If you missed Nature, you probably saw the headlines:
I really wish any of that were realistic, not so much because the polar bear is a critical linchpin species, but because the loss of Arctic ice in the summer may well trigger even more rapid warming (see “Tundra 4: Permafrost loss linked to Arctic sea ice loss“ and below). But in fact a much more reasonable AFP headline would be “Arctic ice cap on verge of runaway melting: study.” The NSF release should read, “Polar bear extinction now likely.”
I understand that journalists typically don’t read studies closely, but Nature ought to know better. Perhaps, as we will see, it is just a matter of climate scientists of being utterly divorced from the reality of our energy and political systems. Still, in reading the study and its supplementary information, I am puzzled why Nature published the article as written and especially why it chose to sensationalize it on the cover.
[end quote]--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Climate Intervention" group.
To post to this group, send email to climatein...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to climateinterven...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en.
John
Your email contains a significant mistake
If we stop emissions, co2e levels won't be constant. They will fall rapidly due to sinks, e.g. ocean , and simultaneously be pulled up due to sources such as rainforest ecosystem collapse and tundra excursions
Further, you fail to challenge the central premise of the paper, that sea ice is not of itself a tipping point.
A
John
Maybe it would help if you said what ‘tipping point’ means to you.
It might also be important to remember that the disagreement here is not about urgency of action or about how much the arctic matters. I, for one, do see rapid CO2-driven climate change in the arctic as an important reason for action. And, having spent a lot of time up there traveling and watching bears I certainly care about that landscape.
What I do not see is a scientific basis for your continued claims that arctic sea ice is the Big Climate Tipping point and that it’s about to tip. The basic physics, the observations and the results of many papers seem to argue against this point of view.
Yours,
David
The lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere has components ranging from several hundred years to over 1000. I have Antarctic ice data that shows changes in concentration take over 1000 years.
From: climatein...@googlegroups.com [mailto:climatein...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 8:36 AM
To: johnnis...@gmail.com
Cc: John Nissen; Climate Intervention
Subject: Re: [clim] Arctic sea-ice not a "tipping point"
John
Yes, but in response to short spikes much of the carbon is quickly drawn back down into sinks. Only when these sinks equilibriate would carbon longevity increase markedly.
The opposite effect of runaway climate change also may dominate, as shown by the recent tundra carbon excursion study. Heads we live, tails we die. What do you call?
A
John
Maybe it would help if you said what ‘tipping point’ means to you.
It might also be important to remember that the disagreement here is not about urgency of action or about how much the arctic matters. I, for one, do see rapid CO2-driven climate change in the arctic as an important reason for action. And, having spent a lot of time up there traveling and watching bears I certainly care about that landscape.
What I do not see is a scientific basis for your continued claims that arctic sea ice is the Big Climate Tipping point and that it’s about to tip. The basic physics, the observations and the results of many papers seem to argue against this point of view.
Yours,
David
From: climatein...@googlegroups.com [mailto:climatein...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Nissen
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 6:27 AM
To: kcal...@gmail.com
Cc: Ken Caldeira; Climate Intervention; John Nissen; P. Wadhams
Subject: Re: [clim] Arctic sea-ice not a "tipping point"
Hi Ken,
I think this paper gives an extremely misleading view of the situation in the Arctic, with the unprecendented retreat of the Arctic sea ice, and steady decline in volume since 2007. I asked Professor Peter Wadhams, a leading expert on Arctic sea ice, what he made of the paper, and this was his response:
---
The problem with the Tietsche et al. paper is that the authors misinterpret their own results. The model experiment that they carry out is to artificially remove all the sea ice from the Arctic and see whether (in the model simulation) it comes back again. They find that it does in 2-3 years, to an area that is characteristic of the current state of the climate. They re-do the experiment for various future states of the ice cover (they acknowledge that its area is diminishing year on year), and in each case they get a recovery, but only to an area characteristic of the climate of the time. What does this demonstrate? They say that it indicates that if we were to stop stressing the sea ice cover by adding CO2 to the atmosphere, it would recover in 2-3 years and there is therefore no tipping point that determines an irrevocable end to the ice cover. Such an interpretation is false for the following reasons. 1. Reduction or even cessation of CO2 emissions does not cause the instant cessation of warming, since the warming of the earth lags behind the radiative forcing of the CO2-enriched atmosphere; at the moment only about 55% of the potential warming for our current CO2 state has been realised. So even if we stop emissions entirely we will keep warming up for several decades, with a consequent continued reduction in sea ice cover, possibly ending in its complete removal. They don't simulate this. In fact they ignore it. 2. Artificial removal of the sea ice cover is just that - artificial. Of course no natural fluctuation of the sea ice cover could ever be that big, so naturally in a model study the ice will come back again after such an unnatural imposed change. This is telling us absolutely nothing about the real world. It is like saying that if you hit someone over the head and they recover consciousness, this proves that you can slowly starve them without them ultimately dying of malnutrition.
