Planet likely to warm min of 4C by 2100, 2x dangerous levels

[iNow]

This really isn't looking good, and a sense of urgency seems completely absent among those who can do actually anything about it. It's 2014, yet the debate among the populace is still the same as it was roughly 3 decades ago (despite overwhelming agreement among experts across research domains and fields of study).

 

What are your thoughts?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/31/planet-will-warm-4c-2100-climate

Planet likely to warm by 4C by 2100, scientists warn.

Temperature rises resulting from unchecked climate change will be at the severe end of those projected, according to a new scientific study.

 

The scientist leading the research said that unless emissions of greenhouse gases were cut, the planet would heat up by a minimum of 4C by 2100, twice the level the world's governments deem dangerous.

 

<...>

 

"Climate skeptics like to criticize climate models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they are not perfect," said Sherwood. "But what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by the models which predict less warming, not those that predict more.

[pears]

Scary

 

I fear the populace has been cried wolf to by sensationalist news items on this in the past so they're easily swayed by the sceptics.

 

When you say

a sense of urgency seems completely absent among those who can do actually anything about it

 

I assume you mean politicians? Do you think politicians will only listen if the masses show a concern (rather than mainly the pressure groups)?

 

Also what are the solution(s)? I asume reducing carbon emissions is the only answer? Should we all be boycotting traditional energy supplies in favour of green energy?

 

What are your thoughts on nuclear power?

[dimreepr]

"But what if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"

 

Anon.

[EdEarl]

Everyone can help. Billions of little bits add up to big bits. Save electricity, drive less, get an Elio or other greener mode of transportation, take the bus or train, put solar hot water on your house, turn the thermostat down, etc. Lobby your congressman and senator for more green energy solutions, do not vote for anyone who votes against green energy, If you live in a city wherein Solar City operates, have them install solar cells on your house

 

Motivate your neighbors, too.

[dimreepr]

Indeed, it's got to start somewhere.

[overtone]

Tax the entities currently making a profit on loading the atmosphere with CO₂ for the costs of dealing with the climate change - same as a sane, market based economy would deal with any other waste product that was creating problems.

 

They're smart folks, they'll figure it out when it's going to cost them money.

[EdEarl]

Tax the entities currently making a profit on loading the atmosphere with CO₂ for the costs of dealing with the climate change - same as a sane, market based economy would deal with any other waste product that was creating problems.

 

They're smart folks, they'll figure it out when it's going to cost them money.

The ones you tax will be automobiles and coal & gas fired power plants.

 

On another note, China is building a 1000 MW PV farm.

Edited January 2, 2014 by EdEarl

[iNow]

I have to agree with Overtone here. While small individual behaviors of the type advocated by EdEarl will certainly assist and are a big part of the equation, IMO to meaningfully impact what's happening we need something that impacts the markets themselves. Taxes and fees on dirty energy and subsidies for clean energy are a good way to get this done.

 

To Pears - Yes, I fully support nuclear energy. I don't think we can save ourselves from ourselves without it (unless some other really great discovery for energy is found in the next decade or two).

 

Part of the problem too is our focus on the next quarter or next annual report instead of the next decade or century. Humans are generally short-sighted and focus on immediate issues at the expense of long-term ones. In our evolutionary past, we only had to worry about where to find dinner or how to obtain shelter for the night... not how to manage global water sources or prevent changes to climate that will make it hard for our grandchildren to survive.

 

Additionally, we tend too often to see things as costs instead of investments. They are not equal, even though the accounting of many is so facile as to suggest they are. We need massive investment in this space. It should be our top priority, yet we're still spending all of our time arguing with ignorant or agenda-driven deniers instead of coming together to implement broad-based solutions.

[Johnny Electriglide]

Dr. Natalia Shakhova will be interviewed again this month on a more recent status report on Siberian Artic Tundra methane releases which have Siberia 2-9*C over the 1989 record in April of this year.

Even 2*C is too high(world average temperature)...........while +1.5C was not. Seems like 1.8*C is the magic number of positive feedback loop completion, IMEO.

There is a good chance even the 90% HGHG reduction by 2023, may be too late already.(50-50?)

