ice-sheet growth (+26.8 gigatons per year), in contrast to earlier estimates indicating a mass deficit (20.9 gigatons per year). Average thickening is equal to ~25% of the accumulation rate, with most of this growth occurring on Ice Stream C. Whillans Ice Stream, which was thought to have a significantly negative mass balance, is close to balance, reflecting its continuing slowdown. The overall positive mass balance may signal an end to the Holocene retreat of these ice streams.
2. Positive feedback mechanisms in subarctic forests and arctic ecosystems, leading to rapid methane release or large-scale changes in the surface energy balance (See Ross's story today)
Would this not have happened during the MWP? Of course it did, not!
3. Destabilization of methane hydrates - vast deposits of methane gas caged in water ice - particularly in the Arctic Ocean
Not only do we have the Bermuda Triangle we now have the Arctic Triangle! Alarmist nonsense. Tap them, we need the fuel!
4. Feedback between biosphere and atmosphere that could lead to megadroughts in North America
Or longer growing seasons with more rain with which we can produce more crops.
The research project is called IMPACTS, which stands for Investigation of the Magnitudes and Probabilities of Abrupt Climate Transitions.
Interesting that "Only half joking, Collins refers to these as "the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse."" Oh, yes, definitely faith based assertions.
And what ARE the probabilities of each of these? None of the goggled sites shows any probabilities. The probability of "the big one" hitting Los Angeles is far more likely that any of this faith based alarmist nonsense.
1. JR says you can't find the probabilities of these events, then says their probabilities are lower than that of the "big one".
2. JR wants to know the probabilities, but derides efforts to quantify the probabilities as "faith-based alarmist nonsense."
3. JR concludes that these are faith-based assertions because religious imagery is used, but demonstrates his faith in climate change improving agriculture (despite the fact that agricultural systems are adapted to a climate similar to the one we're currently experiencing). He also thinks that a bioproductive earth 55 mya means there will be no problem if that happens again (despite the transition including sea level rise).
"1. JR says you can't find the probabilities of these events, then says their probabilities are lower than that of the "big one"."
The big one is knowable and has a prediction value. None of these do, hence one can make they claim that these faith based ascertions have no possibility at all. Unless you have these values, do you?
"2. JR wants to know the probabilities, but derides efforts to quantify the probabilities as "faith-based alarmist nonsense.""
Correct. Until they come forward with such probabilities their ascertions are exactly that.
"3. JR concludes that these are faith-based assertions because religious imagery is used, but demonstrates his faith in climate change improving agriculture (despite the fact that agricultural systems are adapted to a climate similar to the one we're currently experiencing)."
Show my position is wrong.
"He also thinks that a bioproductive earth 55 mya means there will be no problem if that happens again (despite the transition including sea level rise)."
What has sea level rise got to do with it? The current rate of sea level rise CANNOT be from AGW, and I can prove it. And, yes, the argument is sound. A 10C increase in the AVERAGE temp does not mean that the maximum will increase 10C, only that the world temps are more moderated, with fewer swings into low temps. This is EXACTLY what happened not just 55myo, but many other times in the geological past. Show me peer reviewed papers refuting that.
#2 -- I don't see how you can complain about them not quantifying probabilities of these issues AND the fact that the whole point is that they are investigating the issues to determine their probabilities.
#1 -- What are their assertions? That the chances of W, X, Y, &/or Z happening deserves study.
#3 -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusaders_%28rugby%29
Such use of religious imagery in language is no more useful in determining "faith-based" attitudes than with sports teams nick-named "The Crusaders" or "Heavenly Lake Tahoe".
If you can disprove that AGW contributes to the current rate of sea level rise, you should publish in a peer-reviewed journal instead of claim it on a blog. There was no Antarctic ice sheet during the Eocene -- therefore sea levels were higher (and most people think it will generally be a bummer if sea levels rise greatly).
It's simple, and I do have a blog article waiting to be published, and there has been ample peer reviewed papers to back my claim up.
