Blog Archive

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Evaluation of cryo-hydrologic warming as an explanation for increased ice velocities in the wet snow zone, Sermeq Avannarleq, West Greenland

Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 1241-1256 (September 2013); doi: 10.1002/jgrf.20079

Evaluation of cryo-hydrologic warming as an explanation for increased ice velocities in the wet snow zone, Sermeq Avannarleq, West Greenland


  • Thomas Phillips1,2,*
  • Harihar Rajaram3,
  • William Colgan1,4
  • Konrad Steffen1,5,
  • Waleed Abdalati1


  • Abstract

    [1] Wintertime satellite-derived ice surface velocities, from 2001 through 2007, suggest an increase in ice velocity in the wet snow zone of Southwest Greenland. We present a thermomechanical model to evaluate the influence of surface meltwater runoff on englacial temperatures, via cryo-hydrologic warming (CHW), as a possible mechanism to explain this velocity increase at Sermeq Avannarleq. The model incorporates CHW through a previously published dual-column parameterization. We compare model simulations with (i) CHW active over the entire ice thickness (“base case CHW”), (ii) CHW active only in the surface 80 m of the ice sheet (“surface CHW”), and (iii) “no CHW” to represent a traditional thermomechanical model. The horizontal extent of CHW is prescribed based on equilibrium line altitude position and thus incorporates the upstream expansion of the ablation zone over the past decade. The base case CHW simulations reproduce the observed increase in inland ice velocity between 2001 and 2007 reasonably well. The no CHW and surface CHW simulations significantly underestimate observed ice surface velocities in both epochs. The higher ice velocities in the base case CHW simulations are attributable to both decreased basal ice viscosities associated with increased basal ice temperatures and an increase in the extent of basal sliding permitted by temperate bed conditions. Only the temperate bed extent predicted by the base case CHW simulation is consistent with independent observations of basal sliding. Based on our sensitivity analysis of CHW, we evaluate alternative explanations for an increase in inland ice velocity and suggest CHW is the most plausible mechanism.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrf.20079/abstract

    Does Sea Ice loss create the condition for an emerging permanent El Nino state?

    Does Sea Ice loss create the condition for an emerging permanent El Nino state?
    Source: El Nino Wikipedia page.
    Source: El Nino Wikipedia page.
    Recently Doug asked: “…my question is, how far could this phenomenon go? What is the “end” state? Is it possible for example that we could find the jet stream staying in place for months at a time, years, decades? How wavy could this waviness become?”
    A main theme of Sea ice loss seems to be that the main northern hemispheric pressure gradient (Ref 1) – the polar vortex collapses (Ref 2), maybe even persistent, in regards to the sea ice state.
    This in turn changes the major air oscillation, the jet stream (Ref 2). Which basically means less air flow and/or different air flow – hence profound changes with ripple effects (due to extreme weather events) through out the affected earth systems. A new “mode” based on a different atmospheric regime is established, which primary characteristic seems to be persistence of conditions (Ref 3).
    This new mode hints especially to a interconnection with the IPO index (Ref 4), which suggests that ocean circulation will be affected. The loss of sea ice and following rapid changes in atmospheric regime could change ocean wave generation which promotes a permanent El Nino configuration. When heat is just hanging in the upper surface of ocean waters(Ref 4), hence ocean dead zones will spread (Ref 5). Though, for the time wave generation seems to promote deep sea warmth (Ref 6).
    Further implications arise with problems associated with grain production. This was highlighted in a recent Chapman talk, Richard Alley gave last month (Ref 7). Though he tied it to higher temperatures and persistent conditions, here we make a connection to persistent conditions combined with the possibility for an emerging permanent El Nino.
    In the following a study on a past permanent El Nino state, from the Pliocene.
    Magnitude of N.American warming during an El Niño event is comparable to that needed to melt glacial ice sheets (Huybers & Molnar, 2007)
    ElNinoNOAA
    Above image source: NOAA

    The Pliocene Paradox (Mechanisms for a Permanent El Niño)

