« UQM Introduces New 150 kW Drive System | Main | New US Organization to Promote Biofuel Use »
Paper: Earth in Imminent Peril of Initiation of Devastating Sea-Level Rise
19 June 2007
The Earth’s climate is in “imminent peril” of the initiation of dynamical and thermodynamical processes on the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets that will result in a situation out of humanity’s control, such that devastating sea-level rise will inevitably occur, according to a open-access paper by six leading US scientists published in the peer-reviewed journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A.
Only intense simultaneous efforts to slow CO2 emissions and to reduce non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions and other forcings can keep climate within or near the range of the past million years, according to authors James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha, and Gary Russell of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute; David W. Lea from the University of California, Santa Barbara; and Mark Siddall of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University.
Earth’s climate is remarkably sensitive to forcings, i.e. imposed changes of the planet’s energy balance. Both fast and slow feedbacks turn out to be predominately positive. As a result, our climate has the potential for large rapid fluctuations. Indeed, the Earth, and the creatures struggling to exist on the planet, have been repeatedly whipsawed between climate states. No doubt this rough ride has driven progression of life via changing stresses, extinctions and species evolution. But civilization developed, and constructed extensive infrastructure, during a period of unusual climate stability, the Holocene, now almost 12,000 years in duration. That period is about to end.
One critical feedback mechanism is this process has been the “albedo flip” property of ice and water.
Climate forcing of this century under BAU [business as usual] would dwarf natural forcings of the past million years, indeed it would probably exceed climate forcing of the middle Pliocene, when the planet was not more than 2–3°C warmer and sea level 25 ±10 m higher. The climate sensitivities we have inferred from palaeoclimate data ensure that a BAU GHG emission scenario would produce global warming of several degrees Celsius this century, with amplification at high latitudes. Such warming would assuredly activate the albedo-flip trigger mechanism over large portions of these ice sheets. In combination with warming of the nearby ocean and atmosphere, the increased surface melt would bring into play multiple positive feedbacks leading to eventual nonlinear ice sheet disintegration... An ice sheet response time of centuries seems probable, and we cannot rule out large changes on decadal time-scales once wide-scale surface melt is underway. With GHGs continuing to increase, the planetary energy imbalance provides ample energy to melt ice corresponding to several metres of sea level per century.
The authors explicitly disagree with the conclusions of the IPCC, which forsees little or no contribution to 21st century sea-level rise from Greenland and Antarctica. The paper’s authors argue that the IPCC analysis does not account well for the nonlinear physics of wet ice sheet disintegration, ice streams and eroding ice shelves, and point out that the IPCC conclusions are not consistent with the palaeoclimate evidence.
In the absence of realistic representations of the physics of ice streams and ice quakes in existing ice sheet models, the authors assert, it is better to rely on historical data.
That history reveals large changes of sea level on century and shorter timescales...We infer that it would be not only dangerous, but also foolhardy to follow a BAU path for future GHG emissions.
Although CO2 is the largest human-made forcing, reducing the non-CO2 forcings are also important—especially given the difficulty in slowing the growth rate in CO2 emissions and stabilizing the atmospheric concentration.
The authors argue that it would better not to package all the climate forcings together into an interchangeable bundle for mitigation strategies.
Sources of different gases are usually independent and greater progress is likely from complementary focused programmes. However, in regulations of a specific activity or industry, the rules should be based on information about the effect of the activity on all climate forcings.
Since it seems likely that readily available oil and gas reservoirs will be fully exploited, it will be necessary to phase out coal use—except where carbon capture and sequestration is used—and to put the same constraint on the development of unconventional fossil fuels (oil sands, shale, CTL, etc.), they state.
In practice, achievement of these goals surely requires a price (tax) on CO2 emissions sufficient to discourage extraction of remote oil and gas resources as well as unconventional fossil fuels. Furthermore, the time required to develop fossil-free energy sources implies a need to stretch supplies of conventional oil and gas. In turn, this implies a need for near-term emphasis on energy efficiency.
We conclude that a feasible strategy for planetary rescue almost surely requires a means of extracting GHGs from the air. Development of CO2 capture at power plants, with below-ground CO2 sequestration, may be a critical element. Injection of the CO2 well beneath the ocean floor assures its stability. If the power plant fuel is derived from biomass, such as cellulosic fibres grown without excessive fertilization that produces N2O or other offsetting GHG emissions, it will provide continuing drawdown of atmospheric CO2.
Resources:
“Climate change and trace gases”; James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha, Gary Russell, David W. Lea, Mark Siddall; Phil. Trans. R. Soc., Volume 365, Number 1856 / July 15, 2007 DOI 10.1098/rsta.2007.2052
“The Earth today stands in imminent peril” (The Independent)
June 19, 2007 in Climate Change | Permalink | Comments (54) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/19421486
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Paper: Earth in Imminent Peril of Initiation of Devastating Sea-Level Rise:
Comments
I read an article, recently, in which it stated air pollution darkened the ice over the Arctic and thus was a major contributor of the shrinking (melting) ice cap. Much of the soot is from Asia (coal fired power and steel plants, among others).
