Spiritual Portal

Humanity faces near certainty of eventual sea level rise of at least Eemian proportions,
15 5–9m, if fossil fuel emissions continue on a business-as-usual course, e.g., IPCC scenario
A1B that has CO2 700 ppm in 2100 (Fig. S21). It is unlikely that coastal cities
or low-lying areas such as Bangladesh, European lowlands, and large portions of the
United States eastern coast and northeast China plains (Fig. S22) could be protected
against such large sea level rise.
20 Rapid large sea level rise may begin sooner than generally assumed. Amplifying
feedbacks, including slowdown of SMOC and cooling of the near-Antarctic ocean surface
with increasing sea ice, may spur nonlinear growth of Antarctic ice sheet mass
loss. Deep submarine valleys in West Antarctica and the Wilkes Basin of East Antarctica,
each with access to ice amounting to several meters of sea level, provide gateways
25 to the ocean. If the Southern Ocean forcing (subsurface warming) of the Antarctic ice
sheets continues to grow, it likely will become impossible to avoid sea level rise of
several meters, with the largest uncertainty being how rapidly it will occur.
The Greenland ice sheet does not have as much ice subject to rapid nonlinear disintegration,
so the speed at which it adds to 21st century sea level rise may be limited.
However, even a slower Greenland ice sheet response is expected to be faster than
carbon cycle or ocean thermal recovery times. Therefore, if climate forcing continues
to grow 5 rapidly, amplifying feedbacks will assure large eventual mass loss. Also with
present growth of freshwater injection from Greenland, in combination with increasing
North Atlantic precipitation, we already may be on the verge of substantial North
Atlantic climate disruption.
Storms conjoin with sea level rise to cause the most devastating coastal damage.
10 End-Eemian and projected 21st century conditions are similar in having warm tropics
and increased freshwater injection. Our simulations imply increasing storm strengths
for such situations, as a stronger temperature gradient caused by ice melt increases
baroclinicity and provides energy for more severe weather events. A strengthened
Bermuda High in the warm season increases prevailing northeasterlies that can help
15 account for stronger end-Eemian storms. Weakened cold season sea level pressure
south of Greenland favors occurrence of atmospheric blocking that can increase wintertime
Arctic cold air intrusions into northern midlatitudes.
Eects of freshwater injection and resulting ocean stratification are occurring sooner
in the real world than in our model. We suggest that this is an eect of excessive small
20 scale mixing in our model that limits stratification, a problem that may exist in other
models (Hansen et al., 2011). We encourage similar simulations with other models,
with special attention to the model’s ability to maintain realistic stratification and perturbations.
This issue may be addressed in our model with increased vertical resolution,
more accurate finite dierencing method in ocean dynamics that reduces noise, and
25 use of a smaller background diusivity.
There are many other practical impacts of continued high fossil fuel emissions via climate
change and ocean acidification, including irreplaceable loss of many species, as
reviewed elsewhere (IPCC, 2013, 2014; Hansen et al., 2013a). However, sea level rise
sets the lowest limit on allowable human-made climate forcing and CO2, because of the
The task of achieving a reduction of atmospheric CO2 is formidable, but not impossible.
Rapid transition to abundant aordable carbon-free electricity is the core requirement,
as that would also permit production of net-zero-carbon liquid fuels from electricity.
The rate at which CO2 emissions must be reduced is about 6%yr􀀀1 to reach
350 ppm atmospheric 5 CO2 by about 2100, under the assumption that improved agricultural
and forestry practices could sequester 100 GtC (Hansen et al., 2013a). The
amount of CO2 fossil fuel emissions taken up by the ocean, soil and biosphere has
continued to increase (Fig. S23), thus providing hope that it may be possible to sequester
more than 100 GtC. Improved understanding of the carbon cycle and non-CO2
10 forcings are needed, but it is clear that the essential requirement is to begin to phase
down fossil fuel CO2 emissions rapidly. It is also clear that continued high emissions
are likely to lock-in continued global energy imbalance, ocean warming, ice sheet disintegration,
and large sea level rise, which young people and future generations would
not be able to avoid. Given the inertia of the climate and energy systems, and the grave
15 threat posed by continued high emissions, the matter is urgent and calls for emergency
cooperation among nations.