Some said the magic number was +5*C for the Arctic to go into the methane turnover mode. So, most of Siberia is above that mark right now.

The meaning is clear, and ends in a Permian type extinction, some time within 3-500 years, after the human population crash before mid century.

Too bad, SOME of us could have lived here sustainably for eons.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Johnny Electriglide

[Johnny Electriglide]

It is amazing denialists are here.

The Arctic Atmospheric 'Methane Global Warming Veil'. Its Origin in the Arctic Subsea and Mantle
and the Timing of the Global Terminal Extinction Events by 2040 to 2050
Arctic News
By Malcolm P.R. Light, Harold Hensel and Sam Carana
June 8th, 2014 (Excerpts)
"If only a few percent of the subsea methane hydrate reserves in the Arctic Ocean
(some 1000 billion tons of Carbon) is dissociated and the methane is released into the atmosphere,
it will cause total deglaciation and a major extinction event (Light and Solana 2002).

The energy necessary to produce these Arctic methane release rates is relatively small; it requires only about one thousandth of the heat energy input from the Gulf Stream to dissociate the methane hydrates (Figure 30).

Furthermore, the energy necessary to produce these Arctic methane release rates represents less than one millionth of the global warming heat energy being added to the oceans, ice, land and atmosphere by human fossil fuel burning (Figure 30).
Unfortunately for us, global warming has heated up the oceanic currents fed by the Gulf Stream flowing into the Arctic, causing massive destabilization of the subsea methane hydrates and fault seals and releasing increasing volumes of methane directly into the atmosphere.

The total human induced global warming is equivalent to 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs detonating every second (Nuccitelli et al. 2012). Humanity has signed its death warrant and our final extinction will
be carried out by Mother Earth within the next 30 to 40 years unless
we immediately take extremely drastic action to entirely curb our carbon dioxide pollution, eliminate large quantities of methane from the subsea Arctic Ocean,
seawater and atmosphere (down to ca 673 - 700 ppm) and revert completely to renewable energy.....
The volume transport of the Gulf Stream has increased by three times since
the 1940s due to the rising
atmospheric pressure difference set up between the polluted, greenhouse gas rich air
above North America and the marine Atlantic air.
The increasingly heated Gulf Stream, with its associated high winds and energy-rich weather
systems, flows NE to Europe where it recently pummelled Great Britain and Europe with
catastrophic storms.
Other branches of the Gulf Stream then enter the Arctic and heat up the Arctic methane hydrate seals on subsea and deep high-pressure mantle methane reservoirs below the
Eurasian Basin-Laptev Sea transition.
This is releasing increasing amounts of methane into the atmosphere producing anomalous temperatures, greater than 20°C above average.
Over very short time periods of a few days to a few months the atmospheric methane has a global warming potential from 1000 to 100 times that of carbon dioxide (Light 2012 - 2014; Carana 2012 - 2014).

The whole northern hemisphere is now covered by a thickening atmospheric methane veil that is spreading southwards at about 1 km a day and it already totally envelopes the United States.
A giant hole in the equatorial ozone layer has also been discovered in the west Pacific,
which acts like an elevator transferring methane from lower altitudes to the stratosphere,
where it already forms a dense equatorial global warming stratospheric band
that is spreading into the Polar regions.
The spreading atmospheric methane global warming veil is raising the temperature of the lower atmosphere many times faster than carbon dioxide does, causing the extreme summer temperatures
in Australia and the United States. The front of the expanding 1850 ppb Arctic Atmospheric Mantle Methane Global Warming Veil has passed the northern border of the Gulf Coast and is moving
south at about 1 km a day and it should totally envelope the Earth by 2048 (Light 2014).

Much of this methane is coming from the subsea extreme methane emission zone (Enrico Anomaly) at the transition from the Eurasian Basin to the Laptev Sea which is sourced at an estimated depth of some 112 km in the upper asthenosphere in the Earths mantle (Light 2014).

