Jim Hansen (and 16 others)'s new dire warning

[LocoAko]

I know this was mentioned in the Banter thread, but the actual article has been published as of today and it has gotten a lot of attention in the media so I figured I'd create a thread for it. It is in an open-access journal and hasn't been peer-reviewed yet, though my understanding is that that will happen gradually via discussion. Should be interesting to follow, at the very least. 

 

Let's try to keep this about the article and not just Hansen-bashing if at all possible.

 

Article: http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.html

 

 

 

Abstract. There is evidence of ice melt, sea level rise to +5–9 m, and extreme storms in the prior interglacial period that was less than 1 °C warmer than today. Human-made climate forcing is stronger and more rapid than paleo forcings, but much can be learned by combining insights from paleoclimate, climate modeling, and on-going observations. We argue that ice sheets in contact with the ocean are vulnerable to non-linear disintegration in response to ocean warming, and we posit that ice sheet mass loss can be approximated by a doubling time up to sea level rise of at least several meters. Doubling times of 10, 20 or 40 years yield sea level rise of several meters in 50, 100 or 200 years. Paleoclimate data reveal that subsurface ocean warming causes ice shelf melt and ice sheet discharge. Our climate model exposes amplifying feedbacks in the Southern Ocean that slow Antarctic bottom water formation and increase ocean temperature near ice shelf grounding lines, while cooling the surface ocean and increasing sea ice cover and water column stability. Ocean surface cooling, in the North Atlantic as well as the Southern Ocean, increases tropospheric horizontal temperature gradients, eddy kinetic energy and baroclinicity, which drive more powerful storms. We focus attention on the Southern Ocean's role in affecting atmospheric CO2 amount, which in turn is a tight control knob on global climate. The millennial (500–2000 year) time scale of deep ocean ventilation affects the time scale for natural CO2 change, thus the time scale for paleo global climate, ice sheet and sea level changes. This millennial carbon cycle time scale should not be misinterpreted as the ice sheet time scale for response to a rapid human-made climate forcing. Recent ice sheet melt rates have a doubling time near the lower end of the 10–40 year range. We conclude that 2 °C global warming above the preindustrial level, which would spur more ice shelf melt, is highly dangerous. Earth's energy imbalance, which must be eliminated to stabilize climate, provides a crucial metric.

Citation: Hansen, J., Sato, M., Hearty, P., Ruedy, R., Kelley, M., Masson-Delmotte, V., Russell, G., Tselioudis, G., Cao, J., Rignot, E., Velicogna, I., Kandiano, E., von Schuckmann, K., Kharecha, P., Legrande, A. N., Bauer, M., and Lo, K.-W.: Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming is highly dangerous, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 15, 20059-20179, doi:10.5194/acpd-15-20059-2015, 2015.

 

Article about the paper, from Eric Holthaus at Slate: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/20/sea_level_study_james_hansen_issues_dire_climate_warning.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_tw_bot

[LocoAko]

Here is the Summary Implications section, for those who can't (or don't want to) read the whole thing, lol.

 

Humanity faces near certainty of eventual sea level rise of at least Eemian proportions, 15 5–9 m, if fossil fuel emissions continue on a business-as-usual course, e.g., IPCC scenario A1B that has CO2 ∼ 700 ppm in 2100 (Fig. S21). It is unlikely that coastal cities or low-lying areas such as Bangladesh, European lowlands, and large portions of the United States eastern coast and northeast China plains (Fig. S22) could be protected against such large sea level rise.

 

Rapid large sea level rise may begin sooner than generally assumed. Amplifying feedbacks, including slowdown of SMOC and cooling of the near-Antarctic ocean surface with increasing sea ice, may spur nonlinear growth of Antarctic ice sheet mass loss. Deep submarine valleys in West Antarctica and the Wilkes Basin of East Antarctica, each with access to ice amounting to several meters of sea level, provide gateways to the ocean. If the Southern Ocean forcing (subsurface warming) of the Antarctic ice sheets continues to grow, it likely will become impossible to avoid sea level rise of several meters, with the largest uncertainty being how rapidly it will occur.