Improved estimates of upper-ocean warming and multi-decadal sea-level rise -- Nature 453, 1090-1093 (19 June 2008) "We add our observational estimate of upper-ocean thermal expansion to other contributions to sea-level rise and find that the sum of contributions from 1961 to 2003 is about 1.5 0.4 mm yr-1, in good agreement with our updated estimate of near-global mean sea-level rise (using techniques established in earlier studies6, 7) of 1.6 0.2 mm yr-1."
The rate of sea level rise has not accelerated from it's nice straight line, with decadal variation.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/thumb/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png/700px-Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=680-140
This is a serious problem for if all that melting is going one why has the rate not accelerated?
According to these guys, the MAXIMUM it can rise is 2meters in 100 years:
Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise -- Science 5 September 2008:
Vol. 321. no. 5894, pp. 1340 - 1343
Which is significant as to get to that 2 meters in 100 years the rate of sea level rise would have to have a growth of at least 4.4% per year acceleration rate (does not exist) and would be increasing by some 90mm/yr at that time. Since the current rate is about 1.5-1.6mm/yr, and been there since measurements started 100 years agp, then one has a hard time seeing how the present rate of sea level rise is because of AGW. The rate did not go down when the planet cooled 1945-1975.
On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century --- GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L01602
Abstract
Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.
Oh, and the rate has dropped lately.
And lastly, ice is growing in Antarctica, and how long would it take to melt it all. 1000 years, 2000, years?
1. You're conflating future with present. Since the comment originally addressed the present, I'll stick to that.
2. From the first abstract you cite: "upper-ocean thermal expansion" -- why is the upper ocean experiencing thermal expansion? (hint: warming)
You did not answer any of the questions. Explain why the rate of sea level has not accelerated when it should have by now by at least 10 TIMES!!
This serious for AGW. If the rate HAS TO BE 20mm/yr, but is currently only 1.74, which it has been for over 100 years, then the CURRENT rate of rise CANNOT be from AGW. It's straight logic.
The IPCC said it a long time ago.
We have to present disaster scenarios or nobody will listen.
Well..........
Can you give me a citation and a page number?
And why are these US labs heading this up for the IPCC?
you seem a little stressed. Exaggeration and hyperbole and fear mongering from various locals in the AGW universe is hardly news. I think Gary is just making a general comment about it's existence. Citations? you're kidding right?
Okay, so then the IPCC didn't say it? That's the answer that my simple questions were asking for. Thanks.
No Problem:
I didn't bother to link to anything as I had thought this quote was famous enough to not require it.
Just google the Text below to get a long list of sources.
I am sure you will reject the one I chose to list below.
"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen"
Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
Here is a page full of interesting quotes:
http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/a-page-of-quotes/
I will reject crappy sources. But you should know that out-of-context quotations will also be regarded with skepticism. I can only find the quoted statement, no context, no nothing except that apparently he said it in 1994. I'd like to see a more complete quotation. Did he actually say it? I can't tell -- I would like to see the original reportage, not the millionth repetition. Also, I'd like to see if he was representing the IPCC when he said it.
Amusing Steve.
But only that.
First of all, there is no context in which that statement could be interpreted any other way. It is a simple statement.
And he was the chairman, of course he was speaking for the IPCC.
Lastly, google it yourself, like I said, find your own sources, it is a very famous quote and need no additional support.
Or your could do like so many AGW believers.
Just dismiss it out of hand and pretend it never happened.
Won't change the planet any either way.
Where you are eager to believe something because a lot of like-minded people have repeated it. I thought you'd claimed before that was anethema to you. I googled and didn't find the original source or context for the quotation.
Also, the IPCC reports go through a lot of edits. That's because all statements are vetted through the IPCC process. I think you're off-base if you think that the CEO or Chairman of some entity who makes a one-off comment (in who-knows-what context) is speaking for that entity. That's especially true in the case of the IPCC.
You might want to answer my other question, too: why are US national labs doing this? I think they do it for the same reason people put effort into figuring out how to minimize problems with big space rocks, but I'd be curious to know what you think.