The United States and Canada must cut their global emissions of carbon dioxide by 80% to 90% in the next 10 to 15 years, otherwise they will be become an instrument of mass destruction of the Earth and its entire human population.
Recovery of the United States economy from the financial crisis has been very stupidly based by the present administration on an extremely hazardous "all of the above" energy policy that has allowed continent wide gas fracking, coal and oil sand mining and the return of widespread oil drilling to the Gulf Coast.
This large amount of fossil fuel has to be transported and sold which has caused extensive spills, explosions and confrontations with United States citizens over fracking and the Keystone XL pipeline.
The United States and Canada must now cease all their fossil fuel extraction and go entirely onto renewable energy in the next 10 to 15 years otherwise they will be guilty of planetary ecocide - genocide by the 2050s"
There are numerous charts and graphs as you scroll down, in the link on top.

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Urgent Message to Governments from the Arctic Methane Emergency Group, AMEG
Arctic Sea Ice - Methane Release - Planetary Emergency
Urgent Message to Governments from the Arctic Methane Emergency Group, AMEG

AMEG’s Declaration (Excerpt)


Governments must get a grip on a situation which IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has ignored. A strategy of mitigation and adaptation is doomed to fail. It will be impossible to adapt to the worst consequences of global warming, as IPCC suggests.

The Arctic must be cooled, ASAP, to prevent the sea ice disappearing with disastrous global consequences. Rapid warming in the Arctic, as sea ice retreats, has already disrupted the jet stream. The resulting escalation in weather extremes is causing a food crisis which must be addressed before the existing conflicts in Asia and Africa spread more widely."

"Current situation and gross omissions from IPCC

The IPCC WG1, WG2 and WG3 assessment reports (AR5) make no mention of the downward trend in sea ice volume, and rely on models which fail to properly capture the processes of warming and melting. Furthermore they fail to mention the strong evidence that Arctic warming is already a driver of climate change in the Northern Hemisphere, compounding the effects of global warming.

Arctic warming and sea ice retreat is already having a serious impact on climate change across the Northern Hemisphere, which is affecting food production, food prices and food security.

The latest WG2 report claims that the Arctic sea ice will be subject to ‘very high risks with an additional warming of 2 degrees C’. In fact, the September sea ice volume is already down 75% with a trend to zero by September 2016, suggests that the Arctic is heading for complete meltdown, which would be a planetary catastrophe.
The loss of Arctic ecosystems and the climate implications of ice disappearance are in fact
acute risks NOW as both ice and ice-dependent species are set to disappear within a matter of years.

These are catastrophic omissions. AR5 is supposed to provide the best analysis of the state of the planet and its future climate, on which governments can base policy for protection of citizens. These omissions are leading governments into a false sense of security about the future of our planet.

The only clear policy deduction from AR5 concerns the reduction of CO2 emissions by keeping within a carbon budget. Reductions alone have no chance of preventing catastrophes arising from Arctic meltdown. Intervention to cool the Arctic is an absolute requirement to prevent such catastrophes. There is no realistic alternative.

The concept of a carbon budget, espoused in AR5, hides the short-term consequences of various powerful feedback processes which get zero or scant attention in AR5.
In particular, snow and sea ice albedo feedback seems to be totally ignored in the budget. And the mounting concentration of methane in the atmosphere is ignored.
The real truth is that the carbon budget has already been spent. WG3’s limit of 450 ppm for CO2 equivalent has already been passed, even without taking into account albedo loss.

Governments must also address ocean acidification, whose threat has also been ignored in AR5. There is no alternative but to start a major campaign for CO2 removal (CDR).
The latest WG3 assessment report suggests CDR as a possibility for offsetting emissions,
but only in so far as for keeping within their carbon budgets of 450ppm CO2e and above, which would have catastrophic consequences for humanity, even without all the other overlooked positive feedbacks described above.
CDR must be adopted, being the only possibility in order to stop the existing
contribution to global warming of CO2 and ocean acidification.

Meanwhile there is the threat of Arctic methane emissions to burst above the gigaton level, totally ignored in AR5. And the AR5 projections of sea level rise are hopelessly optimistic if the sea ice disappears as rapidly as the trend indicates."

"This is an unprecedented opportunity for international collaboration for common purpose.