 

The Greenland ice sheet does not have as much ice subject to rapid nonlinear disintegration, so the speed at which it adds to 21st century sea level rise may be limited. However, even a slower Greenland ice sheet response is expected to be faster than carbon cycle or ocean thermal recovery times. Therefore, if climate forcing continues to grow rapidly, amplifying feedbacks will assure large eventual mass loss. Also with present growth of freshwater injection from Greenland, in combination with increasing North Atlantic precipitation, we already may be on the verge of substantial North Atlantic climate disruption.

 

Storms conjoin with sea level rise to cause the most devastating coastal damage. End-Eemian and projected 21st century conditions are similar in having warm tropics and increased freshwater injection. Our simulations imply increasing storm strengths for such situations, as a stronger temperature gradient caused by ice melt increases baroclinicity and provides energy for more severe weather events. A strengthened Bermuda High in the warm season increases prevailing northeasterlies that can help account for stronger end-Eemian storms. Weakened cold season sea level pressure south of Greenland favors occurrence of atmospheric blocking that can increase wintertime Arctic cold air intrusions into northern midlatitudes.

 

 Effects of freshwater injection and resulting ocean stratification are occurring sooner in the real world than in our model. We suggest that this is an effect of excessive small 20 scale mixing in our model that limits stratification, a problem that may exist in other models (Hansen et al., 2011). We encourage similar simulations with other models, with special attention to the model’s ability to maintain realistic stratification and perturbations. This issue may be addressed in our model with increased vertical resolution, more accurate finite differencing method in ocean dynamics that reduces noise, and use of a smaller background diffusivity.

 

There are many other practical impacts of continued high fossil fuel emissions via climate change and ocean acidification, including irreplaceable loss of many species, as reviewed elsewhere (IPCC, 2013, 2014; Hansen et al., 2013a). However, sea level rise sets the lowest limit on allowable human-made climate forcing and CO2, because of the extreme sensitivity of sea level to ocean warming and the devastating economic and humanitarian impacts of a multi-meter sea level rise. Ice sheet response time is shorter than the time for natural geologic processes to remove CO2 from the climate system, so there is no morally defensible excuse to delay phase-out of fossil fuel emissions as rapidly as possible.

 

We conclude that the 2 ◦C global warming “guardrail”, affirmed in the Copenhagen Accord (2009), does not provide safety, as such warming would likely yield sea level rise of several meters along with numerous other severely disruptive consequences for human society and ecosystems. The Eemian, less than 2 ◦C warmer than pre-industrial 10 Earth, itself provides a clear indication of the danger, even though the orbital drive for Eemian warming differed from today’s human-made climate forcing. Ongoing changes in the Southern Ocean, while global warming is less than 1 ◦C, provide a strong warning, as observed changes tend to confirm the mechanisms amplifying change. Predicted effects, such as cooling of the surface ocean around Antarctica, are occurring 15 even faster than modeled.

 

Our finding of global cooling from ice melt calls into question whether global temperature is the most fundamental metric for global climate in the 21st century. The first order requirement to stabilize climate is to remove Earth’s energy imbalance, which is now about +0.6 W m−2 , more energy coming in than going out. If other forcings are unchanged, removing this imbalance requires reducing atmospheric CO2 20 from ∼ 400 to ∼ 350 ppm (Hansen et al., 2008, 2013a).

The message that the climate science delivers to policymakers, instead of defining a safe “guardrail”, is that fossil fuel CO2 emissions must be reduced as rapidly as practical. Hansen et al. (2013a) conclude that this implies a need for a rising carbon fee or tax, an approach that has the potential to be near-global, as opposed to national caps or goals for emission reductions. Although a carbon fee is the sine qua non for phasing out emissions, the urgency of slowing emissions also implies other needs including widespread technical cooperation in clean energy technologies (Hansen et al., 2013a).

