More From the Heartland: Farmers (3)
More From the Heartland: Farmers (3)
In the entry before President Obama’s speech, I wrote about farmers and climate change. I referred to a survey of farmer’s opinions on climate change performed by Iowa State University professor, J. Gordon Arbuckle and colleagues. In a 2013 paper in Climatic Change, Arbuckle and colleagues reported that 68% of farmers he surveyed in Iowa believed that the climate was changing. 28% were uncertain and only 5% believed that the climate was not changing. With regard to attribution, 10% felt that climate change was caused by humans, 23% felt it was natural, and about 35% felt it was caused by both human and natural causes. (Summary Article and Press Coverage )
In this blog I want to explore the results of the poll of the farmer’s some more.
Arbuckle’s work is in the standard protocol of social science studies focused on the acceptance and use of science-based knowledge by society. It utilizes the basic framework of how the responses to climate change are organized, specifically, mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, perhaps, coupled with enhancement of processes that remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, such as storage of carbon dioxide in forests and soils. Adaptation is modification of how we do and build things in response to climate change.
First a little about social science research – In the past 5 years I have worked with several social scientists. The practice of social science has strict protocols. Interview-based research, such as discussed here, poses questions to be explored and answered by input from a set of interviewees. As in natural science, it is required that the research questions can be tested and evaluated. Not only does this require careful design of the research questions, but it also requires design, review and testing of the questions to be asked in the interview. The design of a robust experiment to disentangle questions where there is a strong element of human preference and decision is exceedingly difficult. This includes picking the group of people who are asked to respond to the interview.
The design of Arbuckle’s research had two research questions: “(1) do Iowa farmers support actions aimed at climate change adaptation and mitigation; and, (2) are beliefs and concerns about climate change associated with support for or opposition to those activities."
The interview questions that were designed to unravel the issues of the two research questions focused first on precipitation. As I wrote in the earlier blog, there is already a perceived change in precipitation, especially in the springtime during planting. There is too much water. It is worth noting that this part of the country is a part of the country that has seen less warming than the regions surrounding it – the Midwest warming hole (excellent paper by Kunkel et al. and Rood blog with unfilled promises). Therefore climate change is felt more in this region by changes in precipitation than by warming.
The interview questions were anchored around protecting the land, draining the land, and whether or not there should be mitigation to counter the climate change that is causing the increased precipitation. There was strong support for protecting the land through conservation practices. The support for draining the land was less strong, with more people uncertain about this option. An interesting aside, much of the Midwest corn land has extensive drainage infrastructure, which made what was historically a too wet environment into viable and excellent corn and soybean land. There was far less support for mitigation. However, looking at the mitigation numbers it was about equally split between opposing mitigation, uncertain about mitigation and supporting mitigation. Those opposing was about 3 percentage points higher than those supporting. This suggests that many recognize the changing climate and believe that more resiliency should be built into their land and practices – that is, they are interested in adaptation. They are less convinced of mitigation, which makes sense from many perspectives – but I assert because it is far less easy to see the benefit of mitigation whether or not there is acceptance that greenhouse gas emissions are the primary cause of the warming planet.
Arbuckle’s research then uses a set of questions to investigate farmer’s perception of vulnerability to farming due to climate change and extreme weather. As in the mitigation question those unsure, concerned and unconcerned were split, but in this case the largest group was always in the concerned group with numbers of about 40 percent to 20 percent. About a third of the farmers were uncertain in each category. The largest difference was in the group concerned about the impact of more extreme weather, with 45 percent expressing concern. The farmers were split on whether or not we would find technological or other methods to address climate change.
When all of these questions were put together and analyzed a set of conclusions, some surprising, emerge. Farmers interested in more protection of the land in anticipation of climate change had a high level of concern of increased risk and were older. Farmers interested in improved drainage had a high level of concern, large farms, higher education and felt that climate change was not a major issue because farmers would develop innovative solutions. Interestingly, support for taking adaptive measures did not correlate with whether or not the farmers perceived climate change was attributable to humans. Finally farmers interested in mitigation felt that the climate change was real and had an important contribution from humans, a high level of concern and did not feel that we would innovate our way to solutions.
