Hi Mike,
I am all for a scientific evidence-based policy. You ask me to be
careful
about who is responsible for what, and who should be acting. I will
give my
personal view as a concerned scientist looking at the situation as
dispassionately as possible.
I would expect IPCC to describe the state of Earth System, the
direction and
speed of travel away from Holocene conditions, the possible future
scenarios
(preferably based on how the planet has behaved in the geological
past), and
the associated risks for human society.
The IPCC should then propose what can be done to reduce these risks to a
minimum. These descriptions and proposed actions should be
quantitative as
well as qualitative and specify time limitations. Scientists and
engineers
can then suggest technical solutions where appropriate.
Governments, collaborating internationally, can facilitate appropriate
actions, through regulations, direct funding and financial incentives.
Entrepreneurs can seize opportunities to implement partial solutions or
approaches to "help the planet" in anticipation of support, knowing that
they have a clear steer from IPCC.
These were my expectations - not what I am seeing from IPCC.
The IPCC gives an impression the Earth System moving slowly and
gradually
towards a warmer climate by the end of century, without significant
danger
(e.g. from climate change, sea level rise, ocean acidification or
methane
outburst) unless the temperature reaches 2C above pre-industrial
Holocene
condition. The word "danger" does not occur once in AR5 that I could
find.
Unfortunately the evidence from observed trends paints a very different
picture. The Earth System is moving ever faster away from the Holocene
norm, especially in the Arctic, where temperature rise, snow decline,
sea
ice decline, methane emissions and Greenland Ice Sheet melt have all
been
accelerating over the past thirty years. The sea ice is in a death
spiral,
according to the world's leading expert on sea ice, Professor
Wadhams. We
could get locked into an Arctic which is seasonal free of sea ice by
2020.
Climate change is now all too apparent, with tens or even hundreds of
millions people suffering as a result of drought brought about by, or
aggravated by, climate change. Arctic amplification is implicated in
the
remarkable growth in weather extreme events over the past thirty years,
including floods and droughts.
Intervention has become essential if we are to minimise risk of
catastrophes
of one kind or another. What I don't see from IPCC is any sense of
urgency. Michael Hayes wrote on this thread (Nov 30):
"The greatest moral hazard is, in my humble opinion, being too slow and
rigid in developing our options and being too late in deployment to
actually
represent a meaningful effort."
IPCC always talks about intervention becoming necessary in the
future. It
seems that IPCC's motto is "later rather than sooner". The
precautionary
principle is thrown out of the window.
The result is that, when somebody seeks financial backing for a proposal
which tackles the major issues with a view to restoring the climate
system,
there is no support from the scientific advisers who would normally
advise
potential backers on such matters.
Thus nothing gets done, while the situation becomes increasingly dire.
Yet climate restoration is on the cards, if we seize the opportunity
now.
Kind regards, John
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:43 AM, Michael MacCracken
<[email protected]>
wrote:
John--I know you don't like it, but scientists and the IPCC are
pro-science--they summarize what science says, those are their
findings and communication.
On what SHOULD be done, that gets into policy and into all sorts
of questions in addition to and beyond science, so scientists
have no special right to be the decider and tend therefore to
refrain making claims based on their occupation while perhaps
supporting a position as a citizen.
The question of what to do is really one before the
decision-makers of the COP, with input coming from all sorts of
groups. Scientists involved with IPCC work to keep the
statements relating to science to be scientifically accurate--it
is up to the public (hopefully the knowledgeable public) to be
influencing the decision-makers, etc.
I really do wish you would be more careful in making clear where
the responsibility really lies and who should be acting. Trying
to make scientists into advocates is just running against a
long-held tradition that makes good sense for our society as a
whole. There will be pushback against these movements that want
to simply ignore science or abuse it, and it is key in that
regard that science not just be viewed as one advocacy group
(for other than the scientific tradition and support of its
findings).
Best, Mike
On 11/28/16 9:54 AM, John Nissen wrote:
Hi Mike and Alan,
I think we are on the same side when it comes to what matters.
Are we not all fighting for a better future for humanity on this
planet we all share? And doesn't this involve doing something
to prevent the situation getting a lot worse in the Arctic, even
when there is disagreement between models and observations over
just how bad the situation has become and how quickly the
situation is deteriorating? Surely the international scientific
community should pull together and agree on action to improve
the situation which has a chance of success? Surely some kind
of interim intervention to restore Arctic albedo is required,
even if only on a precautionary principle if you think the most
optimistic models are correct. And shouldn't we prepare for
intervention as quickly as possible to give ourselves the
greatest chance of successful deployment, while continuing
research and developing better models to optimise that
deployment? And isn't preparation for deployment justified even
if it doesn't prove necessary?