    During the early Pliocene, 5 to 3 million years ago, globally averaged temperatures were substantially higher than they are today, even though the external factors that determine climate were essentially the same. In the tropics, El Niño was continual (or “permanent”) rather than intermittent. The appearance of northern continental glaciers, and of cold surface waters in oceanic upwelling zones in low latitudes (both coastal and equatorial), signaled the termination of those warm climate conditions and the end of permanent El Niño. This led to the amplification of obliquity (but not precession) cycles in equatorial sea surface temperatures and in global ice volume, with the former leading the latter by several thousand years. A possible explanation is that the gradual shoaling of the oceanic thermocline reached a threshold around 3 million years ago, when the winds started bringing cold waters to the surface in low latitudes. This introduced feedbacks involving ocean-atmosphere interactions that, along with ice-albedo feedbacks, amplified obliquity cycles. A future melting of glaciers, changes in the hydrological cycle, and a deepening of the thermocline could restore the warm conditions of the early Pliocene. Source (2006)

    The Pliocene Paradox

    Today, a large reduction in the east-west temperature gradient along the equator in the Pacific occurs only briefly during El Niño which in effect was perennial rather than intermittent up to 3 Ma. Corroborating evidence for a permanent El Niño is available in land-records that document the distinctive regional climate signatures associated with El Niño. Up to 3 Ma there was a persistence of mild winters in central Canada and the northeastern United States, droughts in Indonesia, and torrential rains along the coasts of California and Peru, and in eastern equatorial Africa. The onset of dry conditions in the latter region around 3 Ma favored the evolution of African hominids.
    Persistent El Niño conditions would have had a huge impact on the global climate given that, today, even brief El Niño episodes can have a large influence.The reasons are evident in Fig. 2, which shows a remarkably high correlation between tropical sea surface temperature and rainfall patterns. Tall, rain-bearing,convective clouds cover the warmest waters but highly reflective stratus decks that produce little rain cover the cold waters. During El Niño, the warming of the eastern equatorial Pacific reduces the area covered by stratus clouds thus decreasing the albedo of the planet, while the atmospheric concentration of the powerful greenhouse gas, water vapor, increases. Calculations with a General Circulation Model of the atmosphere indicate that this happened during the early Pliocene and contributed significantly to the warm conditions at that time.
    The oceanic heat transport is effected by the meridional overturning of the oceanic circulation. A freshening of the surface waters in the extra-tropics,which increases the buoyancy of the upper ocean and inhibits overturning, can therefore reduce the heat transport. This is true for both the deep, slow thermohaline component of the circulation whose changes affect mainly the climate of the northern Atlantic, and also for the rapid, shallow wind-driven component whose changes affect mostly the tropics. Sufficiently large freshening in the extra-tropics can induce a perennial El Niño.
    A major factor in the warmth of the early Pliocene was the persistence of El Niño in the Pacific; it contributed to global warming by causing the absence of stratus clouds from the eastern equatorial Pacific, thus lowering the planetary albedo, and by increasing the atmospheric concentration of water vapor, a powerful greenhouse gas. Today the atmospheric concentration of another greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, is comparable to what it was in the early Pliocene, but the climate of the planet is not yet in equilibrium with those high values. It is possible that a persistence of high carbon dioxide concentrations could result in a return to a globally warm world if it were to melt glaciers and increase temperatures in high latitudes, and as a consequence cause the tropical thermocline to deepen by a modest amount, a few tens of meters. (Near the date line at the equator the thermocline is already so deep that its vertical excursions leave surface temperatures unaffected.)
    A deepening of the tropical thermocline requires a reduction in the oceanic heat loss in the extra-tropics. However, in certain atmospheric models, warm conditions in high latitudes depend on the atmosphere gaining heat from the oceans. This is also the case in the coupled ocean-atmosphere climate model that recently was used to simulate the early Pliocene. In that model, the oceanic heat loss in the extra-tropics is balanced by the gain of heat in the eastern equatorial Pacific. This gain is possible in spite of higher sea surface temperatures in low latitudes because temperature gradients along the equator,and presumably the depth of the equatorial thermocline, do not change significantly. This means that, in the model, maximum sea surface temperatures in the western tropical Pacific rise significantly above 30 C.
    This is inconsistent with observations which indicate that, at no time in the past, were sea surface temperatures much higher than 30 C. Are the models at fault, or is there a problem with the observations? More data from the western tropical Pacific (and also from currently warm regions to the west of upwelling zones) are needed to determine the maximum temperatures over the last millions of years, and to determine whether observations of perennial El Niño are robust. If the information available at present should prove accurate, then temperatures in excess of 30 C in some models, and problems in their ability to simulate a perennial El Niño, could be indicative of flaws in the models, in the parameterization of clouds, for example. The models are designed to reproduce the world of today, but it is unclear how much confidence we should have in the simulations of very different climates. Source (2006)
    ElNinoNOAAWalkerCirculation
    Above image source: NOAA