One of the more robust conclusions from this research is that perceptions of vulnerability due to weather and increased vulnerability due to changes in precipitation and severe weather were a major motivation to take steps to prepare for climate change. This was true whether or not farmers “believed” in climate change. This recognition of vulnerability and increased risk is consistent with my (our) experience in the Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Applications Center – people engage when they perceive vulnerability. Surprisingly, older farmers were more concerned than younger farmers about adaptation. With regard to mitigation, those who accepted a human contribution to the changing climate were more supportive of mitigation – makes sense. And worth a mention the combination of those who think that climate change has a human component or is primarily caused by humans is almost 45 percent, and that’s not as low as one might take away from the political and public record.
r
Some good references:
One Gardner’s Struggle
Gardeners Expect Warmer Nights
Climate and Farming
Farming Success in an Uncertain Future (Cornell)
USDA Warns Farmers about Climate Change (and announces plans to set up climate change centers)
Reinventing Farming for a Changing Climate (NPR)
Farm Level Adjustments to Climate Change (USDA)
Climate Change More Expensive to Farmers than Climate Bill
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 — Blog Index
A battle over the "social cost of carbon" is heating up between the White House and Congress faster than an atmosphere trapped beneath an overabundant layer of greenhouse gases.
In 2010 the White House convened a group of officials from across government to use computer models -- the most famous of which was designed by Yale economist William Nordhaus -- to estimate the future economic impact of climate change, a metric known as the social cost of carbon. The metric predicts the costs of damage being caused by carbon emissions, including "health, property damage, agricultural impacts, the value of ecosystem services, and other welfare costs of climate change," according to this year's Economic Report of the President.
This year, the metric was revised upward. And the higher the value for the social cost of carbon, the more benefits accrue to any rules the Environmental Protection Agency might implement to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. And higher benefits for any such rules would "make it easier for stricter standards to pass a cost-benefit analysis test," according to The Washington Post's Wonk Blog.
Critics in the House and elsewhere have said the modeling has been a closed-door process, with insufficient input from the American public, and are trying to prevent the agency from enacting any regulations that account for the social cost of carbon.
Grist's David Roberts, writing back in September, lays out these ideas alongside unrelated but comforting photos of otters (to ease the pain of having to think about this). He also explains why the federal government has repeatedly underestimated the social cost of carbon:
How much is it worth to us today to avoid climate disruption later this century? To understand how that question has typically been answered, you need to understand what economists call "discount rates," key parameters in the economic models used to assess climate policy costs. Such models inform policymaking and shape conventional wisdom, but their use of discount rates has led them to lowball the threat and recommend insufficient action to meet it.
article at HuffingtonPost.com
Results show risks that deniers in Congress pose to GOP as majority of younger constituents back Obama’s carbon plans
Republicans in Congress who reject the science behind climate change could soon be reduced to political fossils, with new polling on Wednesday suggesting three-quarters of young voters find such views “ignorant, out of touch or crazy”.
The bipartisan poll conducted for the League of Conservation Voters found solid 80% support among under-35 voters for Barack Obama’s climate change plan – and majority support even among those who oppose the president.
On the flip side the poll found three-quarters of voters, or 73%, would oppose members of Congress who stood in the way of Obama’s climate action plan.
The findings could prove awkward for Republicans in Congress who have adopted climate contrarianism as a defining feature.
Some 55% of Republicans in the House of Representatives and 65% of those in the Senate reject the science behind climate change or oppose action on climate change, according to an analysis by the Centre for American Progress.,,,
more at RawStory.com (Guardian)
I will give 10 to 1 odds that the House has already picked out members of the America public that could not balance a checkbook to offer their "input" on this.