Preparation need not take years. There was a discussion on the
Ebola outbreak on the radio this morning. They said how the
procedure for drug testing which would normally take years had
been cut down to six weeks - but even that was too long to save
many lives.
There has been a huge antagonism to geoengineering built up over
the years, so that most scientists are now against it. But our
job is to recommend what is best for humanity. We need to use
some geoengineering techniques for a limited period to get the
planet back on course - reversing climate change and restoring
the climate to Holocene-like conditions. We must not fail to
give good advice just because of public sentiment against
geoengineering.
Cheers, John
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Michael MacCracken
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Alan--I don't disagree that there are problems
with models, just there have been with various types
of observations that have to get resolved (e.g., the
Microwave Sounding Unit time series, ocean
observations as types of instruments changed, etc.).
And the full set of observations can also be
incomplete, not accounting for all that may matter.
What science needs to do is work out why--not
believing either in some absolute sense.
On the Arctic situation, I was just noting the
obvious, namely that if you drive even perfect
models while not accounting for some particular
forcing, that could well be a cause of/contributor
to the disagreement between results of model
simulations for ice volume and extent and
observations--it is not always the physics that is
the problem.
I'd generalize your statement that history (here
meaning of scientific discovery) has not looked
favourable on those who ignore the observations,
however erratic or unreliable, to suggest that those
who carefully seek to understand the differences
between available observations and available models
(theory), accepting neither without question, have
been those who have most advanced the science (and
in so doing they must look at everything skeptically
and then also look for what we may not even be
considering).
Best, Mike
On 11/27/16 1:54 PM, Alan Gadian wrote:
Mike,
Sorry for the delay .. in India.
I am afraid I am someone on the "other
side" in that I use NWP and climate
models for my living. Thus I can speak
as someone who has used them a lot!
There are good things about climate
models as well as bad things. The fear I
have is that the whole of the IPCC is
based on climate models, and that is the
issue. There are huge differences
between the poles, and these are largely
ignored. There are other processes
which are not replicated in
climate models. Why a double ITCZ? Why
little Indian monsoon. One can explain
these features ...
I note the papers, but I am afraid,
whether it is 70km mountains on Venus
(as proposed by NASA) history has not
looked favourably on those who ignore
the observations, however erratic /
unreliable.
Thanks for your comments
Alan
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Michael MacCracken
wrote:
Dear Alan--When
observationalists are clear
the observations of ice
thinning and retreat are
right, and the modelers are
insisting that the physics
is the model is properly
constructed
and correct, then, if there
are inconsistencies between
the two, what needs to be
looked at
very carefully is the
forcing, or more
specifically, the changes in
the forcing over time.
Specifically, there have
been changes over time in
the sulfate and black carbon
forcing that
affect the solar radiation
budget and also cloud
albedo, and there have been
changes in the
tropospheric ozone
concentration (as well of
the greenhouse gases, which
need to be treated
specifically and not using
CO2e). I'd suggest that all
it would take are some
relatively
modest problems in some of
these forcings as the region
has gone through the issue
of Arctic
springtime haze and the its
"clean up" as SO2 emissions
in Europe and North America
grew and
then cleaned up much of the
SO2 emissions, as the black
carbon loadings changed as
growth of
diesel emissions of black
carbon changed and were
somewhat reduced, and then
as China has
grown. Calculations in
Navarro et al, 2016 make
clear that changes in
forcing can influence
the Arctic. I'd just suggest
that a hypothesis that I
think likely needs some
exploration is
that it is the time history
of the forcings that could
explain the difference
between the
observations and the models,
and that it might be more
productive to look at this
alternative
hypothesis as a way of
explaining their
differences.
I'd also note that I suggest
this as only one alternative
hypothesis--there may well
be
others. In any case, I'd
suggest finding some
possible explanation(s) for
the differences and
to get working on
reconciling and
understanding the reasons
for the differences--which
is
what science generally aims
at doing rather than simply
blaming the other side.
Best, Mike MacCracken
On 11/23/16 1:50 PM, Alan
Gadian wrote:
Reto and Peter,
ECMWF is the best forecast
model in the world. If you
had attended the change of
directorship last Spring,
you would have heard them
say that the ice model
predictions
( and they have the HIGHEST
resolution forecasting
model) are terrible, do not
predict
changes and have little
connection with reality. My
climate model has taken 250
days
on 12,000 cray cores and I
only achieve 20km
resolution. ( I estimate I
used about 2
million dollars of
electricity in the end, as
some of the model is at
2-3km resolution.