Posted by: allen_xl_z | Jun 19, 2007 10:08:07 AM
allen:
I read the same article in Science Daily. Apparently the darkening of the ice it at least as influential as CO2. So one way to put the brakes on would be to restrict particulate emissions as much as possible.
Posted by: Cervus | Jun 19, 2007 10:12:33 AM
"Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A." are you kidding me? We're supposed to take this seriously? Peer reviewed by philosophers, not scientists.
Posted by: Alan a | Jun 19, 2007 10:17:28 AM
I guess that it is better to shut down industrial civilization, than it is to move to higher ground.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz | Jun 19, 2007 10:20:14 AM
As alarmist as Hansen is, I can't recall him ever advocating a return to preindustrial civilization. There are some potential carbon-negative technologies out there (namely, Biochar/agrichar in agriculture) that would have substantial benefits in other areas. Agrichar sequesters carbon in the soil while also helping it retain water and nutrients, and the process for creating it also makes a bio-oil suitable for heating and chemical applications.
Posted by: Cervus | Jun 19, 2007 10:23:33 AM
Alan: Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A is the oldest English-language scientific journal in publication. They started publishing it in 1665, when science was known as "natural philosophy," hence the name. Scientists such as Isaac Newton, Benjamin Franklin, and Charles Darwin have written for that journal.
Posted by: Joel | Jun 19, 2007 10:33:49 AM
A few kernels of truth is buried in all the goo.
The two kernels of truth are:
1) Ice melting is not something that is going to happen by next Tuesday afternoon; they say centuries. Which is the first honesty I haver seen on that subject. The centuries would be the right measuring stick, but the measure is not a couple of centuries more like a couple millenia or 20-50 centuries. so you need not sell your oceanfront lot.
The second kernel of truth is that fooling around with the Albedo is dangerous. That is why I keep saying Solar Energy is damn dangerous, and polluting.
Solar Energy is NOT POLLUTION free, and these global warmig alarmists like Mr Hansen, now agree.
Solar collectors are darker than the darkest black, as they absorb and convert and move energy never coming into thermal equilibrium and never re-radiating as a perfect black body. Large scale use would alter the Albedo, making the globe warmer.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Jun 19, 2007 10:34:21 AM
Alan,
Royal Society corresponds to National Academy of Science. Philosophy means also science in general, due to the historical position of philosophy in science. PhD = Doctor of Philosophy. The journal has been published since 1665.
"Each issue of Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A is devoted to a specific area of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences. This area will define a research frontier that is advancing rapidly, often bridging traditional disciplines. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A is essential reading for mathematicians, physicists, engineers and other physical scientists."
The article itself should be taken seriously. At least their claims need to be investigated by larger scientific community - and fast.
Posted by: jk | Jun 19, 2007 10:41:28 AM
The key here is that Hansen, et al, are expecting far more heating than even the IPCC.
"we have inferred from palaeoclimate data ensure that a BAU GHG emission scenario would produce global warming of SEVERAL DEGREES Celsius this century, with amplification at high latitudes."
Well someone is right! The last big IPCC report said sea level would go up roughly a meter a century. Quite tolerable depending on how long it persists. And agreeing with measurement.
Here they are arguing that soot and particles from the industrialized northern hemisphere are having a real effect in the Artic. Recent studies agree.
That makes sense, standard GHG models indicate both poles should warm equally. But they have not been so obliging.
Also note the sly BAU acronym - Business As Usual. No one expects nothing will be done. The questions are the classic set.
who, what, when, where, how?
Posted by: K | Jun 19, 2007 10:58:01 AM
"We conclude that a feasible strategy for planetary rescue almost surely requires a means of extracting GHGs from the air."
Since the greatest volume of GHG is water vapor - perhaps a giant vacuum to suck up the clouds would be a good step.
Posted by: gr | Jun 19, 2007 11:20:57 AM
Stan,
Energy in the form of solar rays of amount X falls on a solar panel. Since it is black, let's assume that 95% of that amount is actually absorbed by the panel (this is very high), then 15% of the absorbed amount is converted to electricity (0,15*0,95*X = 0.14*X) and shipped off through the power cord. X*0,85*0.95 = 0.81*X is converted to heat that will be radiated off. This will probably create a local heat island. But solar panels would have to cover a very large land area before there would be any measurable effect on the earths albedo. I don't understand your panic about solar panels being darker than a perfect black body. That's physically impossible. A perfect black body is a theoretical physical concept, not something that actually exists.
Posted by: Petroleo | Jun 19, 2007 11:25:40 AM
Mr Hansen is a fine scientist, somewhat blinded by his advocacy position. I would delighted to spend time arguing the scientific merits of the theses in question. I think he is wrong, but that he is an honest critic.
At least he is an honest alarmist, not like some phony politicians who don't really give a damn except if it will get them into power.
Mr. Hansen posits that we will dump exponentially increasing amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere for centuries. We won't, as even the "Business as Usual" is patently not true. All the measures of GHGs and rates of change are going down or stabilizing, not increasing exponentially.
I argue that the changing solar constant is responsible for an unevaluated but substantial portion of the warming observed that everyone including the grudging acceptance of the IPCC alarmists now concede. Furthermore the Sun is now cooling, and is now trending downward ever since 2003.