I think it is a great idea. They will discover that the alarmist predictions are nothing more than faith based ascertions with no evidence to back them up. The more research is done, the more they will find out that AGW is nothing of the alarmist claims.
It's worthwhile to determine what the worse case scenarios are and what their likelihoods are. It is useful to rule out possibilities that are too unlikely.
No idea:
My post was to illistrate a general mind set.
I have no idea what exactly motivates this lab or any other to publish outrageous alarmist nonsnese.
They seem think the end (as they see it) justifies the means.
Pretty typical.
I'd be interested too. please cite your source. Fern Mackenzie
Look up.
And just because its so appropriate:
"There is something fascinating about science.
One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."
Mark Twain.
Mark Twain is renowned for his scientific acumen, even more so than for his humour!
Fern Mackenzie
Mostly, he just saw reality in a clearer way than most.
"Saying that a 10 degree Celsius rise in global temperatures is not unlikely"
Sure, now scientists are just making it up as they go along.
Where, please tell me, is it considered "likely" in the peer-reviewed literature that we are facing a 10 degree (Celcius no less) rise in temperature this century?
Just more extreme alarmist agit-prop from the warmer's camp.
One thing these people will not tell you is that 10C is an increase in the AVERAGE temp over time. One gets the impression without them qualifying that that the temp in the summers will reach a scorching 40-45C. This is false.
Other times in the geological past when the average temp increased the upper maximum did not change. What changed was the lower minumum. Thus one can have a 10C change from the lower minumum which means more moderated temperatures around the globe. This is what happened 55myo when the temp increased by 8C.
The problem is when they elimintate that there is no scare factor any more as such a future would be quite nice indeed.
Dear genius,
"Other times in the geological past" never included times with loads more GHGs in the atmosphere. (Nice attempt at scientific-ish language though.)
Did you drink the conspiracy theory Koolaid? Are you on some oil company's payroll? Are you just stupid?
Give peer reviewed papers to back up that claim. Insults only shows you are dogmatic and unwilling to look at evidence. Since you have no clue who I am or what I know, your insult says more about who you are than anything.
Give peer reviewed papers, blah, blah, blah.
Brought to you by the reader of that peer reviewed publication Gatewaypundit blogspot.
Common Richard C, provide the peer reviewed papers. You guys challenge us all the time claiming we need peer reviewed papers, now put up or shut up!
When you start reading the peer reviewed papers and stop referencing the recycled discredited denialist propaganda that you keep finding in amateur blogs and newspaper articles, then we will make progress. If you aren't prepared to read the science, then shut up. (you can lead a whore to education, but...)
5 personal insults in barely 5 lines of comment! This may not be an all time record, but a clear demonstration of the kind of effort that is going to be needed in the flame wars to come.
Remember AGW folks - make it personal - otherwise you just aren't trying. Demonize, insult and utilize name calling....and remember - it's all about the science.
Loads of GHGs for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
Paul:
I posted an article recently about the probability of more propaganda now that people are realizing the truth.
You are seeing it already here. It is getting truely rediculus.
Extreme warmers are alarmists by nature. If we don't get killer hurricanes or similar stuff, they go looking for theoretical catastrophes.
I listened to part of the NASA conference on line yesterday. They are claiming that the intensity of the solar wind has dropped to unpresidented levels, 20% drop. The rammifications are that we will are now at the beginning of a prolonged, 20-30 years, cooling trend.
AGW just died. It will be interesting to watch the carnage unfold.
And what will you say when you are wrong and AGW confirmation gets stronger after Sept 23, 2008? I suspect that you'll repeat the same garbage.
AGW has to be right. David Letterman says so!
I ALWAYS go with the evidence. Show us which evidence of late shows "AGW confirmation gets stronger"
Always go with the evidence? That's a fib. How about the still-high temperatures despite the low solar output you cite! The evidence doesn't indicate any 30 year decline in temperatures.
What would Desmog would do if the AGW consensus evaporated?
I guess it would be reduced to basic politics without the enviro angle.
Link please?