 

The task of achieving a reduction of atmospheric CO2 is formidable, but not impossible. Rapid transition to abundant affordable carbon-free electricity is the core requirement, as that would also permit production of net-zero-carbon liquid fuels from electricity. The rate at which CO2 emissions must be reduced is about 6 % yr−1 to reach 5 350 ppm atmospheric CO2 by about 2100, under the assumption that improved agricultural and forestry practices could sequester 100 GtC (Hansen et al., 2013a). The amount of CO2 fossil fuel emissions taken up by the ocean, soil and biosphere has continued to increase (Fig. S23), thus providing hope that it may be possible to sequester more than 100 GtC. Improved understanding of the carbon cycle and non-CO2 10 forcings are needed, but it is clear that the essential requirement is to begin to phase down fossil fuel CO2 emissions rapidly. It is also clear that continued high emissions are likely to lock-in continued global energy imbalance, ocean warming, ice sheet disintegration, and large sea level rise, which young people and future generations would not be able to avoid. Given the inertia of the climate and energy systems, and the grave 15 threat posed by continued high emissions, the matter is urgent and calls for emergency cooperation among nations.

[LocoAko]

Andrew Freedman's well-balanced (IMO) take on the paper: http://mashable.com/2015/07/22/james-hansen-scary-new-climate-study/ 

[frontranger8]

I'm not dismissing the paper...but if there is one thing that is always predictable about these things, it's that the latest trend will be interpreted as human-caused, and therefore highly alarming.

 

In this case, there are several references to the recent cooling in the North Atlantic - and as usual, it's assumed that human-caused climate change has "shifted the balance" and is to blame. What about the fact that this same area has clearly seen huge temperature swings in the past, in relatively short periods of time?

[stadiumwave]

I know this was mentioned in the Banter thread, but the actual article has been published as of today and it has gotten a lot of attention in the media so I figured I'd create a thread for it. It is in an open-access journal and hasn't been peer-reviewed yet, though my understanding is that that will happen gradually via discussion. Should be interesting to follow, at the very least.

Let's try to keep this about the article and not just Hansen-bashing if at all possible.

Article: http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.html

Article about the paper, from Eric Holthaus at Slate: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/20/sea_level_study_james_hansen_issues_dire_climate_warning.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_tw_bot

DT (WXRISK)...slammed Eric on twitter for hyping Hansen's paper. He also basically called Hansen what he really is...Mr. Extremist.

Interesting, considering DT is certainly not a denier. He also mentioned Michael Mann & Kevin Trenberth even called it BS.

That's pretty telling

[nflwxman]

DT (WXRISK)...slammed Eric on twitter for hyping Hansen's paper. He also basically called Hansen what he really is...Mr. Extremist.

Interesting, considering DT is certainly not a denier. He also mentioned Michael Mann & Kevin Trenberth even called it BS.

That's pretty telling

I like DT, but from talking with him quite a bit, I wouldn't use him as your source of climate information. Remember meteorologist does not always equal climatologist. They are fairly different to practice, even though they share the same physical principals.

But, I agree. This paper has taken it on the chin from some of the more established veterans. Many do suspect the IPCC is too conservative with some projections regarding ice sheet mass and sea level rise, but this does seem rather alarmist.

[LakeEffectKing]

The first sentence of the abstract is quite telling....."There is evidence of ice melt, sea level rise to +5–9 m, and extreme storms in the prior interglacial period that was less than 1 °C warmer than today."....so at 350ppm, (which is the arbitrary concentration almost universally accepted as being "safe" in the world of warmers) we were still above the temperature in which "evidence" was found to have extreme storms and large increases in sea level.  So is 350 really safe?  or should it be 300...or 250....or 100??  And at what level do extreme storms drop so dramatically that "we" can feel good about strapping developing worlds by limiting energy consumption via FF at this point?

 

As per usual with Hansen and his ilk, he selects evidence that supports his extreme views, dresses it up to make it almost appear as causative fact...throws in a bit of fear mongering after conditioning the reader, and voila, you have a certain percentage of the public (typically ones that have a sense of guilt for their existence) that imprints the information into their being and then disseminates that via social media, blogs, sympathetic media, etc.