    Supplemental Information about ENSO

    El Niño and Southern Oscillation (ENSO): A Review (2012)
    3.1 Self-sustained oscillators of ENSO
    Bjerknes (1969) first hypothesized that interaction between the atmosphere and the equatorial eastern Pacific Ocean causes El Niño.In Bjerknes’ view,an initial positive SST anomaly in the equatorial eastern Pacific reduces the east-west SST gradient and hence the strength of the Walker circulation, resulting in weaker trade winds around the equator.The weaker trade winds in turn drive the ocean circulation changes that further reinforce the SST anomaly.This positive ocean-atmosphere feedback leads the equatorial Pacific to a never-ending warm state.A negative feedback is needed to turn the coupled ocean-atmosphere system around.However, during that time, it was not known what causes a turnabout from a warmphase to a cold phase.In search of necessary negative feedbacks for the coupled system, four conceptual ENSO oscillator models have been proposed: the delayed oscillator (Suarez & Schopf, 1988; Battisti & Hirst, 1989), the recharge oscillator (Jin, 1997a, b), the western Pacific oscillator (Weisberg & Wang, 1997; Wang et al. ,1999), and the advective-reflective oscillator (Picautet al., 1997). These oscillator models respectively emphasized the negative feedbacks of reflected Kelvin waves at the ocean western boundary, a discharge process due to Sverdrup transport, western Pacific wind-forced Kelvin waves, and anomalous zonal advection.These negative feedbacks may work together for terminating El Niño warming,as suggested by the unified oscillator (Wang, 2001).
    4. Different flavors of ENSO events
    It has been increasingly recognized that at least two different flavors or types of ENSO occur in the tropical Pacific (e.g., Wang & Weisberg, 2000; Trenberth & Stepaniak, 2001; Larkin a& Harrison, 2005; Yu & Kao, 2007; Ashok et al., 2007; Kao & Yu, 2009; Kug et al., 2009). The two types of ENSO are the Eastern-Pacific (EP) type that has maximum SST anomalies centered over the eastern tropical Pacific cold tongue region, and the Central-Pacific (CP) type that has the anomalies near the International Date Line (Yu & Kao, 2007; Kao &Yu, 2009). The CP El Niño is also referred to as Date Line El Niño (Larkin & Harrison, 2005), El Niño Modoki (Ashok et al., 2007), or Warm Pool El Niño (Kug et al., 2009). As the central location of ENSO shifts, different influences or signatures may be produced in the eastern Pacific and corals. Therefore, it is important to know how these two types of ENSO differ in their structures, evolution, underlying dynamics, and global impacts.
    4.1. Spatial structure and evolution of the Central-Pacific El Niño
    [..] It is interesting to note that at least three of the four El Niño events in the 21st century (i.e., the 2002/03, 2004/05, and 2009/10 events) have been of the CP type. Yeh et al. (2009) compared the ratio of the CP to EP type of El Niño events in Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 (CMIP3) model simulations and noticed that the ratio is projected to increase under a global warming scenario. They argued that the recent increase in the occurrence of the CP El Niño is related to a weakening of the mean Walker circulation and a flattening of the mean thermocline in the equatorial Pacific, which might be a result of global warming (Vecchi et al., 2007). However, it was also argued that the increasing occurrence of the CP El Niño in recent decades could be an expression of natural multidecadal variability and not necessarily a consequence of anthropogenic forcing (Newmann et al., 2011; McPhaden et al., 2011).
    4.2. Dynamics of the Central-Pacific El Niño
    [..] Ashok et al. (2007) argued that the thermocline variations induced by this wind anomaly pattern are responsible for the generation of the CP ENSO.The equatorial westerly anomalies induce downwelling Kelvin waves propagating eastward and the equatorial easterly anomalies induce downwelling Rossby waves propagating westward and, together, they deepen the thermocline in the central Pacific to produce the CP El Niño. Kug et al. (2009) emphasized the fact that the equatorial easterly anomalies can suppress warming in the eastern Pacific during a CP El Niño event by enhancing upwelling and surface evaporation.However, they also argued that the mean depth of thermocline in the central Pacific is relatively deep and the wind-induced thermocline variations may not be efficient in producing the CP SST anomalies. Instead, they suggested that ocean advection is responsible for the development of the central Pacific warming.
    4.3. Distinct climate impacts of the Central-Pacific ENSO
    [..] The results shown in Kumar et al. (2006) also imply that the CP El Niño can reduce the Indian monsoon rainfall more effectively than the EP El Niño. In the Southern Hemisphere, the CP ENSO has been shown to have a stronger impact on storm track activity than the EP ENSO (Ashok et al., 2007).The 2009 CP El Niño event was argued to have an influence far south as to contribute to the melting of Antarctica ice by inducing a stationary anticyclone outside the polar continent and enhancing the eddy heat flux into the region (T. Lee et al., 2010). The influence of the CP El Niño on Atlantic hurricanes may also be different from the conventional EP El Niño (Kim et al., 2009), but it has been shown that the anomalous atmospheric circulation in the hurricane main development region during the CP El Niño is similar to that during the EP El Niño (S.-K. Lee et al., 2010).
    Opposite impacts were noticed for the tropical cyclone activity in the western Pacific: the tropical cyclone frequency in the South China Sea increases during CP El Niño years but decreases during EP El Niño years (Chen, 2011). These distinctly climate impacts of the EP and CP ENSOs imply that they may leave different signatures in paleoclimate proxies worldwide including corals, which needs to be explored.

