Climate-gate

[billvon]

Do you agree a 20% increase in the weekly human death rate for population of at least 10 million in some area, caused mainly by unusual weather conditions directly stressing human life (not a hurricane's flood etc.) is a "global warming catastrophe?

I wouldn't, but you could if you like.

Simple example - I would not call 1600 people killed by a blizzard or a rainstorm to be a global warming "catastrophe", even though it would meet your numerical definition in an area where ~10 million people lived. Such death tolls have been related to dozens of natural disasters going back to the 1800's.

So pick one, given that the goal is reassurance. The rendering uninhabitable of some regions of the planet currently home to billions of people certainly qualifies, yes? How low are the odds of that happening, is the question then.

Again, my goal is not reassurance. However, if billions of people were to be killed in a specific area by one event, I would call that a catastrophe.

 

[Billy T]

I wouldn't, but you could if you like.

Simple example - I would not call 1600 people killed by a blizzard or a rainstorm to be a global warming "catastrophe", even though it would meet your numerical definition in an area where ~10 million people lived. Such death tolls have been related to dozens of natural disasters going back to the 1800's. ...

OK make it 20% increase in death rate in a population of 50 million in a week. - I'll accept that as definition of Global Warming Catastrophe. (due mostly to unusual weather in that week, of course, as before.)

I don't see why you object to my 10 million - only seven of the 50 US states have more than that. So if one of the 43 lost had a 20% INCREASE in the death rate in one week due to weather event - I would not have been able to claim it as a Global Warming Catastrophe. With 50 million I really bending over backwards to get you to agree on some definition as that means 1 in ever six Americans must fall prey to an accelerated death rate in a weather event before it would be a Global Warming Catastrophe!

 

[billvon]

I'll accept that as definition of Global Warming Catastrophe. (due mostly to unusual weather in that week, of course, as before.)

Again, feel free to use any definition you like. It's a subjective term so it's not too important that your definition agrees with anyone else's. (Of course if you call every heat wave and rainstorm a "catastrophe" people may stop listening to your next prediction of catastrophe.)

 

[Billy T]

Again, feel free to use any definition you like. It's a subjective term so it's not too important that your definition agrees with anyone else's. (Of course if you call every heat wave and rainstorm a "catastrophe" people may stop listening to your next prediction of catastrophe.)

I'm trying hard to get you to agree to what you would consider a Global Warming Catastrophe as if it should happen I don't want you to then say: "That is not a Global Warming Catastrophe - just a normal variation." One in every 6 Americas having their death caused by Global Warming of a one week weather event sure seem like a Catastrophe to me.

 

[billvon]

I'm trying hard to get you to agree to what you would consider a Global Warming Catastrophe

I gave an example above in reply to Iceaura's suggestion - a billion people killed in one area due to one warming-related event would certainly qualify. 1600 people would not.

If you want a number like "anything over 134,300 people killed within a 12.3 hour period" then I can't give you that, since I don't define "catastrophe" objectively.

 

[rpenner]

I gave an example above in reply to Iceaura's suggestion - a billion people killed in one area due to one warming-related event would certainly qualify. 1600 people would not.

If you want a number like "anything over 134,300 people killed within a 12.3 hour period" then I can't give you that, since I don't define "catastrophe" objectively.

The proposed threshold of 10^9 people killed per event and the retreat from defining any definition don't serve any purpose in discussing if the climate on the threshold of potentially ending human civilization. The definition is only useful post-collapse and the non-definition is a intellectually dishonest refusal to engage in discussion.

 

[iceaura]

And my point was that there are three possible reasons why those references aren't neccessarily being presented. I do my best to address what I consider to be misconceptions or misperceptions, however, sometimes it's not that simple. There's a fallacy to that effect, I forget the name of it. Sometimes the evidence might be spread across dozens of papers and is easier to communicate then it is to demonstrate

The assertion that there might be evidence of something in some papers or other obscure sources somewhere, unrecognized, is a truism. Of course there might be. So?