 

The extreme views of climate change are nothing more than assumption of selected evidence, based on assumption of other selected evidence , based on more assumption...and just like in weather modeling, the more assumptions/approximations contained, the more extreme and varied the time integrated solutions become....the true Scientific Method be damned!!! 

[ORH_wxman]

The use of the word "extreme storms" is pretty head-scratching...I agree on that front. They may not specifically mean it...but it looks like they are implying that extreme storms don't happen very often without climate change, which of course is nonesense. The impact of extreme storms is more damaging along coastal communities with higher SL, but there is little evidence that the storms themselves are being caused by climate change, or at least their frequency is being changed (just to make sure I don't rile up the "butterfly effect" crowd).

As for the paper, it is difficult to take too seriously when it is decently out of step with mainstream peer-reviewed literature. There's some intriguing research ongoing about the dynamics of the WAIS...however, much of the research is far from conclusive at this point and only a handful of peer reviewed publications show collapse on the order of several hundred years or less. Nevermind inside of a century like Hansen is speculating.

[chubbs]

I'm about a third of the way through it and am going to avoid judgement till finished. An interesting read so far due to: its broad scope,  integration of a number of different sub-specialties of climate science and not overly technical writing style. 

[chubbs]

This is an important paper from a scientific standpoint but I don't think it will have much impact on policy. My main learning is the big impact ice sheet decay can have on climate. This paper demonstrates that ice sheets are the most likely source of a "tipping point" climate event. The paper contains a wealth of paleo information on the interaction of ice sheets, ocean and atmosphere to shape climate in the recent ice-age past. The modeling aspects of the paper are not definitive though because our current science is limited. No one knows how fast Antarctic ice sheet decay will proceed in the 21st century. The main benefit of this paper is to highlight how important our science gaps are in this critical area. It is clear that current climate model outlooks and SLR projections will not be correct if and when ice sheet decay accelerates.

 

Regarding policy. This paper doesn't really tell us anything new. The risks for accelerated sea-level rise in the 21st century are already well known. Just read through the Antarctic and sea-level threads - science is evolving in this area very rapidly. There is solid paleo evidence that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) has disappeared in the recent past and there is  theoretical, observational and modeling evidence that the WAIS is currently in the early stages of decay which is probably unstoppable. We also know that portions of the east Antarctic ice sheet are also at risk and that Greenland is going to have steady losses for a long time which will increase proportionally to temperature. The big uncertainty is the time-scale of Antarctic ice sheet decay. Its becoming more and more likely to occur - we just don't know when. Again better ice sheet models are needed to close the gap. The bottom-line is we just don't have the information to do much more than a rudimentary risk-assessment.

 

To me the policy statements at the end of the paper are almost an after thought and really don't belong in a technical paper. While I agree that the 2C target will not ensure a safe planet, the policy scenario outlined is unrealistic and not well developed. 350-ppm is just not going to happen.  We need to develop achievable emission goals, recognizing that it will take a long time to shift completely away from fossil fuels.  Mitigation and adaptation are going to be needed as well.

 

Finally, Hanson et. al. doesn't talk about regional impacts, but the implications for the east coast of the US are striking. Both sea-level rise and temperature contrast would be focused here due to the weakening gravitational attraction of the Antarctic ice sheet, slowing down of the Gulf Stream and cooling of the North Atlantic from Greenland melt.

[HailMan06]

What causes global temps to decline in the study? Latent heat of fusion? Decline of mixing due to colder, fresher water overlaid above warming, saltier water?

[AvantHiatus]

What causes global temps to decline in the study? Latent heat of fusion? Decline of mixing due to colder, fresher water overlaid above warming, saltier water?

Deep down I think Hansen makes significant mistakes in this paper when calculating the global surface temperature. He may be too reliant on paleo references. The Eemian did not have anywhere close to the GHG forcing of the 21st century. I think the amount of meltwater is key, at least 4m+ in a 30 year window is probably required to rapidly dampen global temperatures like observed in the Hansen climate models.