The first half is quoting the discussion between Naga, yoboi, and myself so I could preserve Naga's questions. The second half tries to answer those questions about the constitutionality of the current Act (not decided by the courts yet) and about certain powers of the EM (the article in the Huffington Post that Naga quoted did sort of overstate them).
What's not resolved, I think, is the basic morality - if I can use that word - of supplanting democratically elected officials with an appointed receiver (because that's what this emergency manager stuff is, actually: receivership). I come down on the side of permitting that receivership if adequate standards and protections are applied. Naga may not. Everyone is invited to the discussion.
The waters off the Pacific Northwest are becoming more acidic, making life more difficult for the animals that live there, especially oysters and the approximately 3,200 people employed in the shellfish industry.
Researchers from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will set sail Monday (July 29) on a monthlong research cruise off the U.S. and Canadian West Coast to see how ocean acidification is affecting the chemistry of the ocean waters and the area's sea life.
Ocean acidification occurs when greenhouse-gas emissions cause carbon dioxide to accumulate in the atmosphere and become dissolved in sea water, changing the water's chemistry and making it more difficult for coral, shellfish and other animals to form hard shells. Carbon dioxide creates carbonic acid when dispersed in water. This can dissolve carbonate, the prime component in corals and oysters' shells.
The world's oceans are 30 percent more acidic than they were before the Industrial Revolution, scientists estimate.
more at LiveScience.com
As new evidence is revealing that the blowout of a tar-sands well has been causing oil to leak for over four months — contaminating a large area of Canada's Boreal Forest and killing animals — a new report reveals that Alberta's regulatory system to prevent and enforce tar-sands operations is lax and failing.
The blowout from Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.'s Primrose tar-sands drilling operation was not revealed to the public until an anonymous government scientist leaked it to the press. According to a Mother Jones article, the spill — which has released at least 4,500 barrels of tar-sands oil — was reported to have started on May 21 and was still releasing oil as of Tuesday, July 23. The ongoing blowout, coupled with the report on the province's failed regulatory program, raises questions about oversight of the tar-sands industry — especially given that neither the Alberta government nor the company has confirmed the cause of the blowout, the rate of seepage or a plan to stop the spill. It also raises questions about this particular method of tar-sands extraction, called "in situ," which is projected to be the dominant way that the industry extracts tar sands in the coming years.
Tar-sands drilling operations require the injection of high-pressure steam into deep reservoirs, creating cracks in underground geological formations, and essentially turning the earth into an oven so that the bitumen can be melted out. Despite the fact that they tend to have significantly greater greenhouse gas emissions than mining, fragment vast swaths of land and use a tremendous amount of water, tar-sands drilling operations are often promoted by industry as the "environmental friendly" method of tar-sands extraction. It is estimated that 80 percent of tar sands can be accessed using in situ or drilling methods.
The anonymous scientist who broke the story to the Canadian media said, "Everybody [at the company and in government] is freaking out about this. We don't understand what happened. Nobody really understands how to stop it from leaking, or if they do, they haven't put the measures in place."
more at LiveScience.com
Antarctic permafrost, which had been weathering global warming far better than areas around the North Pole, is starting to give way. Scientists have recorded some of it melting at rates that are nearly comparable to those in the Arctic.
Scientists used time-lapse photography and LiDAR to track the retreat of an Antarctic ice cliff over a little more than a decade. They reported Wednesday in the journal Scientific Reports that the cliff was “backwasting rapidly.” The permafrost that made up the cliff was found to be disappearing nearly 10 times more quickly than was the case during recent geological history. And the rate of melting is picking up pace.
Cliff-face measurements of the buried ice in the four-mile-long Garwood Valley revealed melt rates that shifted from a creeping annual rate of about 40,000 cubic feet per year over six milleniums, to more than 402,000 cubic feet last year alone. … (That’s a leap from the capacity of about eight standard railroad boxcars to 77.)