The situation we face is a large body of reassurance and disparagement of alarmist exaggeration, numerous claims that projections of catastrophe in the near future are irresponsible and damaging, and so forth - but little actual argument or evidence that provides support for these reassurances. This is worrisome. The claim that this argument or evidence could exist somewhere, some paper we haven't read or place we haven't looked, is of course accurate, but fails to address the worry of it not existing where we can see it, and not being found when we look for it, and not being presented by the people making the reassurances and disparagements that need its support.

If nobody can think of good reasons that a methane burst with greenhouse feedback is vanishingly unlikely to create a temporary boost in the worlds average air temperature capable of - say - depopulating the Seven Ovens of southern China, maybe there aren't any. In which case the probability calculation becomes urgent, no?

 

[pjdude1219]

Depends on your definition of 'catastrophe' I would think. If a mass extinction fits your definition then we are almost certain to have one; indeed it is well underway. If it involves the end of humanity as we know it within the next 100 years, then the risk is tiny.

these are the only definitions of catastrophe

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catastrophe

 

[Billy T]

The CIA has death rates for 2014 by countries here: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2066rank.html. For USA it is 8.15 /1000. Lower in countries with higher birth rates (greater percentage of young) except when high infant mortality too and or very poor, then it is more than twice higher, as is the case in several African nations. In Europe, US and economically advanced countries, there are many places with air-conditioning, where "shelter" could be found during otherwise killing heat / humidity waves but not elsewhere.

Just to have easy basis, lets guess the death rate is 10/1000 where high temperature and humidity might increase it 20% during a week to 12/1000 in a populations of 10 million or cause an increase of 12E4 =120,000 deaths in a week extra due to weather extreme of global warming. That is well beyond what bad hurricane, floods, or other one week "normal" weather variations cause.

Thus, I would call 120,000 extra deaths in a 10 million population in a week due to unusual weather conditions a Global Warming Catastrophe. AFAIK, that has not happened yet, but does happen occasionally during major wars. I fear, that "business as usual" (~3% annually more CO2 released, and growing effect of about 30 to 35 positive feed backs* mutually re-enforcing their effects, separately consider) has more than a 50/50 chance of making that defined Global Warming Catastrophe during the next decade (2024 or before) but that is just my opinion.

This note to correct some earlier posts when I was rushed and not being clear - mixing things up.

* Albedo dropping due to ice & snow melting, soot deposits from larger more frequent fires, and Methane release from tundra and shallow Arctic waters being two of the most important ones AFAIK which act on decade time scale significantly. Interference with food production is probably more destructive but with a slower rate of change. (Jet stream wander, ocean acidification being the main drivers, I think)

 

[billvon]

these are the only definitions of catastrophe

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catastrophe

Definition 2: "a momentous tragic event. . . ."

Now you just have to define "momentous" and "tragic". Which of course is why such terms are generally not used in science journals.

 

[billvon]

The proposed threshold of 10^9 people killed per event and the retreat from defining any definition don't serve any purpose in discussing if the climate on the threshold of potentially ending human civilization.

Agreed. If human civilization is about to end, all such definitions are pointless. Fortunately that is unlikely.

The definition is only useful post-collapse and the non-definition is a intellectually dishonest refusal to engage in discussion.

See above.

 

[billvon]

If nobody can think of good reasons that a methane burst with greenhouse feedback is vanishingly unlikely to create a temporary boost in the worlds average air temperature capable of - say - depopulating the Seven Ovens of southern China, maybe there aren't any. In which case the probability calculation becomes urgent, no?

Well, no one can give any good reasons why a gamma-ray burst capable of sterilizing most of the Earth won't arrive tomorrow. Perhaps that means there aren't any good reasons that it won't happen. And perhaps that also means that there is some urgency in calculating the exact probability, but any such calculation is going to be little more than an educated guess.