---
It is strange how, as the situation deteriorates, people write papers to suggest all is well and we can relax for a few decades. There was that paper about polar bears surviving the Arctic warming, provided we reduce our emissions [1]. Peter said it was so full of holes it should never have been published. He is considering a formal complaint to the editors of Nature. BTW, I'm glad to find that this paper has been rebuffed [2] - but how many people read the paper without knowing, especially journalists? Here a quote from the rebuttal:
[quote]
If you missed Nature, you probably saw the headlines:
I really wish any of that were realistic, not so much because the polar bear is a critical linchpin species, but because the loss of Arctic ice in the summer may well trigger even more rapid warming (see “Tundra 4: Permafrost loss linked to Arctic sea ice loss <http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/12/breaking-news-tundra-4-permafrost-loss-linked-to-arctic-sea-ice-loss/> “ and below). But in fact a much more reasonable AFP headline would be “Arctic ice cap on verge of runaway melting: study.” The NSF release should read, “Polar bear extinction now likely.”
- Arctic icecap safe from runaway melting: study <http://green.yahoo.com/news/afp/20101215/sc_afp/environmentclimatewarmingarcticicespeciesbear.html> (AFP)
- Polar Bears: On Thin Ice? Extinction Can Be Averted, Scientists Say <http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=118224> (NSF press release)
I understand that journalists typically don’t read studies closely, but Nature ought to know better. Perhaps, as we will see, it is just a matter of climate scientists of being utterly divorced from the reality of our energy and political systems. Still, in reading the study and its supplementary information, I am puzzled why Nature published the article as written and especially why it chose to sensationalize it on the cover.
[end quote]
Cheers,
John
[1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7326/full/nature09653.html
[2] http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/20/polar-bear-arctic-sea-ice-all-but-doomed-misleading-nature-cover-story/
---
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu> wrote:
Tietsche, S., D. Notz, J. H. Jungclaus, and J. Marotzke (2011), Recovery mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L02707, doi:10.1029/2010GL045698.
Abstract.
We examine the recovery of Arctic sea ice from
prescribed ice-free summer conditions in simulations of 21st
century climate in an atmosphere–ocean general circulation
model. We find that ice extent recovers typically within two
years. The excess oceanic heat that had built up during the
ice-free summer is rapidly returned to the atmosphere during
the following autumn and winter, and then leaves the Arctic
partly through increased longwave emission at the top of the
atmosphere and partly through reduced atmospheric heat
advection from lower latitudes. Oceanic heat transport does
not contribute significantly to the loss of the excess heat. Our
results suggest that anomalous loss of Arctic sea ice during
a single summer is reversible, as the ice–albedo feedback
is alleviated by large-scale recovery mechanisms. Hence,
hysteretic threshold behavior (or a “tipping point”) is
unlikely to occur during the decline of Arctic summer seaice
cover in the 21st century.
see also:
Holland, M. M., Bitz, C. M., Tremblay, L.-B. & Bailey, D. A. Am. Geophys. Union Geophys. Monogr. Ser. 180, 133–150 (2008).
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/oce/mholland/papers/holland_AGU_DeWeaver_Ch10.pdf
___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 <tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212> kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
> summer may well trigger even more rapid warming (see 锟斤拷Tundra 4: Permafrost
> loss linked to Arctic sea ice
> and below). But in fact a much more reasonable AFP headline would be
> 锟斤拷Arctic ice cap on verge of runaway melting: study.锟斤拷 The NSF release
> should read, 锟斤拷Polar bear extinction now likely.锟斤拷
>
> I understand that journalists typically don锟斤拷t read studies closely, but *
> Nature* ought to know better. Perhaps, as we will see, it is just a
> matter of climate scientists of being utterly divorced from the reality of
> our energy and political systems. Still, in reading the study and its
> supplementary information, I am puzzled why *Nature* published the article
> as written and especially why it chose to sensationalize it on the cover.
> [end quote]
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
> [1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7326/full/nature09653.html
>
> [2]
> http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/20/polar-bear-arctic-sea-ice-all-but-doomed-misleading-nature-cover-story/
>
> ---
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Ken Caldeira <
> kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>> Tietsche, S., D. Notz, J. H. Jungclaus, and J. Marotzke (2011), Recovery
>> mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L02707,
>> doi:10.1029/2010GL045698.
>>
>> Abstract.
>>
>> We examine the recovery of Arctic sea ice from
>> prescribed ice锟絓free summer conditions in simulations of 21st
>> century climate in an atmosphere锟紺ocean general circulation
>> model. We find that ice extent recovers typically within two
>> years. The excess oceanic heat that had built up during the
>> ice锟絓free summer is rapidly returned to the atmosphere during
>> the following autumn and winter, and then leaves the Arctic
>> partly through increased longwave emission at the top of the
>> atmosphere and partly through reduced atmospheric heat
>> advection from lower latitudes. Oceanic heat transport does
>> not contribute significantly to the loss of the excess heat. Our
>> results suggest that anomalous loss of Arctic sea ice during
>> a single summer is reversible, as the ice锟紺albedo feedback
>> is alleviated by large锟絓scale recovery mechanisms. Hence,
>> hysteretic threshold behavior (or a 锟斤拷tipping point锟斤拷) is
>> unlikely to occur during the decline of Arctic summer seaice
>> cover in the 21st century.