 

The only upside is that we could follow (50/50) a more moderate emissions path, unlike 5 years ago. This may actually work both to our advantage and disadvantage by slowing meltwater release and SLR but also preventing a Heinrich-event response on global temperatures.

 

What this implies is anyone's best guess. It probably speaks to a future even more unstable than Hansen's forecast. It would be like mixing a Pliocene or Miocene tropics with a Pleistocene North Atlantic.

 

At the end of the day. The core of the damage has already been inflicted and we would need to utilize a specific form of geoengineering or CDR that is beyond our technological capability (on the timeframe required) to prevent negative outcomes.

 

To illustrate the immense differences between the Eemian and Anthropocene. 

 

[chubbs]

Here is Hanson's blog post on the paper which summarizes the key points and provides some background.

 

http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2015/07/27/darn-sea-level-disaster-ahead-in-200-900-years-when/

[T. August]

The first sentence of the abstract is quite telling....."There is evidence of ice melt, sea level rise to +5–9 m, and extreme storms in the prior interglacial period that was less than 1 °C warmer than today."....so at 350ppm, (which is the arbitrary concentration almost universally accepted as being "safe" in the world of warmers) we were still above the temperature in which "evidence" was found to have extreme storms and large increases in sea level.  So is 350 really safe?  or should it be 300...or 250....or 100??  And at what level do extreme storms drop so dramatically that "we" can feel good about strapping developing worlds by limiting energy consumption via FF at this point?

 

As per usual with Hansen and his ilk, he selects evidence that supports his extreme views, dresses it up to make it almost appear as causative fact...throws in a bit of fear mongering after conditioning the reader, and voila, you have a certain percentage of the public (typically ones that have a sense of guilt for their existence) that imprints the information into their being and then disseminates that via social media, blogs, sympathetic media, etc.

 

The extreme views of climate change are nothing more than assumption of selected evidence, based on assumption of other selected evidence , based on more assumption...and just like in weather modeling, the more assumptions/approximations contained, the more extreme and varied the time integrated solutions become....the true Scientific Method be damned!!! 

[nflwxman]

What's interesting and getting lost about this paper is it's suggesting much of the extra radiation will actually go into melting the glacial sheets and will slow surface temperature rise as result.  The AMOC slowdown is probably a preview of such things if they were to come to pass.  Perhaps this is a suggestion that TCR and ECS is less than initially believed?  For all the wrong reasons of course.  This is some "Day after Tomorrow" stuff.  If this even comes true in a partial manner, it would provide a big change in the narrative that more CO2=warmer global temperatures from decade to decade.  Interesting that all melt scenarios in the Hansen et. al paper show cooling temperatures as time goes on.

 

[HailMan06]

What's interesting and getting lost about this paper is it's suggesting much of the extra radiation will actually go into melting the glacial sheets and will slow surface temperature rise as result. The AMOC slowdown is probably a preview of such things if they were to come to pass. Perhaps this is a suggestion that TCR and ECS is less than initially believed? For all the wrong reasons of course. This is some "Day after Tomorrow" stuff. If this even comes true in a partial manner, it would provide a big change in the narrative that more CO2=warmer global temperatures from decade to decade. Interesting that all melt scenarios in the Hansen et. al paper show cooling temperatures as time goes on.

That's what I was asking earlier ITT. Whether the cooldown was from latent heat of fusion or heated water being kept from the surface by lighter, fresher meltwater.

[nflwxman]

That's what I was asking earlier ITT. Whether the cooldown was from latent heat of fusion or heated water being kept from the surface by lighter, fresher meltwater.

According to the paper, both.  The heated water is replaced by cooler and fresher melt water, which has more of regional effect.  However, if you look at the graphics, you will notice it even suggests a non-regional impact.  This is due latent heat of fusion taking the extra heat of the atmosphere.  If you are melting that amount of ice in a short period of time, it's going to take a ton of energy.