Dear all,
I’ve not been updating on the subject, but the published discussion sort of gives me the creeps. Not because of the inherent catastrophism, but because I’m reading in a supposedly scientific paper  something which should never appear in such a context: political considerations, suggestions about global policy and social changes. This might suggest the presence of a bias in the whole paper. I absolutely agree that we should detach from the excessive dependency on fossil fuels, but a scientific paper should display an objective scientific attitude. Researchers present what according to them is the scientific facts and the ensuing conclusions. Consultants of agencies and politicians should simplify the conclusions of the researchers and present possible outcomes to politicians. Politicians should decide whether to implement changes which will have an inevitable impact on the economy of whole nations.
This paper (and probably the others as well) are expressing suggestions which go far beyond the objective and aseptic purpose of science.
Is this just my personal feeling or do you guys have similar feelings as well? Is current research on global warming providing an example of the debasement of science? Of course the primary purpose of science should be to serve humankind, but I wonder if unfiltered social and political suggestions in a scientific paper may have the opposite effect. I take it the filter is just peer reviewing. Which is even more worrying, indicating the possible pollution of a whole procedure and conceptual framework. Please tell me I’m wrong. LOL.

1 Introduction
Humanity is rapidly extracting and burning fossil fuels without full understanding of the
consequences. Current assessments place emphasis on practical eects such as increasing
extremes of heat waves, droughts, heavy rainfall, floods, and encroaching
5 seas (IPCC, 2014; USNCA, 2014). These assessments and our recent study (Hansen
et al., 2013a) conclude that there is an urgency to slow carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,
because the longevity of the carbon in the climate system (Archer, 2005) and
persistence of the induced warming (Solomon et al., 2010) may lock in unavoidable
highly undesirable consequences.
10 Despite these warnings, global CO2 emissions continue to increase as fossil fuels
remain the primary energy source. The argument is made that it is economically and
morally responsible to continue fossil fuel use for the sake of raising living standards,
with expectation that humanity can adapt to climate change and find ways to minimize
eects via advanced technologies.
15 We suggest that this viewpoint fails to appreciate the nature of the threat posed by
ice sheet instability and sea level rise. If the ocean continues to accumulate heat and increase
melting of marine-terminating ice shelves of Antarctica and Greenland, a point
will be reached at which it is impossible to avoid large scale ice sheet disintegration
with sea level rise of at least several meters. The economic and social cost of losing
20 functionality of all coastal cities is practically incalculable. We suggest that a strategic
approach relying on adaptation to such consequences is unacceptable to most of
humanity, so it is important to understand this threat as soon as possible.

I'm really searching for a comment on this topic but I just don't seem to have one  :-X

... Personally, I don't think you are wrong... going one step further, personally, I think you are correct...¡

My personal view has always been that scientific paper authors should publish science, including finding, and that publication convention should prohibit papers including discussion about findings... that should be left to others.

Perhaps Professor Hanson could respond to the list... He's a member of Riskanal...

I don’t think putting scientific and political discussion in the same publication is a bad thing at all.  After all, it is often the political interests that make the science worthwhile.  The real problem is that readers often don’t distinguish the scientific arguments from the political ones, and therefore the science and the politics come to be debated as if they were one and the same.  For example, “believing in global warming” becomes synonymous with supporting a particular course of political action.

I actually come down with Clark on this, perhaps because I am principally an engineer.  Doing research without an eye to significance or application is a bit sterile.  But there is certainly a fine line between concluding that “my findings on xxx indicate that there is a problem with the continued use of yyy in an unrestrained fashion” and advocacy.  Though I would note that those in policy research could be perfectly well founded in concluding that “my findings show that the most efficient/equitable way to reduce use of yyy is by policy option zzz”

I am as weary of the politico/advocates who attack the science because they object to the policy implications as I am of the scientist/advocates who claim that critics of their policy prescriptions are attacking the science. Scientific journals have editorials and perspectives that provide an outlet for scientists to opine, and blogging makes the opinions of scientists available to the masses. Perhaps these should be used to a greater extent rather than consciously commingling the data with the dictum.

On a related note, several years ago, I was invited to present findings from a study on regulatory science to a group of scientific advisors. One of the recommendations was that if scientists want to comment on regulatory policy matters, they should do so through the Federal Register notice and comment procedures like any other member of the public. “We are too busy for that” was the dismissive response. I found the overt sense of entitlement disappointing (though not particularly surprising) and the response disingenuous. If they found the time to listen to me, they couldn’t be all that busy. (I wonder, how many now blog?) When it comes to matters beyond the purview of science, many scientists simply want clout that does not attach to being “like any other member of the public.”