I said we won't and we can't follow BAU.
"We Can't", Since there is some questions of limited availability, and I am not speaking for the "Peakist" frauds. The real cost of extraction and processing is increasing even without the rising artificial extortions by politicians dignifying their stealing by calling it taxes or saving their profits for them to spend in behalf of however they think the "people's oil" profits should be spent, by them. Fossil energy consumption cna't rsie forver and it isn't doing so now.
"We Won't", Price substitution is forcing changes even now, and it will be both cheaper and better to move away from wasting fossil hydrocarbons burning them. When there is adequate technology for Oil's big using industry, ground transport, its demand will collapse. Does any reader of these pages think that non fossil sources of energy for LDVs is not coming? That one use si 80% of oil demand and anothe r12% doesn't burn it but makes medicienes and chemicals from it. The residual is used for space heating, which can be and is being replaced.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Jun 19, 2007 11:36:36 AM
Stan,
You say that Hansen is an honest critic and imply he is unlike some politicians. Here you have missed the point. Hansen is gunning for higher office. Not elected, but appointed. He has made the switch to political rather than scientific operative. He is *exactly* like some politicians because he is a politician. If the next president is a democrat in the US he will be nominated.
You are correct that he has the background that some scientifically phony politicians lack. But he is still blinded by both ambition and advocacy. Where is the science in that?
Posted by: Harvey | Jun 19, 2007 11:49:43 AM
Well, I guess your credibility Harvey is so much more impressive...
Posted by: marcus | Jun 19, 2007 12:00:21 PM
stan ,
What do you think red roof tiles do for us , they just suck so
much heat and give no energy in return !
Posted by: andrichrose | Jun 19, 2007 12:26:20 PM
Marcus,
Harvey's credibility is not the issue. Just because he raises a valid point, to question the ambitions of those who published this report, should not make him the target.
Fickle alarmists come and go; in the 70's there was widsepread concern that we were accelerating the next ice age. Any one who questioned that theory was marginalized. Now that the man-made global warming is in vogue anyone who does not suscribe to this theory is ridiculed.
If you gave Al Gore's alarmist "Inconvenient Truth" message a chance, why not, in the name of good science, take a look at the other side of the coin?
Watch Martin Durkin's documentary: "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
From PrisonPlanet:
"This documentary highlights how elements of the scientific community exploit global warming hysteria in order to receive fast-track funding by simply tagging on a global warming aspect to their area of study. Scientists who attempt to obtain grants for research that could contradict the man-made explanation are shunned by the political establishment and further villified as akin to Holocaust deniers by the radical environmental left and elements of the media.
The hypocrisy of the environmental left in framing the global warming issue as big business against the people and their romanticisation of poverty was supremely exposed in making the case that the man-made global warming bandwagon has devastated Africa's development and is directly contributing to third world famine, illness and disease."
Posted by: DieselHybrid | Jun 19, 2007 12:32:25 PM
"Such warming would assuredly activate the albedo-flip trigger mechanism over large portions of these ice sheets. In combination with warming of the nearby ocean and atmosphere, the increased surface melt would bring into play multiple positive feedbacks leading to eventual nonlinear ice sheet disintegration... An ice sheet response time of centuries seems probable, and we cannot rule out large changes on decadal time-scales once wide-scale surface melt is underway. With GHGs continuing to increase, the planetary energy imbalance provides ample energy to melt ice corresponding to several metres of sea level per century."
While Stan may take comfort in such an assessment, many people would view these prospects as very serious. While it is only artificial alarmists that talk about humans going the way of the dinosaur due to warming, several meters of sea level per century is something that would have HUGE societal and economic impact.
"we cannot rule out large changes on decadal time scales"
Stan... do you know of some credible analysis that rules this out or do you merely believe it is less likely rather than more likely?
Posted by: rhapsodyinglue | Jun 19, 2007 12:33:25 PM
On a more scientific note, it is helpful to read three papers on Antarctic cooling and warming. These three studies published by credible scientists in "Science" and "Nature" magazines and commented upon here by the American Geological Institute's "GeoTimes" publication, show the West Antarctic ice sheet cooling and thickening in places and melting in other places.
I would add that Meg Rudolph the writer for "GeoTimes" makes an uncommonly presumptive statement:
"First and foremost, it is important to note that all of the articles and the scientists involved agree on one thing: 'We’re not saying anything close to ‘the Earth’s climate is not warming,’” as an animated Peter Doran of the University of Illinois at Chicago says. '"
Ms. Rudolph erroneously attributes a single scientist's opinion to that of the other scientists and their papers' conclusions. This is incorrect and indicative of the fast and loose editorial style employed by GW writers and editors. In this case Mr. Doran's opinion is his own and not that of the other scientists who might heartily disagree.