[csnavywx]

Actually, I would expect most of the cooling to come from ocean circulation disruption. 1000km3 of meltwater from Greenland, for instance, takes about 10^12 Watts to heat from 0 to 10C, whereas the AMOC's heat transport is on the order of 10^15 Watt. Even a 10 or 20% weakening of the AMOC is a couple of orders of magnitude larger.

 

The warmer water is entrained at depth, where it can... perhaps ironically... come into contact with the base of ocean-exposed glaciers.

[donsutherland1]

What's interesting and getting lost about this paper is it's suggesting much of the extra radiation will actually go into melting the glacial sheets and will slow surface temperature rise as result.  The AMOC slowdown is probably a preview of such things if they were to come to pass.  Perhaps this is a suggestion that TCR and ECS is less than initially believed?  For all the wrong reasons of course.  This is some "Day after Tomorrow" stuff.  If this even comes true in a partial manner, it would provide a big change in the narrative that more CO2=warmer global temperatures from decade to decade.  Interesting that all melt scenarios in the Hansen et. al paper show cooling temperatures as time goes on.

 

It is a fascinating paper to be sure. There are some graphs on p.20159 of the paper/p.101 of the .pdf that show that the cooling is temporary, though, and that global temperatures rebound afterward.

[donsutherland1]

An interesting quote from Dr. Hansen's blog:

 

A startling conclusion of our paper is that effects of freshwater release onto the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic are already underway and 1-2 decades sooner in the real world than in the model (Fig. 2). Observed effects include sea surface cooling and sea ice increase in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica and cooling in the North Atlantic.

 

http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2015/07/27/darn-sea-level-disaster-ahead-in-200-900-years-when/

[csnavywx]

An interesting quote from Dr. Hansen's blog:

 

A startling conclusion of our paper is that effects of freshwater release onto the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic are already underway and 1-2 decades sooner in the real world than in the model (Fig. 2). Observed effects include sea surface cooling and sea ice increase in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica and cooling in the North Atlantic.

 

http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2015/07/27/darn-sea-level-disaster-ahead-in-200-900-years-when/

An interesting citation in the paper: Rye et al 2014

 

The paper notes this is probably a lower end estimate.

 

Rye et al. (2014) note that these values constitute a lower bound for the actual excess discharge above a “steady salinity” rate, because numerous in situ data, discussed below, indicate that freshening began earlier than 1992.

 

It does seem to be consistent with the relatively recent discoveries of a significant quantity of warm CDW intruding underneath the shelves in the major marine-ice sheet basins (we can probably add Totten to the list this year).

 

There's also another recent paper I read that suggested that about 1/3 of the westerly wind increase around Antarctica was actually due to GHGs and the other 2/3 to ozone depletion. This would have some important implications in maintaining the strength of westerly wind stress in the Southern Ocean as ozone recovers, thus keeping warm CDW intruding across the continental shelf and underneath the ice shelves. They also stated that increasing GHGs beyond the 2040-2050 timeframe would result in a significant enough offset to ozone increases such that wind speeds would begin to increase again after that timeframe. I'll find it again and link it when I can.

[blizzard1024]

It amazes me that we now think that GHGs contribute to the strength of the westerlies. Good god! Really??

Many of you know my thoughts and I am of the scientific opinion which is shared by many PHD scientists in

atmospheric science that way too much emphasis is given to a small trace gas CO2 and its affect on

our climate system.

 

The climate and Earth-atmospheric system is so complex and beautiful and we are wasting all this

energy on a minor component of the climate system.  We assume feedbacks are mostly significantly positive

and the Earth is so fragile that now mankind's emissons of CO2 (plant food) is dominating our weather and climate patterns.

The Earth's climate has been MUCH warmer and MUCH colder than today's climate in the last 20,000 years and

especially in the last several million years. There is no way a small trace gas is the thermostat when clouds, water vapor,

the sun, cryosphere, ocean currents, tropical convection, land cover and so on an so forth make up this mix of an

incredibly complex system that has been stable enough to produce life on Earth. 