    6. ENSO under global warming

    6.1. Climate response of the equatorial Pacific to global warming
    Paleoclimatic records suggest that the strong east-west SST contrast of the annual-mean conditions in the equatorial Pacific may not be a stable and permanent feature. Average SST contrast across the equatorial Pacific was about 2 °C, much like during a modern El Niño event (Wara et al., 2005) and during the warm early Pliocene (~4.5 to 3.0 million years ago). This mean state may have occurred during the most recent interval with a climate warmer than today, suggesting that the equatorial Pacific could undergo similar changes as the Earth warms up in response to increasing greenhouse gases.
    Competing theories anticipate either a stronger or weaker east-west SST contrast in response to warming. The eastern Pacific would warm up more due to cloud feedbacks (Meehl & Washington, 1996), evaporation feedbacks (Knutson & Manabe, 1995), or a weakening of the Walker circulation (Vecchi & Soden, 2007). But, the ocean could also oppose warming in the east because increased stratification enhances the cooling effect of upwelling (Clement et al., 1996; Seager & Murtugudde, 1997). The balance between these processes is not known, therefore it is unclear whether the SST gradient will strengthen or weaken in the future. For instance, the SST signature of these mechanisms has been difficult to detect in the simulations, modern observations, or proxies.
    Modern observations do not show a robust pattern of El Niño-like warming (Vecchi et al., 2008; Deser et al., 2010), despite evidence for a weakening of tropical atmospheric circulation (Vecchi et al., 2006; Zhang & Song, 2006). However, there is robust evidence for warming of the eastern equatorial Pacific duringthe 20th century (Bunge & Clarke, 2009). The tropical eastern Pacific SST trend may be also caused by the Atlantic warming (Kucharski et al., 2011) through the mechanisms of the Walker circulation across equatorial South America or inter-basin SST gradient and ocean dynamics (Wang, 2006; Wang et al., 2009; Rodriguez-Fonseca et al., 2009). Climate models project a weak reduction of the SST gradient into the 21st century (Knutson & Manabe, 1995; Collins et al., 2005; Meehl et al., 2007).
    The lack of robust evidence for El Niño-like warming in models and observations could be due to cancellation among the mechanisms listed above, especially among the enhanced warming due to slower currents driven by a weaker Walker circulation and the enhanced cooling due to a more stratified ocean (DiNezio et al., 2009). Moreover, due to basic equatorial dynamics the adjustment of the thermocline to changes in the trade winds renders the Bjerknes feedback ineffective to amplify an initial El Niño-like warming (DiNezio et al., 2010; Clarke, 2010). For these reasons, a “permanent El Niño” in response to global warming is very unlikely, even if the Walker circulation weakens. Instead, climate models indicate that the equatorial Pacific may just warm up slightly more that the tropics due to the effect of the weakening of the Walker circulation on equatorial currents and a differential in evaporative damping with the off-equatorial tropics (Liu et al., 2006; DiNezio et al., 2009).
    6.2. Sensitivity of ENSO to global warming
    Paleoclimate records and climate models overwhelmingly indicate that the Pacific will continue to be characterized by large seasonal and interannual variability as the Earth warms up....