Empirically it seems that solar absorbent particulate matter might be a cause for some melting - yet there is clear evidence of ambient cooling in other Antarctic areas. One thing seems clear - the role of solar heating in the GW debate has been inordinately downplayed - to the detriment of good science we think.
http://www.geotimes.org/mar02/NN_antarctica.html
Posted by: gr | Jun 19, 2007 12:49:14 PM
DiesalHybrid, the 1970s ice age thing, the swindle of a Swindle etc etc, all these dumb points have been dealt with to death. I am not going to bother. The bottom line is the scientific peer review process. This is what separates the crap you've listed from the kind of information that people should be taking seriously. If you want to believe tabloids over science go ahead but don't expect the rest of us to do the same.
Posted by: marcus | Jun 19, 2007 1:02:59 PM
Diesel Hybrid:
It does not make any sense to bring up the Global Warming Swindle documentary because it has been discredited by many reputable scientists. The scientists it uses in the documentary have either distanced themselves from the video due to misrepresentation of their data, are quoted out of context, or work for groups that are sponsored by the auto or oil industry.
Go ahead and not believe in Global Warming. That is your choice. Does that mean it is OK to drive gas guzzling cars at high fuel prices when more fuel efficient vehicles are available?
Does that mean that we should allow pollution levels to increase as more cars are added making it harder for people to breath and get lung illnesses?
The global marketplace is already deciding that it is important to listen to Global Warming threats.
Unfortunately Ethanol is a false solution and is motivated by political goals, in that it provides less miles per gallon than gas, and cannot supply the United States demand for fuel at E85 levels and just barely at E15 levels. Renewable energy sources that don't consume so much fresh water for irrigation will be more likely winners.
Posted by: JROJAI | Jun 19, 2007 1:03:09 PM
Nature has a way of averaging things out. Science calls this, regression towards the mean. The reason we are not all swimming in a bacterial soup is that bacteria is killed off by it's own waste products.
Man is a form of earth bacteria and we are in the process of reducing our own excessive population.
It's a good thing (?)
As my Uncle said in the February 1974 National Geographic, "You know, I realized very early that in nature all things are interrelated. Animals, trees, birds, plants, the very pollen blowing through the air - they all help build what I call the 'web of the wilderness.' All that is, except modern man. Man is a very poor spider!"
Posted by: Lucas | Jun 19, 2007 1:09:33 PM
I was first aware of the term 'albedo' about the mid-70s when papers were published in Science concerning measurements in the Canadian Arctic. Albedo was decreasing but to my memory little was discussed as to why. Soot, and particulate aerosols obviously have big effects.
Posted by: JohnB | Jun 19, 2007 2:22:24 PM
Wow- this is polarizing! What fun!
Marcus, I suppose all views opposed to your own are "dumb." It must be nice to have a monopoly on the truth.
Notice I never said that I did not believe in global warming- as JROJAI states. I simply suggested that we look at the GW issue from more than one side. Evidence points toward GW- but is it primarily a man-made phenomena? Good science demands we explore all possible causal factors.
Other than the infantile rush of making oneself feel better at the expense of others, why vilify those who present competing theories- as "The Great GW Swindle" (among others) proposes?
And, as can be surmised from my posts, I am vehemently opposed to waste in any form: be it from gas-guzzling SUVs, energy-intensive housing, transportation, high consumption lifestyles, frivolous government pork, unbridled military expenditures, the list goes on and on.
I suppose the message here is: put on a flame suit if you don't subscribe to alarmist theatrics- like those presented by the "academentia" who published this paper.
Hansen knows that sensationalism + controversy sells, as evidenced by the stardom of Howard Stern, Salman Rushdie, Al Gore, etc. Hansen may very well be trying to make a name for himself for further career progression.
Posted by: DieselHybrid | Jun 19, 2007 4:12:13 PM
It is ever so curious how given that GW may not be factually worthy of alarmist threats - some find it difficult to accept that climate change, population growth, industrialization and short sighted resource exploitation - is plenty of reason to bring about behavior modification.
Prudent policy and decision-making comes not from wringing hands and ganshing of teeth but from careful review of long term benefits, short term costs and present actions. Even if 100 percent of climate change was proven to be due to solar activity we still need to transition to clean, renewable fuels and energy resources.
Disaster headlines sell papers, TV news shows and certain agendas - they rarely make good science. The peer reviewed papers earlier referenced point not to disaster but to moderate temperature change in the bellwether Antarctica.
I believe we can bring about the changes necessary to promote a healthy environment without histrionics or the risk of getting caught fabricating inconvenience. In the new world engaging one's audience brings far better results than terrifying them.
Posted by: gr | Jun 19, 2007 5:26:02 PM
DiesalHybrid, trying to reference the "Swindle" film as some kind of authority on the topic is - ok I'll tone it down - "naive" to say the least. Reference me some scientific articles backing a contrarian point of view and I will show no disrespect what so ever. In fact I will read them keenly with hope that they are accurate and true. Its not the diverging point of view that is the problem, it is the lack of understanding of the difference between published science vs dodgy docos/web sites/etc that pisses me off.
On what basis have you got to question James Hansen's research? Because there are alarming quotes from it? What would you expect from any reasonable person who's research leads them to the conclusions listed above? His paper is published in a reputable journal after peer review. If you can't fault it on scientific grounds and yet try and throw dirt on it then you deserve some dirt thrown back at you.