The scientists also monitored the weather at the cliff and found that rising air temperatures were not to blame for the melt. Rather, they think it was caused by growing amounts of dark debris on the surface of the ice and snow that absorbed the sun’s rays.
How did the debris get there? During sudden bursts of warmth brought to the area by strong winds from other regions, ice expanded and cracked and sometimes broke up, throwing the dark debris up to the surface.
more at Grist.org
I work with money all day long... they won't have to search too far :)
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Thursday switched on two new supercomputers that are expected to improve weather forecasting.
The "go live" switch over to the new systems was made today without any fanfare, just a box of donuts on hand to mark 18 months of preparation and testing. The new IBM systems are now responsible for producing forecast data that's relied on in the U.S. and around the world.
The agency had planned to go live next Tuesday, but strong storms now in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans prompted the decision to move the date up, said Ben Kyger, director of central operations at the National Centers for Environmental Prediction.
NOAA's National Weather Service (NWS) runs the two identical, or clone systems, one in Reston, Va., and in Orlando, Fla. They can switch over in about six minutes.
The supercomputers are each 213 teraflop systems, running a Linux operating system on Intel processors.
more at ComputerWorld.com
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A federal appeals court on Friday rejected a legal challenge by Texas and Wyoming to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to implement greenhouse gas regulations.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, split 2-1, said that the states did not have standing to sue, while rejecting related claims made by industry groups.
RawStory.com
But we need more money! Don't you understand? And who cares about the environment?!
The snow has been falling in Argentina and Uruguay and soon will begin in Brazil. These places have seen snow in recent years, a throwback to the 1960s in much the same way as the cold and snow in the Northern Hemisphere has resembled the snowy 1960s.
Sorry guys, it doesn’t fly. Try the sun, which years ago, I was told by Hurd ‘Doc’ Willett led to periods of great amplification and persistence like we are seeing (near solar minima).
Indeed Hansen’s own modeler, Drew Shindell has shown the low solar (low UV) Maunder minimum led to widespread cold but Atlantic blocking in the models that included ozone and UV.
But should they agree with the Russian scientists that we are heading into a Maunder and it will have a significant impact, its all over for the movement. But if Festinger is right, look for them to find another excuse like particulates from China coal plants, just like the cults awaiting the spaceship to take them away say they must have miscalculated on the date and time and will find another day to meet. When they fail, they are forgotten. Remember the hype about the catastrophic solar event in 2012? The Millennium bug that cost trillions? Will we look back on the AGW movement that almost destroyed Europe’s economy and threatens the US and think of the 1980s to 2000s as the good old days with the climate optimum we should of enjoyed instead of wasting trillions to end?
Link
Panama City, FL set a record low temperature of 73 for Jul 26
Bloomington, IN set a record low temperature of 55 for Jul 26
Jonesville, VA set a record low temperature of 55 for Jul 26
Gavin Schmidt detailed response on "economic time bomb"
« Reply #35 on: Today at 11:20:57 AM »
Reprint of a "post" sliced on tweeter by Gavin :
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin
__________________________________
Some more context on Arctic methane release story
1) Methane is an important part of the anthropogenic radiative forcing over 20thC. Human caused increase from 0.7ppm to 1.8ppm
2) Methane emissions have a direct GHG effect, and they effect atmospheric chemistry and strat water vapour which have additional impacts
3) Direct forcing from anthropogenic methane ~0.5 W/m2, indirect effects add ~0.4 W/m2. (For ref: CO2 forcing is ~1.8W/m2)
4) natural feedbacks involving methane likely to be important in future - via wetland response to T/rain chng, atmos chem &, yes, arctic src
5) monitoring and analysis of atmos conc of CH4 is very important. However, despite dramatic Arctic warming and summer sea ice loss in recent decades, little change has been seen in atmos concentrations at high latitudes.
