Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

xrm67

(21 posts)
25. Earth Sensitivity to Human Forcings is what matters
Thu Apr 9, 2015, 11:23 PM
Apr 2015

Last edited Fri Apr 10, 2015, 01:37 AM - Edit history (1)

The Earth's climate turned out to be much more sensitive to human forcings than most could imagine:

“It’s Worse Than We Thought” — New Study Finds That Earth is Warming Far Faster Than Expected

Earlier this week, a new study emerged showing that the world was indeed warming far faster than expected. The study, which aimed sensors at the top 700 meters of the World Ocean, found that waters had warmed to a far greater extent than our limited models, satellites, and sensors had captured. In particular, the Southern Ocean showed much greater warming than was previously anticipated.

Winds and a very active downwelling, likely driven by a combined freshening of water near Antarctica and an increased salinity due to warming near the equator, drove an extraordinary volume of heat into these waters. An extra heat in the oceans that was 24 to 58 percent higher than previous estimates. An extraordinary rate of uptake earlier measures had missed...

...This observation led New Scientist to make the following rather blunt statement:

"It’s worse than we thought. Scientists may have hugely underestimated the extent of global warming because temperature readings from southern hemisphere seas were inaccurate."

The implications of finding this extra heat are rather significant. For one, it upends current Equilibrium Climate Science. Gavin Schimdt — Chief NASA GISS scientist — over at RealClimate, noted that the study’s findings would increase ECS ranges from 1.1 to 4.1 C to 1.1 to 4.7 C (a 15% percent increase by Gavin’s calculation). This increase shows that the Earth System may well be both far more sensitive to current human heat forcing and may well be likely to warm far faster this century than scientists had previously hoped. For broader context, it’s worth noting that the scientific community generally considers ECS to be in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 C (3 C average). And any analysis of the new findings is likely to push sensitivity to the higher range of these scales.

Dr Wenju Cai from CSIRO in Australia added by noting that the results mean the world is warming far faster than we thought:

“The implication is that the energy imbalance – the net heating of the earth – would have to be bigger,” he says.

Higher rates of Earth Systems responses to human heat forcing this century and a larger net energy imbalance in the global system together spell very bad news. What this means is that there is both more heat forcing now than we at first expected and that that heat forcing is likely to bring about more extreme climate consequences far sooner than we had initially hoped.

These findings are new and will take some time to ring through the scientific community.


And as I have said repeatedly, this is borne out by the recent discovery of a doubling time of less than five years in Greenland and Antarctic ice melt:

Greenland And West Antarctic Ice Sheet Loss More Than Doubled In Last Five Years
Just One meter would be an economic catastrophe mackdaddy Apr 2015 #1
...for each meter of sea level rise, the coastline is eroded, over time, by 100 meters. xrm67 Apr 2015 #2
Good links , Thanks mackdaddy Apr 2015 #3
I wish they wouldn't say generations and use years yeoman6987 Apr 2015 #26
“The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. dixiegrrrrl Apr 2015 #4
But what says sea level rise is exponential? muriel_volestrangler Apr 2015 #5
Death by fire and flood xrm67 Apr 2015 #6
The PIOMAS model is a linear trend of -3000 km3/decade muriel_volestrangler Apr 2015 #8
Exponential, exponential, exponential... xrm67 Apr 2015 #9
And those uses of 'exponential' are incorrect muriel_volestrangler Apr 2015 #10
Freshwater ice melt from inland glaciers is not the same as old sea ice xrm67 Apr 2015 #11
That's the first time you've mentioned freshwater, or inland glaciers muriel_volestrangler Apr 2015 #13
If you actually read the article and know a little science, it would help xrm67 Apr 2015 #14
Freshwater pulses slowing down ocean currents has nothing to do with sea level or ice area muriel_volestrangler Apr 2015 #15
How else can I explain this to you before it sinks in? xrm67 Apr 2015 #16
Well done. GliderGuider Apr 2015 #17
No, no link about a meltwater pulse in your blog post muriel_volestrangler Apr 2015 #18
I will write a blog post about this and hopefully answer your questions once and for all. xrm67 Apr 2015 #19
Again, no doubling period has been 'established' for sea level rise muriel_volestrangler Apr 2015 #22
Doubling time of less than 5 years has been established. xrm67 Apr 2015 #24
2 data points for ice loss does not mean 'exponential sea level rise' muriel_volestrangler Apr 2015 #27
Any rational person can now see than an exponential doubling period has been established xrm67 Apr 2015 #28
If you watch the video of Box I linked to in #22, you see he got the 69 feet from Alley muriel_volestrangler Apr 2015 #30
We already have several data points showing exponential growth xrm67 Apr 2015 #31
Dear Baby Jebus, where do you get the patience? Systematic Chaos Apr 2015 #44
If it's in fits and starts, it's not exponential, by definition (nt) muriel_volestrangler Apr 2015 #45
That depends on the time frame, nicht war? GliderGuider Apr 2015 #48
Any process for something to be exponential while having gaps when nothing happens muriel_volestrangler Apr 2015 #52
Here is the real condition of Arctic sea ice and it's not good xrm67 Apr 2015 #33
Limits to Growth projections were correct... We're on track for collapse of industrial civilization xrm67 Apr 2015 #12
Limits to Growth projections were correct? LouisvilleDem Apr 2015 #21
Yes, I'm sure they're all wrong. Where's my TV remote? Pass me the buttered popcorn. xrm67 Apr 2015 #23
Nice try LouisvilleDem Apr 2015 #36
You really are Clueless xrm67 Apr 2015 #42
Where is your proof? LouisvilleDem Apr 2015 #53
How do you get exponentially declining sea ice... LouisvilleDem Apr 2015 #20
Earth Sensitivity to Human Forcings is what matters xrm67 Apr 2015 #25
What's your opinion of the Earth System sensitivity estimate by Wasdell et al GliderGuider Apr 2015 #29
I'd say it's not supported by the evidence LouisvilleDem Apr 2015 #34
LOL!!! One of the authors of that paper is a climate change denier xrm67 Apr 2015 #40
Judith Curry is not a denier LouisvilleDem Apr 2015 #51
And the other author has major credibility problems as well xrm67 Apr 2015 #41
You didn't answer my question LouisvilleDem Apr 2015 #35
ALL you have to do is look at the Keeling Curve xrm67 Apr 2015 #38
CO2 != Energy LouisvilleDem Apr 2015 #46
You can't possibly be this stupid. GliderGuider Apr 2015 #49
Please LouisvilleDem Apr 2015 #50
This definitely looks like exponential energy consumption xrm67 Apr 2015 #39
Question LouisvilleDem Apr 2015 #47
So this Climate Change Denier drive the bus of humanity off a cliff.... mackdaddy Apr 2015 #32
Predictions for the Future: A Grim Outlook xrm67 Apr 2015 #7
LOL LouisvilleDem Apr 2015 #37
Pointless comment xrm67 Apr 2015 #43
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Catastrophic Sea Level Ri...»Reply #25