Posted by: marcus | Jun 19, 2007 6:12:27 PM
Stan wrote:
Solar collectors are darker than the darkest black, as they absorb and convert and move energy never coming into thermal equilibrium and never re-radiating as a perfect black body. Large scale use would alter the Albedo, making the globe warmer.
------------------------
Solar collectors are not darker then the darkest black. They are not even marginally darker then asphalt roads and we have millions of miles of them. Solar collectors won't be a problem.
Posted by: hampden wireless | Jun 19, 2007 7:20:23 PM
"The authors explicitly disagree with the conclusions of the IPCC, which forsees little or no contribution to 21st century sea-level rise from Greenland and Antarctica" This is not true. The IPCC excludes the effects of ice dynamics beyond a constant extrapolation of past changes, because ice dynamics are not sufficiently well understood to make firm quantitative predictions. The point of Hansen et al. is that enough is known to view the historical worst case as a serious possibility.
Posted by: Molnar | Jun 19, 2007 7:53:43 PM
Marcus:
Dr. Hansen represents a single scientist among thousands of climate researchers. And frankly, because he does use catastrophic rhetoric in his papers his research must withstand closer scrutiny than others. If the IPCC really does represent the consensus view, let them review this paper and further vet Dr. Hansen's conclusions. Is that okay?
I'm not a scientist, but I am not an unintelligent person. If you don't talk down to me and respond honestly and without condescension to my questions I am more likely to listen to you. In convincing skeptics, this is very important--so don't just spit in their faces. I stayed a skeptic for months because of just this problem.
Posted by: Cervus | Jun 19, 2007 9:18:33 PM
Satellite measured sea ice extend in South Hemisphere does not show shrinking for period 1979-2007:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
Good summary on the subject of ice melting with graphs and numbers is here:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/cool/cool13.htm
The picture is far from catastrophic.
There are about dozen articles of Hansen as lead author assessing COOLING effect of antropogenic particles on climate. Official version of IPCC and Hansen is that increased emissions of particles and sulfur components (aerosols) after 1950 lead to cooling of the global climate during 1950-1970s. Influence of particles on sea ice and polar glaciers is non-detectable, and for very simple reason: solar insolation in these regions is very small (half year no sunlight at all), and main factor of sea ice melting is warmer water entering polar regions, warmer wind being the second. The only well-documented warming effect of particles is on snow cover: because of this snow cover in Europe melts couple of days earlier in spring then it did in 19 century.
There are dozens of articles assessing possibility of catastrophic (as” fast” as in 5 centuries) melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice. All of them indicate that due to unique conditions of landscape (bowl in Greenland, ocean shelf in Antarctica) catastrophic disintegration of ice in Greenland and Antarctica is not possible. The worst case scenario is slow – in order of thousand years – melting, if climate will continue to warm, even in run-away mode.
Current article is pure propagandist speculation, and nobody really consider Hansen as scientist anymore, just fraudulent politician.
Posted by: Andrey | Jun 19, 2007 10:16:31 PM
e.g. Contradiction for contradiction's sake:
"Global warming in the twenty first century: an alternative scenario[7] in which he presents a more optimistic way of dealing with global warming focusing on non-CO2 gases and black carbon in the short run, giving more time to make reductions in fossil fuel emissions. He notes that warming observed to date is largely due to non-CO2 gases. This is because CO2 warming is offset by climate-cooling aerosols emitted with fossil fuel burning and because non-CO2 gases, taken together, are responsible for roughly 50% of greenhouse gas warming." from the Wikipedia bio
[7]"Global Warming in the Twenty-First Century: an alternative scenario" by Dr. James E. Hanson 2000. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 97: 9875-9880.
Posted by: gr | Jun 20, 2007 12:20:02 AM
The problem is that the IPCC process takes six years, and the cutoff for consideration for the latest one was 2005. Hansen has repeatedly called for the National Academies of Science to specifically examine the possibility of the dynamic breakup of Greenland or West Antarctica. The gravity measuring GRACE satellite has shown conclusively that both are losing ice at a rate that wasn't previously considered plausible.
Sea level rise is a matter of history. Hansen's "speculation" is based on paleo climate. As surely as the ice melted in the past during periods of unusual warmth, so will it melt again.
This latest paper restates the "alternative scenario." It does not contradict it. (and contrary to the Wiki article, aerosols offset all warming, be it from CO2, other greenhouse gases, or solar variations)
Posted by: cce | Jun 20, 2007 1:53:24 AM
hampden wireless:
Great point, the amount of black asphalt that we have covered the surface of the earth with is probably much more of an issue than solar panels could be.
I would like to see a study on the amount of heat added due to the black asphalt roofing products, roads, parking lots, etc. versus GHG...I'll bet it's not insignificant.
Posted by: Kevin | Jun 20, 2007 5:46:37 AM
As CCE points out, the IPCC can be rather conservative. The lower bound for its range of sea level rise (18 cm by 2100) is well less than that based on current rates of rise (0.3cm per year so ~30cm by 2100) observed by satellite altimetry. The IPCC ice models also assumes thermal diffusion when recent observations show surface waters following and growing fissures through the ice sheet.