6) There are large stores of carbon in the Arctic, some stored as hydrates, some potentially convertible to CH4 by anaerobic resporation
7) there's evidence in deep time records of large, rapid exogenous inputs of carbon into climate system; leading theory relates this to CH4
8 ) it is therefore not silly or alarmist to think about the possibilities, thresholds and impacts for these kinds of events
9) in more recent past, there have been a number if times when Arctic (not necessarily globe) has been significantly warmer than today.
10) Most recently, Early Holocene, which had significantly less summer sea ice than even 2012. Earlier, Eemian 125kyrs ago was sig warmer
11) At neither of these times is there any evidence for CH4 emissions or concentrations in excess of base pre-industrial conditions.
12) this means that we are not currently near a threshold for dramatic CH4 releases. (Though we may get there)
13) Much of the concern re dramatic changes in Arctic methane come from one off surveys and poorly calibrated remote sensing
14) thus potential for Arctic CH4 to have threshold behaviour is real, but very lg scenario used in Nature comment is not realistic
15) We should be monitoring the Arctic better than we are, and we should be alert for 'surprises' in the greenhouse.
16) But we should not take what-if sensitivity experiments as predictions.
----------------
EPA Smack-Down Number Six
A federal court cashiers another illegal Obama regulation.
Link
Current Article
Why is Obama So Out of Touch?
By Larry Johnson on June 27, 2013 at 3:55 PM in Current Affairs
Why is Barack Obama now so obsessed about the constitutional right to participate in homosexual acts and shutdown coal production? Are those really the top priorities for this nation?
Link
This is why your vote counts, the devolution of your country could have been avoided. No hope, incorrect change.
Derp, derp, derp!
07-24-2013 Del Norte 2e, CO High Minimum Temp Daily Record 56 °F 56 °F (07-24-1982)
07-24-2013 Great Sand Dunes Nm, CO High Minimum Temp Daily Record 60 °F 59 °F (07-24-2007)
07-24-2013 Hart Mtn Refuge, OR High Minimum Temp Daily Record 61 °F 60 °F (07-24-2003)
07-24-2013 Tuscarora, NV High Minimum Temp Daily Record 63 °F 63 °F (07-24-2007)
07-24-2013 Ruby Lake, NV High Minimum Temp Daily Record 64 °F 64 °F (07-24-2003)
07-24-2013 Barre Falls Dam, MA High Minimum Temp Daily Record 67 °F 67 °F (07-24-1961)
07-24-2013 Ordway 21 N, CO High Minimum Temp Daily Record 67 °F 65 °F (07-24-2008)
07-24-2013 Tully Lake, MA High Minimum Temp Daily Record 68 °F 68 °F (07-24-2003)
07-24-2013 Pueblo Rsvr, CO High Minimum Temp Daily Record 69 °F 68 °F (07-24-2012)
07-24-2013 Ferron, UT High Minimum Temp Daily Record 69 °F 67 °F (07-24-2009)
07-24-2013 Edgartown, MA High Minimum Temp Daily Record 71 °F 71 °F (07-24-1990)
07-24-2013 Navajo Dam, NM High Minimum Temp Daily Record 71 °F 68 °F (07-24-1964)
07-24-2013 Canyonlands-the Needle, UT High Minimum Temp Daily Record 72 °F 72 °F (07-24-2005)
07-24-2013 Norwich Pub Util Plt, CT High Minimum Temp Daily Record 72 °F 72 °F (07-24-2004)
07-24-2013 Clinton 5 SE, LA High Minimum Temp Daily Record 76 °F 76 °F (07-24-1999)
07-24-2013 Crockett, TX High Minimum Temp Daily Record 77 °F 77 °F (07-24-2001)
07-24-2013 Columbia, MS High Minimum Temp Daily Record 77 °F 77 °F (07-24-1934)
07-24-2013 Harlingen, TX High Minimum Temp Daily Record 79 °F 79 °F (07-24-1996)
07-24-2013 Slidell, LA High Minimum Temp Daily Record 79 °F 77 °F (07-24-2010)
07-24-2013 Galliano, LA High Minimum Temp Daily Record 80 °F 80 °F (07-24-1975)
07-24-2013 Yazoo City 5 NNE, MS High Minimum Temp Daily Record 80 °F 78 °F (07-24-1995)
07-24-2013 Center 4 SSW, CO High Maximum Temp Daily Record 90 °F 89 °F (07-24-2003)
07-24-2013 Cochiti Dam, NM High Maximum Temp Daily Record 99 °F 98 °F (07-24-2005)
07-24-2013 Perryton, TX High Maximum Temp Daily Record 104 °F 104 °F (07-24-1983)
You're serving up a second helping of derp today? How generous!