It has possibly been one of
the biggest projects on
ARCHER.
ECMWF can run globally at
2-4km resolution. How is it
also that Martin Miller ,
who
masterminded much of the
ECMWF model said of AR5 ,
that the clouds were so
badly
predicted that the radiative
balance is not correct, and
the climate models could not
be trusted for clouds and
radiation? He was one of
the worlds best experts,but
ignored.
Also then, How is it that
then the climate models can
do so much better than the
best
weather prediction models in
the world? When the data
evidence of the HUGE changes
in
ice volume and extent, are
so apparent, so much so that
by the time AR5 went to
press ,
six months after writing,
the ar5 ice extent
predictions were outside the
predicted
range for the worst
scenario, how can the ar5
community still try to sell
the story?
Maybe Trump took his lead
from the climate modellors?
I have had endless arguments
with Piers Forster , another
lead author on ar5 about
this. scientists who know
about modelling the weather
have been ignored. You do
not
get papers published which
day that models are wrong,
only when you say how great
they
are.
In essence ,after AR3, it
has become a gravy train for
academic careers based
largely
on CXXP models. In a short
time these models will be
shown to be catestrophically
wrong, and all that is done
is to pillory those who try
to point out the true
science.
Regards
Alan.
T --- Alan Gadian, NCAS,
UK. Email:
[email protected] &
[email protected]
Tel: +44 / 0 775 451 9009
T ---
On 23 Nov 2016, at 15:32, P.
Wadhams <[email protected]>
wrote:
Dear Dr Knutti, I
would like to intervene in
this seemingly interminable
thread to draw
attention to errors which
you have made when you
mention my
work.
1. " But the natural
variability is very large
(e.g. Kay 2011,
Swart 2015,
Screen 2013, 2016). There is
no reason why short
term trends
could simply be
extrapolated, and the
predictions
by Peter Wadhams
of sea ice disappearing by
today have not
happened so far"
a) I completely agree
that natural variability is
very large and stress
this in my book "A
Farewell to Ice" which I
suspect you have not read.
In
the book I stress that
it is the TREND which is
rapidly downwards towards
zero, not that every
successive year features a
monotonic decrease in
summer ice volume.
And, despite the newspaper
reports which seems to
constitute your
reading matter on my work, I
do NOT forecast that the ice
volume will go to zero
in a specific year (like
this year), only that it
will go to zero in a
very small window of years
(of which this year forms
one) as opposed to the
decades which are still
forecast by the worst of the
current models. You
might also care to glance at
the current NSIDC charts
for ice volume (Arctic
and Antarctic) which show an
extraordinary turndown
since September
suggesting that the
co-operative collapse which
I have long
projected through my
thickness measurements is
now happening. b) Why can't
short term trends be
extrapolated? Firstly, they
are not short term - they
date back to the 1980s
when observations began. And
secondly, please name
the magical effect
which will cause the trend
to become invalid and the
ice
volume to pick up
again.
2. > Maybe the models
are missing something, but
it's just as plausible
(and
in most
scientist's view more
likely) that the models are
largely
consistent with observations
within natural
variability.
Your idea of "most
scientists" is an odd one.
When the observations show a
rapid declining trend
leading to zero very soon,
how can models (which
predict decades of
continued summer sea ice) be
consistent with these
observations? They are
simply not consistent, and
it is clear that by "most
scientists" you mean
"many modellers", some of
whom have never seen sea
ice.
3. I'm not
downplaying the
strong changes in the
Arctic, but the science
suggests a
fairly linear (and
reversible) relationship
between
Arctic sea ice
and temperature with large
variability
superimposed. In
my view they do not support
a "death spiral".
Well, it's obvious
that there is a linear
relationship between air
temperature history
and sea ice thickness. The
"degree days of cold"
analysis dates back to
the 1950s and was amplified
by Maykut and
Untersteiner's
analysis in 1971. But if air
temperature is increasing
rapidly, as it is,
then thickness will decline
just as rapidly, leading to
a period in summer
with zero thickness, in
other words, a "death
spiral"
QED.
To paraphrase Captain
Scott, I don't think I need
say more,
Best wishes
Peter Wadhams
--
You received this message
because you are subscribed
to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this
group and stop receiving
emails from it, send an
email to
[email protected].
To post to this group, send
email to
[email protected].
Visit this group at
https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