Let's ignoring future GHG emissions and lag heating due to the current levels and look back at the last time temperatures were as high as today. In the Eemian interglacial (125,000 years ago) sea levels were 4-6m higher than at present. In terms of sea level rise, we are 'dead man walking'. London, Tokyo, New York, Venice, DC, etc. are already under water, they just haven't realised it yet....
Posted by: Thomas Lankester | Jun 20, 2007 6:11:00 AM
Perhaps it's prudent as in all scientific observation to examine more than a single source of data. The GRACE gravitational measurements appear to observe the surface areas beneath the ice sheets rather than the ice itself. Thus, human in-situ observation of polar regions remains a significant, if contradictory source of climate data.
Posted by: gr | Jun 20, 2007 8:29:08 AM
Andrey, can you give references for the influence of Greenland's topology on potential sea level rise?
Regarding aerosols, their role in cooling has not been altered in this paper so I don't understand your point.
As for sedimentation contributing to line stability in Antarctica, this only stabilizes the ice in response to sea level rises. This does not discount rapid melting due to temperatures rises.
Also, any references/quotes on why Hansen is somehow suddenly not considered a serious scientist and instead a politician (by other climate scientists of course)?
Obviously his co-authors did not share your authoritative opinions but I guess they are also just "fraudulent politicians" according to your view?
Talk about shooting the messenger.
Posted by: marcus | Jun 20, 2007 8:53:50 AM
Cervus etc it was a "marcus" impersonator who wrote the post before my post addressing Andrey. I hope you can tell the difference.
Posted by: marcus | Jun 20, 2007 8:56:54 AM
Marcus:
Perhaps GCC should institute registration for comments. Impersonators are undermining things here and doing their best to provoke flame wars.
Posted by: Cervus | Jun 20, 2007 9:11:22 AM
- Increasing sea ice extent is not inconsistent with decreasing total ice volume; it can easily be caused by increased rate of outflow.
- Sea level rise does not require the relatively slow process of *melting* polar ice. It would be enough to float ice which is now grounded. Once the ice sheets start to slide off Antarctica and Greenland they can be in the sea in a matter of years. The fossil record shows this has happened before with weaker forcings than are now being applied.
- It's idiotic to imagine that abandoning all of our coastal cities and resettling a billion refugees will be a picnic.
- No sane person is talking about giving up industrial civilization. We just have to start using higher technologies for energy production, such as nuclear, wind, and Solar (ultimately space-based). Burning stuff is for cavemen.
Posted by: richard schumacher | Jun 20, 2007 9:16:55 AM
I agree Cervus.
Posted by: marcus | Jun 20, 2007 9:32:35 AM
Cervus, I've emailed Mike and passed on your suggestion.
Posted by: marcus | Jun 20, 2007 9:39:17 AM
Marcus (the real one):
Greenland “bowl” topography:
http://membrane.com/sidd/greenland.html
suggests that central (two miles thick) ice will not slide into ocean. As for net Greenland ice mass, most current researches adjusted it to relatively small ice loss, if any. Net balance of Antarctic ice is slightly positive, which is not surprising considering slight cooling trend of Antarctic region (and stable temperature of South Hemisphere) as measured by satellites over last 28 years. Satellite measurements are the only reliable means to measure temperature over these regions. Ice does flow from central regions of Greenland and Antarctica to the ocean, but this is what ice does, this is the mechanism which limits ice grows up to the stratosphere. Most of melted ice in central regions solidifies as fast as it is melting, and huge snowfall, especially at winter, covers deposited particles with fresh white stuff. Do not forget that even hottest temperatures in Greenland and Antarctica are 20-40 degrees below freezing, and there is no sun for half year.
Influence on climate and even quantity of emitted aerosols and particles is very poor researched and understood. That’s why both Hansen and IPCC use this wild card to their convenience. From 1950 increased emissions of aerosols and particles from Western countries was used to explain climate cooling until 1970-s, yet it did not affected polar ice, then without quantification of increased emissions of third world it was asserted that the trend seized. Now Hansen suggests that huge quantities emitted from China is enough to melt ice caps, but not enough to cool the climate, since warming continues at increasing rate (it is actually not: adjusted for 1998 huge El Nino event, satellite measured global temperature is stable for about 10 years).
I’ve read dozens of recent articles of Hansen, and they are extremely contradicting. The only thing in common in this conveyer belt is name of Hansen in front and dooms day predictions, passionate cries to do something, and trashing of opponents. It is not science, it is politics, and dirty one.
Posted by: Andrey | Jun 20, 2007 11:53:59 AM
Andrey,
Although the overall shape of Greenland from that topological map indicates a bowl, there are numerous "holes" through the side so it is not obvious to me how limiting this topology is. Again, I would request you reference a scientific paper backing your claim that this will prevent rapid ice loss. Rarely are things as simple as you imply.
Regarding net mass loss and sea level rise I quote from this recent review (Science 16 March 2007: Vol. 315. no. 5818, pp. 1529 - 1532).