There seems to be a certain amount of hyperbole concerning methane lately. I'm glad Dr. Schmidt took the time to put things in their correct perspective.
Ah yes! The sun! How careless for us all to overlook the true furnace of our solar system. I should have gotten out more during the daylight hours and then I may not have missed this bit of information.
Here is something interesting, from your post - "... led to periods of great amplification and persistence like we are seeing (near solar minima)" Interesting, but not logical. Using this logic we should be experiencing some degree of cooling as opposed to a slower atmospheric warming over the past few years. Slower, but continued warming is the observation and not an actual cooling of the climate. Since it seems that you believe that it is the sun that controls our climate on a regular, cyclical basis, then why is it that the global warming still continues today even as we are reaching a solar minima? Could it be because the greenhouse gases we have introduced into the atmosphere over the past 150 years have retained more of the heat energy from the sun and has not allowed it to so easily escape back out into space? Could it be that? .... Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, could be! The Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Thermodynamics still apply, even when you wish that they did not.
If it's the sun, then why is the upper atmosphere cooling?
If it was the sun, wouldn't there be more heat escaping into space than before?
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/m ajor_cold_snow_into_brazil_while_antarctic_ice_nea rs_record_falsifies_pola/
Copy/Paste being such a difficult operation, it was no doubt a simple error that only parts of the original screed were copied by Iceagecoming.
Let me add a few more choice bits that were for some reason not included:
"So along came little Jennifer Francis of Rutgers who happened to notice that warm water in the North Atlantic (around the Barents and Kara Sea) entered the arctic and led to melting of ice and subsequent warming a few years later." (italics mine)
and,
"She then theorized that this lack of arctic ice caused a polar amplification of the jet stream causing large waves instead of a more gentle, more zonal east west flow that bring warmer ocean are inland into North America, Europe. This amplification is what delivers the cold and snow to Eurasia and North America. This was of course jumped on by Jeff Masters now part of the new NBC Universal embarrassment conglomerate called the Weather Company that now even is affiliated with the lefty warmists from Climate Central like Heidi Cullen who embarrassed herself in front of the EPW this week."
The author seems to have a serious problem with women in science who have Ph. D.'s when he doesn't.
The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
Ole Humlum et al, Elsevier Journal of Global and Planetary Change, January 2013
Abstract
Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2.
There is more to the abstract, but ICECAP is careful to set out the conclusions for those of us who don’t have access behind the paywall.
(selected)
(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
(6) CO2 released from anthropogene sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.
Entire article available here: Link
Only problem is, ICECAP doesn’t make any reference to this article from the August issue of the same journal:
Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” by Humlum, Stordahl and Solheim Link
Author: Mark Richardson
Abstract
Humlum et al., 2013 conclude that the change in atmospheric CO2 from January 1980 is natural, rather than human induced. However, their use of differentiated time series removes long term trends such that the presented results cannot support this conclusion. Using the same data sources it is shown that this conclusion violates conservation of mass. Furthermore it is determined that human emissions explain the entire observed long term trend with a residual that is indistinguishable from zero, and that the natural temperature-dependent effect identified by Humlum et al. is an important contributor to the variability, but does not explain any of the observed long term trend of + 1.62 ppm yr− 1.