 

This is a sad time for climate science and atmospheric science research in general. Everyone

is studying CO2 and GHGs to the tune of billions of dollars and we can't predict seasons or even multi-year changes

in climate which would be soooo beneficial. Furthermore research on storms for prediction suffers too which

has tremendous impact. This whole charade will come crashing down in the next few decades BUT we do

need to be able to adjust to a change in climate either warmer or colder so some of the adaptation proposals

could have merit.

​

Ok. I am done with my rant. Go ahead and get back to your usual "its worse than we thought" etc stuff which is

all trumped up to get more research money and is favorable in the current political realm. I am glad I don't do this for

a living!!!!

[AvantHiatus]

It amazes me that we now think that GHGs contribute to the strength of the westerlies. Good god! Really??

Many of you know my thoughts and I am of the scientific opinion which is shared by many PHD scientists in

atmospheric science that way too much emphasis is given to a small trace gas CO2 and its affect on

our climate system.

 

The climate and Earth-atmospheric system is so complex and beautiful and we are wasting all this

energy on a minor component of the climate system.  We assume feedbacks are mostly significantly positive

and the Earth is so fragile that now mankind's emissons of CO2 (plant food) is dominating our weather and climate patterns.

The Earth's climate has been MUCH warmer and MUCH colder than today's climate in the last 20,000 years and

especially in the last several million years. There is no way a small trace gas is the thermostat when clouds, water vapor,

the sun, cryosphere, ocean currents, tropical convection, land cover and so on an so forth make up this mix of an

incredibly complex system that has been stable enough to produce life on Earth. 

 

This is a sad time for climate science and atmospheric science research in general. Everyone

is studying CO2 and GHGs to the tune of billions of dollars and we can't predict seasons or even multi-year changes

in climate which would be soooo beneficial. Furthermore research on storms for prediction suffers too which

has tremendous impact. This whole charade will come crashing down in the next few decades BUT we do

need to be able to adjust to a change in climate either warmer or colder so some of the adaptation proposals

could have merit.

​

Ok. I am done with my rant. Go ahead and get back to your usual "its worse than we thought" etc stuff which is

all trumped up to get more research money and is favorable in the current political realm. I am glad I don't do this for

a living!!!!

Agreed, in the short-term. It's largely an irrelevant concern because of the rate of current and past CO2 emissions. Major GHG inertia from 2000s era will be hitting us in the 2020's.

[blizzard1024]

Agreed, in the short-term. It's largely an irrelevant concern because of the rate of current and past CO2 emissions. Major GHG inertia from 2000s era will be hitting us in the 2020's.

 

You really think that CO2 levels in the low to mid 400s ppm vs 280-300 ppm is going to make that much difference?? The TOA forcing maybe is around 2W/m2 but total outflow of IR at the top of the atmosphere is about 240 w/m2 to balance in the incoming solar radiation of about 1366 w/m2 times .7 (1- albedo of 30%) divided by 4 for geometric factors....solar projection is on a circle, Earth is a sphere.

This equals about 240 w/m2. Outgoing TOA = 240 w/m2... adding 1% to this system will cause all these problems?? Really. I don't buy the climate models over exaggeration of the positive feedbacks. They are failing.  1%!!!!

[nflwxman]

Plainly, science disagrees with you Blizzard.

[blizzard1024]

Climate science is a mixture of politics, tribalism, cult-like religion, extreme environmentalism and a gross simplification of how the atmosphere works.  It is not a rigorous science anyway and most of the objectivity is gone. The state of learning about our climate system will be at a stand-still until this "science" that you say fades away. I am glad to be on the "other side" because we will be right in the long run. I hope to live another 30-40 years to see it...god willing and I sure hope the politicians don't limit our energy supply and make people suffer. Less energy = poor quality of life for societies and ironically a destruction of the environment...just look at Haiti on google earthi!!! They have virtually NO TREES left because they have no reliable supply of energy.  The burning of oil, coal and natural gas is the only way to sustain mankind. Solar energy seemed promising but I have read recently that to supply the world's growing energy needs, even if panels hit 55% efficiency the theoretical limit, it would take hundreds of years to manufacture the needed panels. Renewables will never be a reliable source and they are destructive to the environment too...wind farms = dead birds and bats. Environmentalists don't care about this? Ugh. what a ridiculous sham this whole mess is.    