"It is reasonable to conclude that, today, the EAIS is gaining some 25 Gt year–1, the WAIS is losing about 50 Gt year–1, and the GIS is losing about 100 Gt year–1. These trends provide a sea-level contribution of about 0.35 mm year–1, a modest component of the present rate of sea-level rise of 3.0 mm year–1. Because 50 Gt year–1 is a very recent contribution, the ice sheets made little contribution to 20th-century sea-level rise. However, what has also emerged is that the losses are dominated by ice dynamics. Whereas past assessments (47) considered the balance between accumulation and ablation, the satellite observations reveal that glacier accelerations of 20 to 100% have occurred over the past decade. The key question today is whether these accelerations may be sustained, or even increase, in the future."
So although net mass changes are relatively small, the dynamics are changing rapidly. The key issue is that temperature rises are predicted to lead to these dynamical changes. Temperatures are clearly increasing in Greenland and in Antarctica the situation is not clear although I have referenced you previously the most recent paper suggesting a small temperature increase. At some point, if temperatures keep rising, it is obvious that increased precipitation will be out-run by ice loss.
Regarding aerosols, ice core data shows decreased aerosols during warming, presumably due to increased atmospheric moisture and precipitation. Consistent with this is the observation that despite likely recent increased particle emissions as you point out, particle concentrations in the atmosphere have decreased over the last two decades. Hence Hansen describes aerosoles as a rapid feedback factor during climate change. Their net effect is COOLING as is pointed out in Fig. 9.
So, there is nothing inconsistent in the way Hansen describes the effects of aerosols. You seem to think Hansen is suggesting aerosols contribute to the "alebedo flip" mechanism. This suggests either you misunderstand or haven't read the paper.
Posted by: marcus | Jun 21, 2007 11:46:47 AM
It is possible that particles and aerosols were having different effects several decades ago.
w/o arguing one way or the other, I want to point out that particles and aerosols have not remained the same.
It could well be that forty years ago particles were generally finer and stayed in the atmosphere longer. And the mix of coal grades being burnt was different.
The emission of particles from the US, Japan, and Europe met wind patterns different than emissions from China and Korea and Russia and SE Asia do today.
The biggest particles I know of are fly-ash from coal. The developed nations made vigorous efforts to suppress it after WW2. I doubt if China, India, and Russia are doing much even today.
Aerosols have changed also. The industry of the world makes different chemicals today and makes the same ones by different methods.
I think the best knowledge for the effect of particles falling on ice is simply what has been empirically measured. And for aerosols the knowledge was certainly not perfect years ago or now.
As I said earlier, Hansen is predicting AGW is worsening quickly. He is getting pretty far from the crowd. That doesn't make him wrong or right.
Posted by: K | Jun 21, 2007 2:50:50 PM
I don't believe the sky is falling, and that we are doomed. I do, however, think a reasonable approach to clean up the atmosphere would be the prudent thing to do.
As for the Kyoto Treaty, unless the emerging industrialized nations, such as China and India, are part of the mix, the Kyoto Treaty doesn't make a lot of sense.
I am, however, hedging my bets and advertizing my desert property in Arizona as a future seaside resort.
Posted by: shigley | Jun 22, 2007 10:43:23 AM
"since warming continues at increasing rate (it is actually not: adjusted for 1998 huge El Nino event, satellite measured global temperature is stable for about 10 years)."
These animations of temperature change clearly show the increasing temperature trend since 1998.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/animations/
What's also clear is that changes are occuring over most of the globe. El nino is a local event.
Andrey?
Posted by: marcus | Jun 23, 2007 7:12:42 AM
Marcus.
So called “global temperature” is, in fact, global average of lower troposphere temperature of the air. Air is quite small part of global energy balance; oceans hold 1000 times more heat energy than atmosphere. To put it simple, air temperature is straightforward derivative of two parameters: surface temperature of oceans and major volcanic events. When major volcanic event happens, global temperature goes down big time for 2-3 years. For everything else there is Master Card – ocean temperature. Now, ocean surface temperature oscillates quite substantially (exchange of different temperature layers), take a look at ENSO and especially PDO at Wiki.
El Nino is local event, but of such magnitude that 1998 El Nino raised global temperature for whopping 0.6 C for about a year.
As for global temperature for last 10 years – come on, get real, I believe you can do it. It is stable.
Take a look at satellite measurements (graphed by standard software from official NASA data) at beloved junkscience.com:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsRSS.html
Note how “local” El Nino affected global temperatures in 1998.
Posted by: Andrey | Jun 24, 2007 9:55:36 PM
Andrey, is this troposphere data corrected for the artifacts described by these papers below? I suspect not since according to these papers troposphere temperature trends, once the data is corrected, are consistent with surface temperature trends. Troposphere and surface temperatures are differentially sensitive to various influences including El Nino.
The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature. C. A. Mears and F. J. Wentz (2005). Science 309, 1548-1551
Radiosonde Daytime Biases and Late-20th Century Warming
Steven Sherwood 1*, John Lanzante 2, Cathryn Meyer 1
Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere. B. D. Santer et al. (2005)
Science 309, 1551-1556
Posted by: marcus | Jun 25, 2007 10:17:01 AM
For an up to date comparison of surface to satellite troposphere temperatures that incorporates the corrections prescribed by Mears et al., see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satellite_Temperatures.png
So a warming trend since 1998 is readily apparent.