>>
>> see also:
>>
>> Holland, M. M., Bitz, C. M., Tremblay, L.-B. & Bailey, D. A. Am. Geophys.
>> Union Geophys. Monogr. Ser. 180, 133锟紺150 (2008).
> summer may well trigger even more rapid warming (see “Tundra 4: Permafrost
> loss linked to Arctic sea ice
> and below). But in fact a much more reasonable AFP headline would be
> “Arctic ice cap on verge of runaway melting: study.” The NSF release
> should read, “Polar bear extinction now likely.”
>
> I understand that journalists typically don’t read studies closely, but *
> Nature* ought to know better. Perhaps, as we will see, it is just a
> matter of climate scientists of being utterly divorced from the reality of
> our energy and political systems. Still, in reading the study and its
> supplementary information, I am puzzled why *Nature* published the article
> as written and especially why it chose to sensationalize it on the cover.
> [end quote]
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
> [1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7326/full/nature09653.html
>
> [2]
> http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/20/polar-bear-arctic-sea-ice-all-but-doomed-misleading-nature-cover-story/
>
> ---
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Ken Caldeira <
> kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>> Tietsche, S., D. Notz, J. H. Jungclaus, and J. Marotzke (2011), Recovery
>> mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L02707,
>> doi:10.1029/2010GL045698.
>>
>> Abstract.
>>
>> We examine the recovery of Arctic sea ice from
>> prescribed ice‐free summer conditions in simulations of 21st
>> century climate in an atmosphere–ocean general circulation
>> model. We find that ice extent recovers typically within two
>> years. The excess oceanic heat that had built up during the
>> ice‐free summer is rapidly returned to the atmosphere during
>> the following autumn and winter, and then leaves the Arctic
>> partly through increased longwave emission at the top of the
>> atmosphere and partly through reduced atmospheric heat
>> advection from lower latitudes. Oceanic heat transport does
>> not contribute significantly to the loss of the excess heat. Our
>> results suggest that anomalous loss of Arctic sea ice during
>> a single summer is reversible, as the ice–albedo feedback
>> is alleviated by large‐scale recovery mechanisms. Hence,
>> hysteretic threshold behavior (or a “tipping point”) is
>> unlikely to occur during the decline of Arctic summer seaice
>> cover in the 21st century.
>>
>> see also:
>>
>> Holland, M. M., Bitz, C. M., Tremblay, L.-B. & Bailey, D. A. Am. Geophys.
>> Union Geophys. Monogr. Ser. 180, 133–150 (2008).
> summer may well trigger even more rapid warming (see 锟斤拷Tundra 4: Permafrost
> loss linked to Arctic sea ice
> and below). But in fact a much more reasonable AFP headline would be
> 锟斤拷Arctic ice cap on verge of runaway melting: study.锟斤拷 The NSF release
> should read, 锟斤拷Polar bear extinction now likely.锟斤拷
>
> I understand that journalists typically don锟斤拷t read studies closely, but *
> Nature* ought to know better. Perhaps, as we will see, it is just a
> matter of climate scientists of being utterly divorced from the reality of
> our energy and political systems. Still, in reading the study and its
> supplementary information, I am puzzled why *Nature* published the article
> as written and especially why it chose to sensationalize it on the cover.
> [end quote]
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
> [1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7326/full/nature09653.html
>
> [2]
> http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/20/polar-bear-arctic-sea-ice-all-but-doomed-misleading-nature-cover-story/
>
> ---
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Ken Caldeira <
> kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>> Tietsche, S., D. Notz, J. H. Jungclaus, and J. Marotzke (2011), Recovery
>> mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L02707,
>> doi:10.1029/2010GL045698.
>>
>> Abstract.
>>
>> We examine the recovery of Arctic sea ice from
>> prescribed ice锟絓free summer conditions in simulations of 21st
>> century climate in an atmosphere锟紺ocean general circulation
>> model. We find that ice extent recovers typically within two
>> years. The excess oceanic heat that had built up during the
>> ice锟絓free summer is rapidly returned to the atmosphere during
>> the following autumn and winter, and then leaves the Arctic
>> partly through increased longwave emission at the top of the
>> atmosphere and partly through reduced atmospheric heat
>> advection from lower latitudes. Oceanic heat transport does
>> not contribute significantly to the loss of the excess heat. Our
>> results suggest that anomalous loss of Arctic sea ice during
>> a single summer is reversible, as the ice锟紺albedo feedback
>> is alleviated by large锟絓scale recovery mechanisms. Hence,
>> hysteretic threshold behavior (or a 锟斤拷tipping point锟斤拷) is
>> unlikely to occur during the decline of Arctic summer seaice
>> cover in the 21st century.
>>
>> see also:
>>
>> Holland, M. M., Bitz, C. M., Tremblay, L.-B. & Bailey, D. A. Am. Geophys.
>> Union Geophys. Monogr. Ser. 180, 133锟紺150 (2008).