    Meltwater warming interior of Greenland's Ice Sheet causing accelerating outflow

    New Research Explains Acceleration of Greenland’s Inland Ice

    July 24, 2013
    By developing a new model investigate the effects of meltwater on Greenland glaciers, researchers discovered that meltwater warms the ice sheet, which then softens, deforms, and flows faster.
    This animation shows how ice is naturally transported from interior topographic divides to the coast via glaciers. The colors represent the speed of ice flow, with areas in red and purple flowing the fastest at rates of kilometers per year. The vectors indicate the direction of flow.
    Surface meltwater draining through cracks in an ice sheet can warm the sheet from the inside, softening the ice and letting it flow faster, a new NASA-funded study finds.
    During the last decade, researchers have captured compelling evidence of accelerating ice flow at terminal regions, or “snouts,” of Greenland glaciers as they flow into the ocean along the western coast. Now, the new research shows that the interior regions are also flowing much faster than they were in the winter of 2000-2001, and the study authors propose a reason for the speedup.
    “Through satellite observations, we determined that an inland region of the Sermeq Avannarleq Glacier, 40 to 60 miles from the coast, is flowing about 1.5 times faster than it was about a decade ago,” said Thomas Phillips, lead author of the new paper and a research associate at the time of the study with the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado, Boulder.
    The researchers used ice-sheet-wide velocity maps for Greenland from a NASA program called Making Earth System Data Records for Use in Research Environments. Studying the velocity maps, the researchers saw that in 2000-2001 the inland segment of the Sermeq Avannarleq Glacier was flowing at about 130 feet (40 meters) per year. In 2007-2008, that speed was closer to 200 feet (60 meters) per year.
    “At first, we couldn’t explain this rapid interior acceleration,” Phillips said. “We knew it wasn’t related to what was going on at the glacier’s terminus. The speedup had to be due to changes within the ice itself.”
    To shed light on the observed acceleration, Phillips and his team developed a new model to investigate the effects of meltwater on the ice sheet’s physical properties. The team found that percolating meltwater carries heat from the sun and warms the ice sheet, which then—like a warm stick of butter—softens, deforms and flows faster.
    Previous studies estimated that it would take centuries to millennia for new climates to increase the temperature deep within ice sheets. But when the influence of meltwater is considered, warming can occur within decades and, thus, produce rapid accelerations. The paper has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.
    The researchers were tipped off to this mechanism by the massive amount of meltwater they observed on the ice sheet’s surface during their summer field campaigns, and they wondered if it was affecting the ice sheet. During the last several decades, atmospheric warming above the Greenland Ice Sheet has caused an expanding area of the surface to melt during the summer, creating pools of water that gush down cracks in the ice. The meltwater eventually funnels to the interior and bed of the ice sheet.
    “The sun melts ice into water at the surface, and that water then flows into the ice sheet carrying a tremendous amount of latent energy,” said William Colgan, a coauthor and adjunct research associate with the University of Colorado’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences. “The latent energy then heats the ice.”
    The new model shows that this speeds up ice flow in two major ways: One, the retained meltwater warms the bed of the ice sheet and preconditions it to accommodate a basal water layer, making it easier for the ice sheet to slide by lubrication. Two, warmer ice is also softer (less viscous), which makes it flow more readily.