Andrey?
Come on, get real, I believe you can do it. It is rising!!
Posted by: marcus | Jun 25, 2007 12:26:58 PM
ps, Andrey isn't junkscience.com published by Stephen Milloy - famous for receiving money from ExxonMobil while attacking research on global warming as a supposedly independent journalist? Milloy also received almost $100,000 a year from Philip Morris while he ridiculed the evidence regarding the hazards of second-hand smoke as "junk science".
Why is such a site "beloved" by you Andrey?
Posted by: marcus | Jun 25, 2007 3:57:37 PM
Who let the denialists out of their straitjackets?
Posted by: carbonsink | Jun 26, 2007 5:09:10 AM
Marcus:
Junk science graphs are routinely used by climate scientists because of their convenience; as I said before, they are just application of standard graph software on official numbers, all references are provided. The site is “beloved” because any time it references is used, somebody accuses them to be on payroll of Big Oil. It is funny, because it immediately indicates that their opponents do not have any beef, and have to recent to ad hom attack.
Satellite measurements indicate no clear warming trend only over last 7-9 years (except El Nino of 1998). For 1978-2007, as you rightfully pointing out, it is warming trend – by 0.3 C, but nothing like from fraudulent surface temperature data preferred by IPCC – 0.6 C. For more graphs take a look at Fig. 6 and compare it with Fig. 7. here:
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/Independent%20Summary5.pdf
All presented data is from most recent IPCC report, you can check the references for accuracy, if you want. Also take a look at Fig. 8 and note that South Pole temperature is stable with some cooling trend over last 50 years, and North Pole is warming for last 40 years – and currently slightly surpassed temperatures recorded around 1940-s.
Also note, that Goddar Institute satellite data is slightly warmer. The reason is that Hansen’s team frivolously adjusted satellite measurements to fit AGW theory (as you mentioned), but it is still substantially differs from weather station data.
That’s why IPCC prefers not to present satellite data in summaries, while claiming that satellite data is confirming their weather stations temperature reconstructions. It is also the reason why convenient comparison of satellite and weather stations data could be found only on web sites critical of AGW theory, like independent summary of Fraser Institute (their payroll, anybody?).
Posted by: Andrey | Jun 26, 2007 9:14:12 AM
From my perusal of the graphs it looks like you could argue it is stable over the last 3-4 years. It is clear that around 2000 the anomolies were a lot lower than more recent anomolies so I really don't see how you can say its been stable for 7-9 years. Of course from 3-4 years you cannot say anything so there is really no point in bringing up these kinds of short term data for discussion. In other words you have no point regarding recent warming trends.
"That’s why IPCC prefers not to present satellite data in summaries, while claiming that satellite data is confirming their weather stations temperature reconstructions. It is also the reason why convenient comparison of satellite and weather stations data could be found only on web sites critical of AGW theory, like independent summary of Fraser Institute (their payroll, anybody?). "
The IPCC say satellite data gives a warming trend of 0.12-0.19C per decade while surface measurements give 0.16-0.18C since 1979. They conclude thus that the two sets of data are laregely consistent. I don't see any problem with this and it is consistent with the trend lines from wikipedia. Where did you pull 0.6C from? Are you cherry picking the high end of their range?
Posted by: marcus | Jun 26, 2007 10:31:51 AM
The earth has heated and cooled, seas have rose and then fallen time after time after time. This is nature before we were here and will continue when we are gone.
Global warming has happened in the past and may be happening again.
Human caused global warming is the only way to fleece money from one person to another. You can't get any money out of "Mother Nature" so we can't blame her for this.
If we do all this CO2 trapping and catch cow farts and hairspray dust it will be expensive and not proven to slow earths warming.
And after all the hand wringing and untold billions or TRILLIONS spent on CO2 reduction and other attempts,
one good volcano will undue all our hard work and treasures spent.
We should get off oil so we don't have to constantly send money to people that don't like us and want us DEAD. And maybe drive alittle less and more efficient vehicles to save some money.
Any other reason is scientific welfare.
Posted by: lc | Jun 26, 2007 6:48:11 PM
So overall Andrey I am a little dissapointed.
"There are dozens of articles assessing possibility of catastrophic (as” fast” as in 5 centuries) melting of Greenland"
You can't give me one that backs your claim.
"Now Hansen suggests that huge quantities emitted from China is enough to melt ice caps, but not enough to cool the climate, since warming continues at increasing rate (it is actually not: adjusted for 1998 huge El Nino event, satellite measured global temperature is stable for about 10 years)."
All completely untrue.
"fraudulent surface temperature data preferred by IPCC – 0.6 C"
A fraudulent accusation.
"nobody really consider Hansen as scientist anymore, just fraudulent politician."
Obvious fact: As long as he publishes papers he is a working, respected scientist.
You clearly have a tendency to bend the truth to suite your needs Andrey. I had held out the possibility that there might be more to what you say but after just a little investigating this doesn't seem to be the case.
Posted by: marcus | Jun 27, 2007 11:10:21 AM