Sorry, friend.
Arctic sea ice time bomb ticking: the bang’s gonna be huge
by Gareth
Reading this press release about a new paper in Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology spoiled my day. It might not be obvious to a casual reader just glancing through the morning news — but a couple of paragraphs leapt out at me:
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations recently reached 400 parts per million for the first time since the Pliocene Epoch, three million years ago. During this era, Arctic surface temperatures were 15-20 degrees Celsius warmer than today’s surface temperatures.
Ballantyne’s findings suggest that much of the surface warming likely was due to ice-free conditions in the Arctic. That finding matches estimates of land temperatures in the Arctic during the same time. This suggests that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations of 400 ppm may be sufficient to greatly reduce the spatial extent and seasonal persistence of Arctic sea ice.
In other words, losing Arctic sea ice brings huge warming to the lands around the Arctic Ocean. This is extremely bad news for a number of reasons:
- We’re losing the Arctic sea ice well ahead of any schedule derived from model predictions. The sea ice summer minimum could drop below 1 million km2 within a decade. I have argued that it might be even sooner…
- Arctic warming and sea ice losses are already impacting northern hemisphere weather patterns.
- Once the summer sea ice has gone, it’s only a question of how long it will take for the winter ice to disappear. When I last looked at this issue, three years ago, I suggested this might happen much sooner than anyone expected — perhaps by the 2040s.
- When I wrote that post, I suggested that — if we were unlucky — winter ice loss could be within the current climate commitment — that is, within the warming we would expect to see from current levels of greenhouse gases. Ballantyne et al’s new paper explicitly supports that view.
- The consequences of warming of 10ºC to 20ºC on the lands around the Arctic Ocean are horrendous. Recent research suggests that total warming of as little as 1.5ºC could be enough to start major releases of methane as permafrost in Alaska, Canada and Siberia melts. There are also huge deposits of methane beneath the East Siberian Shelf (ESS) that are already beginning to discharge to the atmosphere as their permafrost cap begins to disintegrate under a warming ocean.
- A persistent large scale release of methane would transform the global climate system and make efforts to contain warming by reducing anthropogenic emissions more or less futile. We would be heading far beyond 2ºC deep into the realms of catastrophe.
- Just to complete my bad day, this Guardian report on a new paper modelling the economic costs of a 50 Gt methane release from the ESS suggests that the impact would generate an “extra $60 trillion (net present value) of mean climate change impacts” — comparable to total global GDP at present. World economy over, in other words.
This should be headline news. It should be plastered all over the front pages of newspapers and web sites around the world. TV pundits should be demanding action from the politicians who have put action on emissions reductions in the “too hard” basket. The evidence is beginning to suggest that Wally Broecker’s angry beast, fed up with being prodded with ever bigger sticks, is going to bite back hard — and bite back soon. Is there time to stop all this happening? Perhaps — but it will take a huge effort, a wartime response when the world is being led by billionaires, ideologues and their appeasers intent on denying reality. We’re sleepwalking to disaster. By the time we wake up, it will be too late.
[If we don't do something it's curtains]
Yeah, I'll jump on that dogpile, too.
"Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature”
Troy Masters (a), Corresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author,
Rasmus Benestad (b)
a Los Angeles, CA, United States
b The Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Norway
Abstract
The paper by Humlum et al. (2013) suggests that much of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1980 results from changes in ocean temperatures, rather than from the burning of fossil fuels. We show that these conclusions stem from methodological errors and from not recognizing the impact of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation on inter-annual variations in atmospheric CO2."