 

[Trippy]

A large part of that slow response is that most of the ocean, the deeper than 500M parts, is not doing much to help current absorption.*

More or less correct.

So while top layers are soaking up CO2, they are also sending it back into the air more than into the deep ocean.

This statement has no factual basis and is not supported by the source you posted.

When it comes to experts in this area, Scripts is "second to none."

There's nothing new to me in the link you posted. Please pay attention to context. I was strictly addressing the non-biological processes as those the ones you were (with or without realizing it) referring to in your post. The biological processes are a seperate system driven by seperate forces and are not neccessarily driven in the same directions as the physico-chemical diffusion driven equilibria we were discussing.

The mixing of deep water with shallow water and the influence that has on up-take rates is a completely seperate discussion again. Nothing, I repeat not one single thing in the sripps link you posted contradicts anything I have actually said.

One easy and cheaper than current practice way to fight global warming is burial at sea. - Make cremation and even land burial illegal.

It's not what you appear to mean, but one method of disposing of atmospheric CO2 that has been investigated was disposal by pumping liquid CO2 under water. The basic idea is that there is a critical depth below which liquid CO2 has negative bouyancy (meaning it sits on the sea-floor rather than floating back to the surface). The idea was that over time the liquid CO2 would diffuse into the ocean water, which is where it will likely end up anyway. There were, however, complications in the experiments - I'll see if I can track down the videos later. There was an unexpected physico-chemical reaction between the liquid CO2 and the seawater that resulted in the generation of substantial heat (I seem to recall enough to crack the pyrex beaker the experiment was conducted with) and a something like 20 fold increase in the volume of the liquid CO2. Last I heard (this was some time ago) further experiments were on hold until the dynamics of the interaction were better understood.

* If the gulf stream dies - ie the "Thermal-Haline "piston" ceases to push oxygen rich water along the ocean bottom, some all the way into the Indian Ocean, it turns anaerobic down there and up comes more organic decay CH4 - This may be powerful positive feed back - I have not seen mentioned before, but bet someone has paper on this effect. Perhaps burial at sea is NOT a good idea at all.

Another statement without basis in fact.
1. There is no evidence that the gulf stream is capable of being stopped, as I recall, the most that has been suggested is that its turning point might be moved south leading to cooling in the north atlantic.
2. Even if it is possible for the gulf stream to be stopped completely, that doesn't imply that the oceans will become anerobic because a rearrangement of the ocean currents to accomodate the change in circulation could still occur. The earth and its systems are remarkably flexible.

 

[Trippy]

The assertion that there might be evidence of something in some papers or other obscure sources somewhere, unrecognized, is a truism. Of course there might be. So?

So, it remains one of three possible explanations, of which you've so far explicitly acknowledged only one. You've agreed that it's a truism and that's fine - we move on.

The situation we face is a large body of reassurance and disparagement of alarmist exaggeration, numerous claims that projections of catastrophe in the near future are irresponsible and damaging, and so forth - but little actual argument or evidence that provides support for these reassurances. This is worrisome.

From what I've seen we have, on the one hand Billy T arguing for the possibility of the extinction of human civilization within a generation or two, and on the other hand billvon seems to be saying not much more than "While anthropogenic climate change is bad, that particular outcome seems unlikely."

The claim that this argument or evidence could exist somewhere, some paper we haven't read or place we haven't looked, is of course accurate, but fails to address the worry of it not existing where we can see it, and not being found when we look for it, and not being presented by the people making the reassurances and disparagements that need its support.

That's fine - I was simply making the point that there are two explanations other than the one that you seem to prefer. If we're in agreement on that than the degree of comfort you gain from that argument is beyond my control.

If nobody can think of good reasons that a methane burst with greenhouse feedback is vanishingly unlikely to create a temporary boost in the worlds average air temperature capable of - say - depopulating the Seven Ovens of southern China, maybe there aren't any. In which case the probability calculation becomes urgent, no?