I just became aware that professor Hansen is an activist and was even arrested during public protests in Washington.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

Nothing wrong with that, but that inevitably and indisputably tends to assign the likelyhood of a significant bias on the interpretation of the findings and the scientific evidence. The catastrophic language used, which leaves little room to the inherent uncertainty of such a forecast, is also pretty eloquent. That was the first thing which captured my attention in the paper.
It is clear that Professor Hansen is out on a mission, he firmly believes that humankind is in danger and that the only possible way out is drastic intervention without delay.
Such drastic intervention though is fraught with potentially dire consequences, and these are the realm of politicians, not scientists. Politicians should of course heed to scientists and eventually decide, but the politicians have been elected, the scientists did not choose to join the political arena. I share the opinions that researchers may propose solutions and not just enunciate the facts, but I find Hansen’s et al. paper too one-sided, committing perhaps the same sin committed by many papers written by the advocates of fossil fuels.
Again, I’d like to underline that I’m a supporter of alternative energies and share professor Hansen’s concerns for the extensive use of the old fossil fuels. The language he used in his paper though sort of makes him loose credibility to the objective reader. At least, such was the consequence in my case.

One more risk-related point. Professor Hansen is against fossil fuels but supports the use of nuclear power. Too easy!!  I would never exchange CO2 pollution for the sneakier and deadly radioactive pollution. Maybe Professor Hansen forgets that some states are small and with a high population density. The Fukushima disaster in Japan has affected whole communities. I cringe if I think what would happen in Italy, where efficiency and controls are much more relaxed than in Japan; In Italy luckily nuclear power has been outlawed by overwhelming direct polls. Seismic, densely populated areas, pose serious safety problems to the use of nuclear power, with risks which may outweigh the risk of inundation caused by sea level rise. This issue just reinforces my belief that Professor Hansen’s opinions may carry a hefty bias. He says, let’s close up coal plants and let’s open up more nuclear power plants. Let’s swap one kind of risk for another. Now he should provide a very detailed risk analysis which considers the very high risk of exceptional events and of more frequent leaks in the atmosphere and in the water masses. The Japanese coined the word ‘Tsunami’, yet they could not guarantee the safety of the Fukushima plant, which was exposed to the recurring and historically well known phenomenon of Tsunami inundation.


From Wikipedia, ‘James Hansen’
In March 2013, James Hansen co-authored a paper in Environmental Science & Technology, entitled "Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power". The paper examined mortality levels per unit of electrical power produced from fossil fuels(coal and natural gas) as well as nuclear power. It estimated that 1.8 million lives were saved worldwide, between 1971 and 2009, through the use of nuclear power instead of fossil fuels. Hansen also concluded that the emission of some 64 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent were avoided by nuclear power use between 1971 and 2009. Looking to the future, between 2010 and 2050, it was estimated that nuclear could additionally avoid up to 80 to 240 billion tonnes.[93]
This paper elicited a response to criticize Hansen's analysis, from those who have historically advocated against nuclear power in general and dedicated themselves to other low carbon power technologies, including Benjamin Sovacool and Mark Z. Jacobson.[94] Hansen and his initial co-author then countered each of their attempts at rebutting his paper and rigorously displayed that all the data these scientists use to make their criticism, "lacks credibility".[95]
In 2013, with three other leading experts, Hansen was co-author of an open letter to policy makers, which stated that "continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity's ability to avoid dangerous climate change."[96]

It would be nice if somebody gave an estimate of the time it will take to raise sea level various amounts from this glacier melting.  Maybe the actual research paper gave that?  But, the link was to a media outlet that seems to specialize in sensationalism.
 ...
So, when will the water at the end of my mother's dock be deep enough for me to get my sailboat there to tie-up?  And when will it be so deep that we will need to evacuate my mother and abandon her house?  Her lifetime? My lifetime?
Of course, I don't expect that even experts can predict that with enough accuracy and reliability to make it useful for planning the rest of MY life.  Average numbers for sea level rise aren't much use in planning if the variations around the average are large.  If this glacier continues to melt at its current rate, I don't think it will affect me seriously in my lifetime.  BUT, if it "collapses" in the sense of sliding into the ocean from the land as well as melting, then it MIGHT raise sea level by a lot in just a few years.
   ...
There are ALWAYS things to worry about because they MIGHT happen.  Risk assessment is supposed to help us focus on the ones that we need to be spending the most effort on dealing with.  We seem to be missing some important inputs for such assessments with respect to global warming / sea level rise.  Putting all of our efforts into trying to eliminate the HAZARD seems unwise, especiall since geology tells us that the same hazard exists WITHOUT human activities.  The human activites are at most affecting the probabilities and timelines.

I do not understand y it takes some people so long to recognize we have a problem. Some will just not listen to Amma and the Dali lama. There warnings and for sight has been clear for sometime. Everything will b changing dramatically on this earth if our off spring are to live here.