AND
"Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” Humlum et al. [Glob. Planet. Change 100: 51-69.]: Isotopes ignored
Zoltán Kern (a), Corresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author, E-mail the corresponding author,
Markus Leuenberger (b), (c), E-mail the corresponding author
a Institute for Geology and Geochemistry, Research Centre for Astronomy and Earth Sciences, MTA, Budaörsi út. 45, H-1112, Budapest, Hungary
b Division of Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, CH-3012, Bern, Switzerland
c Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, Zähringerstrasse 25, CH-3012, Bern, Switzerland
Abstract
A recent study relying purely on statistical analysis of relatively short time series suggested substantial re-thinking of the traditional view about causality explaining the detected rising trend of atmospheric CO2 (atmCO2) concentrations. If these results are well-justified then they should surely compel a fundamental scientific shift in paradigms regarding both atmospheric greenhouse warming mechanism and global carbon cycle. However, the presented work suffers from serious logical deficiencies such as, 1) What could be the sink for fossil fuel CO2 emissions, if neither the atmosphere nor the ocean – as suggested by the authors – play a role? 2) What is the alternative explanation for ocean acidification if the ocean is a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere? Probably the most provocative point of the commented study is that anthropogenic emissions have little influence on atmCO2 concentrations. Authors have obviously ignored the reconstructed and directly measured carbon isotopic trends of atmCO2 (both δ13C, and radiocarbon dilution) and the declining O2/N2 ratio, although these parameters provide solid evidence that fossil fuel combustion is the major source of atmCO2 increase throughout the Industrial Era."
Humlum (2013) is a pretty well-refuted paper at this point. I expect we'll see it cited, though, by the usual suspects. lol
I have long thought that the Arctic sea ice loss was the last tipping point that we could endure. Once the methane begins to enter into the atmosphere from the warming that has already occurred then there is nothing we can do but to count the years before life becomes unsustainable for us. The amount of transference of energy to reverse the process would be enormous. Mitigation, at this point, would prove to be as effective as a glass of water on a forest fire. We have no mechanisms at our disposal to remove enough CO2 from the atmosphere at a pace fast enough to counter the warming and to begin to stabilize the climate. I am a rookie in all of this, but this is what my reasoning capabilities are able to tell me. I will let the mathematicians among us crunch the numbers on this.
I think that moving the heat energy around on the planet only results in the same total heat energy that is already here. The transference of energy would have to be back out into space and away from the planet. The lid has to removed from the kettle in order to accomplish this within a reasonable time frame.
I shared this "little" phrase with the Dr. Mrs.
I could quote her reaction and would be willing to endure a ban of some duration, for the pleasure of that short-lived post. But I would prefer not to attract any attention from the folks with the really big computers.
German Heat Wave Zenith Set to Extend Power Price Rally
Navajo Power Plant Proposes Closing Unit Due to EPA Edict
Biofuel Makers Seek to Ease Mandates to Avert Congress
* Arctic Methane Credibility Bomb
Secret of Usain Bolt's speed unveiled
Arctic drilling: UK 'complacent', say MPs
Warmer climate will hit Volta river levels
Alaska's forest fires burn more fiercely
Potential Well Water Contaminants Highest Near Natural Gas Drilling
Global Warming to Cut Snow Water Storage 56 Percent in Oregon Watershed
Rocks Can Restore Our Climate...After 300,000 Years
Secret of Plant Geometry Revealed: How Plants Set the Angles of Their Branches
World will use 56 percent more energy by 2040
On Rooftops, a Rival for Utilities
* Climate skeptics in Congress
Why dinosaur-killing comet didn't wipe out freshwater life
Frogs in high mountains are contaminated with farm chemicals, study says
'Water-trapped' worlds: A look at life around a cool star
George Mitchell, a Pioneer in Hydraulic Fracturing, Dies at 94
Starred articles especially noteworthy.
A very succinct 4 min review of sea ice, methane, and things that "might be most useful as far as keeping industrial civilization going".
Viewing: 551 - 593
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 — Blog Index