1. The Arctic is rapidly heading for meltdown. As snow and sea ice retreat, exposing land and sea with lower albedo (i.e. less reflectiveness), more solar energy is absorbed, thus leading to further melting and retreat in a vicious cycle.
This cycle has been self-sustaining for many years – we are well past the tipping point.
There is no sign of any natural process to break the cycle.

2. As the extent of snow and sea ice has been plummeting, even while global warming has stalled, Arctic albedo loss has rapidly overtaken CO2 as the main driver of climate change in the Northern Hemisphere, as witness the escalation of weather extremes.
The Arctic has warmed well above global average, resulting in a reduction of the temperature gradient between tropics and pole, this in turn reducing the strength of the polar jet stream, with increased meandering and a tendency to get stuck in blocking patterns.
This explains the recent escalation of weather extremes in the form of long periods of weather of one kind such as the months of high rain the UK has experienced this past winter 2013-14, and the protracted extreme cold in the US over the same period, crop failures and an upward trend in the world food price index.

3. While land and subsea permafrost thaws ever faster, methane could become the dominant climate forcing agent.
Emissions threaten to break through the gigaton-per-year level within twenty years.
AMEG has been continuing its research into the situation.
A recent paper, co-authored by Peter Wadhams, a founder member of AMEG, has used the Stern Review economic model to show that the economic cost of a 50 megaton release of methane from the Arctic Ocean seabed
will cost $60 trillion.
Research in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf has suggested that such a vast release of methane was possible, and continued exponential increase of methane could, within 20 years, reach a level where methane dominated over CO2 in global warming.
Some researchers warn of a 50 gigaton burst being possible “at any time”.

4. Therefore, urgent and strenuous efforts are needed ASAP to cool the Arctic, halt snow and sea ice decline, and suppress methane.

5. Techniques exist for cooling on the necessary scale. Both the brightening of low-level clouds and the production of a reflective haze in the stratosphere are techniques based on natural phenomena which have been studied extensively.
Various methane suppression techniques have been proposed. However, all these techniques require technology development and testing before deployment.

6. Existing cooling effects must be maintained, especially the cooling effect of SO2. SO2 from burning fossil fuels has negated between 2/3 and 3/4 CO2 global warming over the past 20-30 years; its global cooling effect must be allowed to continue until an alternative means of cooling can be deployed.
This should be achieved while improving air quality in centres of population.

7. Ocean acidification threatens to devastate the marine food chain. Atmospheric CO2 must be reduced to a safe level within twenty years or less.

8. Therefore, CO2 must be removed from the atmosphere faster than it is put in.
The rate of removal should be increased until it is around double the rate of emissions and the CO2 level has fallen sufficiently to avoid dangerous ocean acidification.
Funds could be raised by having a levy on carbon taken out of the ground, specifically to fund the return of carbon to the ground.

9. CO2 can be removed from the atmosphere utilising the photosynthesis of plants and certain algae to produce biomass.
The carbon of this biomass must then be kept from returning to the atmosphere, e.g. by pyrolytic conversion to biochar. This process of capture and sequestration has to be massively scaled in order for the CO2 removal rate to exceed CO2 emission rate.

10. The profound economic, social, security and political impacts of the abrupt climate change, being witnessed as an escalation of climate extremes and crop failures, must be addressed.
The underlying price of food as indicated by the food price index is already above the crisis level, leading to the food riots we have observed in several countries where income is insufficient to buy daily needs.

These are unprecedented opportunities for international collaboration in the interests of every country, every section of the community, rich and poor alike.
The necessary actions of cooling the Arctic, suppressing methane and CO2 removal present enormous engineering and logistical challenges.
The objectives should be achievable without any revolution or radical change in the way we live. In fact the solutions to the challenges are not only affordable but can be
of great economic benefit in the long run.

There is no excuse for procrastination. We must see action now"

actually, we should have seen action 20 years ago!

[EdEarl]

Johnny, I believe many of us know about the methane hydrate.

[Johnny Electriglide]

Here is the latest June, 2014 interview with Dr.Natalia Shakhova, on the current state of the methane from the Arctic, with links to the other two parts and other related video presentations.