Or maybe there are and it's just the neccessary calculations have yet to be performed - the work has yet to be done. I think Archer can provide some guidance, at least in terms of the expected response of temperature to various releases of methane to the atmosphere, even if you don't agree with his assessment of their likelihoods.

 

[Billy T]

A while back I was comparing US & Chinese ability to fund large projected with first benefit 3 or more decades into the future. I noted the early planning for what I call the "half Nile" started in 1950, and just in last year or so has water been flowing from water rich SE China to extremely dry NE China, but it is too polluted to drink - industrial and agriculture use only but that is reducing the "mining of ground water."

Some objected on environmental grounds (zebra mussel in Lank Michigan) might get into SW US lakes, mainly as one very closely related species has gotten into Lake Powell) as I noted US could greatly increase the dry season flow of the Colordo River via transfer of some Lake Michigan water to head waters of the Colorado, near Denver using the SAME electric energy / power the Chinese use for pumping the "half Nile." (much larger volume up much smaller 45 m hill.)

Thus, when I read the follow, I though I should note it here - Pollution is OK in China (or Michigan), when there is a buck to be made or saved. This is why CO2 concentration in the air will continue to grow ~ 3% annually as "business as usual" must not be disturbed.

Less than a year after BP started up a new unit to process Canadian tar sands at its Whiting refinery, the company reported today that a malfunction allowed a slug of crude oil into Lake Michigan a few miles away from the Chicago city limits. It remains unclear how much oil spilled into the lake or how long the discharge continued. Workers at the refinery reported an oil sheen on the water about 4:30 p.m. Monday, and an official from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said the leak was plugged by the time he arrived at 9 p.m.

 

[Billy T]

... I was strictly addressing the non-biological processes as those the ones you were (with or without realizing it) referring to in your post. The biological processes are a seperate system driven by seperate forces and are not neccessarily driven in the same directions as the physico-chemical diffusion driven equilibria we were discussing.

The mixing of deep water with shallow water and the influence that has on up-take rates is a completely seperate discussion again. Nothing, I repeat not one single thing in the sripps link you posted contradicts anything I have actually said. ...

I was not trying to contradict you. Just extending your discussion about world's largest sink for CO2 - the oceans. Yes most focus only the well understood physical gas dynamic at the air ocean interface, but that is not the only factor that is important. Fact that biological up take of CO2 is limited by other trace elements is important too as when they die they take carbon to the bottom of the ocean. Thus if that process is slowed, then the CO2 in the top layers increases more rapidly and as it does so the return of CO2 to the air rate increases too. In the case of acidification, which has already killed at least 30% of pre-industrial coral, their "death carbon" does not go into the deep ocean. In fact a good part stays where it is in the bleached white dead coral, at least for many years.

 

[sculptor]

Is there any way of determining the age of a methane clathrate?

I ask in reference to mis11.
We know that it was a warmer and much longer than average interglacial, with higher sea levels. I recently read a postulation that the ocean's currents were much more dynamic or robust during that time.
So, the question obtains, are current extant methane clathrates younger than 400kyrs?
Or of an age marked by the glacial cycles?
Does the earth sequester more methane in clathrates during glacial periods?
mis 11 depth of thermocline?
... etc.........?

 

[Billy T]

... There is no evidence that the gulf stream is capable of being stopped, as I recall, the most that has been suggested is that its turning point might be moved south leading to cooling in the north atlantic.
2. Even if it is possible for the gulf stream to be stopped completely, that doesn't imply that the oceans will become anerobic because a rearrangement of the ocean currents to accomodate the change in circulation could still occur. The earth and its systems are remarkably flexible.

I agree with all this, but was referring mainly to the current deep ocean currents that are driven by the dense gulf steam water cooling and sinking - The Thermal-Haline piston I called it (as other have). Below you will find clear statement, in bold, that this transport of well oxygenated surface water to the deep ocean will be at least slowed, if not stopped.