[donsutherland1]

Climate science is a mixture of politics, tribalism, cult-like religion, extreme environmentalism and a gross simplification of how the atmosphere works.  It is not a rigorous science anyway and most of the objectivity is gone. The state of learning about our climate system will be at a stand-still until this "science" that you say fades away. I am glad to be on the "other side" because we will be right in the long run. I hope to live another 30-40 years to see it...god willing and I sure hope the politicians don't limit our energy supply and make people suffer. Less energy = poor quality of life for societies and ironically a destruction of the environment...just look at Haiti on google earthi!!! They have virtually NO TREES left because they have no reliable supply of energy.  The burning of oil, coal and natural gas is the only way to sustain mankind. Solar energy seemed promising but I have read recently that to supply the world's growing energy needs, even if panels hit 55% efficiency the theoretical limit, it would take hundreds of years to manufacture the needed panels. Renewables will never be a reliable source and they are destructive to the environment too...wind farms = dead birds and bats. Environmentalists don't care about this? Ugh. what a ridiculous sham this whole mess is.    

I strongly disagree. Climate scientists systematically examine the climate and changes in the climate in a rigorous fashion built on the scientific method. It is a science as much as biology,chemistry, physics, etc. are. That some of its major findings raise profound challenges to the status quo does not invalidate it. That some papers may contain errors or be rendered obsolete by future papers is par for the course when it comes to the advance of scientific knowledge.

[ORH_wxman]

Climate science is a mixture of politics, tribalism, cult-like religion, extreme environmentalism and a gross simplification of how the atmosphere works.  It is not a rigorous science anyway and most of the objectivity is gone. The state of learning about our climate system will be at a stand-still until this "science" that you say fades away. I am glad to be on the "other side" because we will be right in the long run. I hope to live another 30-40 years to see it...god willing and I sure hope the politicians don't limit our energy supply and make people suffer. Less energy = poor quality of life for societies and ironically a destruction of the environment...just look at Haiti on google earthi!!! They have virtually NO TREES left because they have no reliable supply of energy.  The burning of oil, coal and natural gas is the only way to sustain mankind. Solar energy seemed promising but I have read recently that to supply the world's growing energy needs, even if panels hit 55% efficiency the theoretical limit, it would take hundreds of years to manufacture the needed panels. Renewables will never be a reliable source and they are destructive to the environment too...wind farms = dead birds and bats. Environmentalists don't care about this? Ugh. what a ridiculous sham this whole mess is.    

 

This is far-fetched and completely at odds with what even skeptical scientists would say about climate change. The issue is no doubt politicized much more than other sciences, so you have to be careful where you get your information as much of it can be written through a biased lens....but overall the body of literature still works like most any other science. The meat is in the literature.

 

If you avoid the media and politics, the science can be quite vigorous and very sound.

[blizzard1024]

Unfortunately the politics are now taking over and only the proposals that actually would make a difference (assuming CO2 is our climate thermostat) would deeply hurt our world's economy. That scares me since the science is far from settled. CO2 increases may lead to some warming but we don't know the signs of the feedbacks with  any certainty. Climate models are models not the climate system.  How much warming or how much of an effect is the question but the alarmists are getting to the politicians and this is fearful for our future world economy and environment. just my opinion. 

[Stebo]

Unfortunately the politics are now taking over and only the proposals that actually would make a difference (assuming CO2 is our climate thermostat) would deeply hurt our world's economy. That scares me since the science is far from settled. CO2 increases may lead to some warming but we don't know the signs of the feedbacks with  any certainty. Climate models are models not the climate system.  How much warming or how much of an effect is the question but the alarmists are getting to the politicians and this is fearful for our future world economy and environment. just my opinion. 

Your opinion flies in the face of science. Sitting back and doing nothing is the worst thing this country could do.