[Harold Squared]

Oh, heavens, more doomsayers, how novel from the boys who call "wolf" habitually. Despite a few brave souls in the Greeniac movement timidly admitting that nuclear power is a viable and logical alternative, most remain committed to the popular fiction that nuclear is somehow "too dangerous" and therefore taboo. So both fusion and fission research languish in relative obscurity while idiotic solar and wind schemes are heavily subsidized and loudly touted to a gullible public.

 

Incidentally, the Arctic Ocean was already supposed to be ice free by now according to similar claims released to the popular press in 2007, 12/12, UK Telegraph, to be precise. According to AGW adherents the ice caps would have been gone for several years by now. Tipping points to the left of us, tipping points to the right of us, etc. but if short range forecasts are erroneous, just switch to long range ones and count on a forgetful public. It has been brought to my attention that my participation in this particular discussion is unwelcome, so I will let you gleefully contemplate the impending climate apocalypse(again) without further interruptions.

 

Time alone will tell.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Harold Squared

[overtone]

So both fusion and fission research languish in relative obscurity while idiotic solar and wind schemes are heavily subsidized and loudly touted to a gullible public.

Nuclear power has received much more subsidy money than all the different approaches to solar and wind combined - not even counting the cleanup costs, or the already incurred future disposal liabilities, or the security and military expenditures (anyone have any idea how much it has cost everyone involved, in dollars, to keep a lid on Iran's nuclear power program? ).

 

 

 

 

Incidentally, the Arctic Ocean was already supposed to be ice free by now according to similar claims released to the popular press in 2007

Bullshit.

 

 

 

According to AGW adherents the ice caps would have been gone for several years by now.

Falsehood.

 

 

 

It has been brought to my attention that my participation in this particular discussion is unwelcome, - -

All purveying of clownbox falsehoods in attempts to dominate actual discussion by repetition of propaganda and Big Lies from political sources with political agendas, would be unwelcome here.

 

I'm reporting your post as spam.

Edited January 29, 2015 by overtone

[iNow]

Incidentally, the Arctic Ocean was already supposed to be ice free by now according to similar claims released to the popular press in 2007, 12/12, UK Telegraph, to be precise. According to AGW adherents the ice caps would have been gone for several years by now.

Thanks for the reference. It allows us to check your claims.

 

What you said: Scientists claimed the arctic ocean would be ice free by now. Ice caps WOULD be gone.

 

Now, what the article actually said (emphasis mine):

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3318239/Arctic-ice-could-be-gone-in-five-years.html

The volume of Arctic sea ice at the end of last summer was half what it was four years ago and that the Greenland ice sheet lost almost 19bn tonnes of its volume - more than ever before.

<snip>

And Nasa climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."

Perhaps you're not familiar with if/then clauses or the difference between the words "will" and "could?"

 

Let me summarize: IF this extreme rate of sea ice loss continues at its current pace, THEN arctic ice COULD be gone completely in as few as 5 years.

 

Notice the difference in meaning? It's important.

 

Perhaps these challenges with reading comprehension you so persistently display are part of the reason you struggle to grasp even the basics of climate change and the mountains of evidence supporting the conclusion that man-made contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere are the primary driver of the warming trend we're seeing in global average annual temperatures?

Edited January 29, 2015 by iNow

[Strange]

Notice the difference in meaning? It's important.

 

I'm sure Wild Cobra would agree with that:

The definition of words have specific meanings. Those who purposely misuse words to mislead, are not to be trusted.

[Essay]

Thanks for the reference. It allows us to check your claims.

 

What you said: Scientists claimed the arctic ocean would be ice free by now. Ice caps WOULD be gone.

 

Now, what the article actually said (emphasis mine):

And Nasa climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3318239/Arctic-ice-could-be-gone-in-five-years.html

Perhaps you're not familiar with if/then clauses or the difference between the words "will" and "could?"

 

Although that particular prediction was extreme, the overall characterization of the region as becoming

"ice-free ...much faster than previous predictions," still seems to be holding true.

 

 

...might say it's starting to look like a trend.

 

~