The gulf stream is largely driven by the wind and both are bent eastward by the Corollas force, while flow is northbound. That wind may be changed in intensity by global warming (how I don't know, but think it will become weaker on average). There is evidence that the Gulf Stream flow / volume has already decreased ~20%, but it will not stop as winds will continue to blow it ALONG THE SURFACE - Again, I spoke specifically of the Thermal-Haline flow along the bottom - that could completely stop. - No one knows if it will or not, but a drastic reduction is to be expected.

First, a slowdown or even a stoppage of the meridional overturning circulation would NOT spell the end to the Gulf Stream. Wind and large-scale turbulence drive the bulk of the Atlantic Subtropical Gyre, of which the Gulf Stream is a part. The Gulf Stream would, however, draw significantly less water from the tropics.

Second, unlike during the Younger Dryas, a weakening of the meridional overturning circulation will NOT trigger another ice age. Rising temperatures due to global warming would offset most of the temperature drop. Armadas of icebergs floating off the New Jersey coast are just Hollywood fantasies.

But even in the absence of these most extreme scenarios, any disruption of the meridional overturning circulation can have far-reaching consequences. Models and paleoclimate data suggest that as less warm water flows north across the equator, the southern oceans will warm. The thermal equator (band of highest temperatures) would therefore likely shift south. The tropical rain belts would follow, altering rainfall patterns. Decreased downwelling would deliver less oxygen to the deep ocean,* and decreased upwelling would carry fewer nutrients up from the bottom, potentially devastating ocean ecosystems.

Monitoring the meridional overturning circulation and identifying changes in the thermohaline circulation is daunting. To separate real trends in ocean circulation from natural variability, scientists require huge volumes of data gathered over a long period of time.

* It is very simple physic: Oxygen, enters surface waters from the air. If they don't fall down the bottom becomes anaerobic as many processes consume oxygen that was down there.

 

[Trippy]

Is there any way of determining the age of a methane clathrate?

I ask in reference to mis11.
We know that it was a warmer and much longer than average interglacial, with higher sea levels. I recently read a postulation that the ocean's currents were much more dynamic or robust during that time.
So, the question obtains, are current extant methane clathrates younger than 400kyrs?
Or of an age marked by the glacial cycles?
Does the earth sequester more methane in clathrates during glacial periods?
mis 11 depth of thermocline?
... etc.........?

I imagine it would depend on the source of the clathrate. Some clathrates are biological in origin, driven by the anerobic decay of organic material. Clathrates sourced from biological origins might lend itself to carbon-14 dating. This would not be without problems though.

 

[Billy T]

Is there any way of determining the age of a methane clathrate? ...
Does the earth sequester more methane in clathrates during glacial periods? ...

It rarely is pure, but mixed with settlements - surely there are many biological markers in it that can date it.

During ice ages the ocean levels are lower. Thus at any point on the bottom the pressure was less, so I would guess most of the methane ice formed while the ice age ends and the pressure rises - but that is just my guess. Also some of it on the deeper ocean bottom may not have formed there but have been transported there and be several ice age cycles old.

Some forms from deep earth release of CH4 (as it and other hydro-carbon seep up) but most, I think comes from anaerobic bacterial decomposition of organic matter. - Why ocean off large river deltas normally have large deposits of methane ice. During ice ages there would be less production of this organic material and less river flow. Thus, again I think it is during the recovery (and now) that methane ice mainly forms in cold bottom water - even tropically rivers that drop some sediments over the edge of the continental shelves - like the Amazon. Some, like the huge deposit in shallow Siberian Coastal Waters is "drowned tundra" methane ice that formed on land. The stability diagrams that you can find are for pure methane ice - that should not exist in the 50 meter or less depth of the Siberian coastal shelf. - I assume that some of it which is now being released is from failing traps* under impermeable barriers or was stabilized by the silt, etc.

* The biggest CH4 "burps" do seem to follow underwater earthquake activity. - One I seem to recall made a few parts per million near surface concentrations (CH4 is normally only parts per billion.)