    “Basically, the gravitational force driving the ice sheet flow hasn’t changed over time, but with the ice sheet becoming warmer and softer, that same gravitational force now makes the ice flow faster,” Colgan said.
    This transformation from stiff to soft only requires a little bit of extra heat from meltwater. “The model shows that a slight warming of the ice near the ice sheet bed—only a couple of degrees Celsius—is sufficient to explain the widespread acceleration,” Colgan said.
    The findings have important ramifications for ice sheets and glaciers everywhere. “It could imply that ice sheets can discharge ice into the ocean far more rapidly than currently estimated,” Phillips said. “It also means that the glaciers are not finished accelerating and may continue to accelerate for a while. As the area experiencing melt expands inland, the acceleration may be observed farther inland.”
    The study’s results suggest that to understand future sea-level rise, scientists need to account for a previously overlooked factor — meltwater’s latent energy — and its potential role in making glaciers and ice sheets flow faster into the world’s oceans. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wrote that one of the most significant challenges in predicting sea-level rise was “limited” understanding of the processes controlling ice flow. The panel’s next assessment is due out in 2014.
    “Traditionally, latent energy has been considered a relatively unimportant factor, but most glaciers are now receiving far more meltwater than they used to and are increasing in temperature faster than previously imagined,” Colgan said. “The chunk of butter known as the Greenland Ice Sheet may be softening a lot faster than we previously thought possible.”
    The study was funded through a NASA ROSES grant, NASA’s Greenland Climate Network and the National Science Foundation. Other coauthors on the paper were CIRES Director Waleed Abdalati, who is also former chief scientist for NASA; former CIRES Director Konrad Steffen; and CU-Boulder engineering professor Harihar Rajaram.
    Publication: Thomas Phillips et al., “Evaluation of cryo-hydrologic warming as an explanation for increased ice velocities in the wet snow zone, Sermeq Avannarleq, West Greenland,” J. Geophys. Res.: Earth Surface, 2013; DOI: 10.1002/jgrf.20079

    Monday, February 24, 2014

    Climate Change 'Very Evident,' So Let's Deal With It, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Says

    Main Entry Image

    by Kate Shephard, Huffington Post, February 24, 2014

    WASHINGTON -– The next report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international group of scientists and government policymakers, will focus on managing the risks of a warming planet, according to the report's co-chair.
    "The impacts of climate change that have already occurred are very evident, they're widespread, they have consequences," Chris Field, a professor in the Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University and the co-chair of the IPCC working group drafting the report, said in a meeting with reporters Monday.
    The fifth assessment report from the IPCC's Working Group II focuses on climate impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. The final version of the report is due to be released on March 31, though reporters have already published a leaked early draft. The draft states that, within this century, effects of climate change "will slow down economic growth and poverty reduction, further erode food security and trigger new poverty traps."
    Field said the report will emphasize the need to minimize and manage the consequences. "The essence of dealing with climate change is really not so much about identifying specific impacts that will occur at specific times in the future, but about managing risks," he said.
    "I think if you look around the world at the damages that have been sustained in a wide range of climate related events, it's very clear we're not prepared for the kinds of event we're already seeing," said Field, referring to recent floods, droughts and other extreme weather. "That's not to say those are caused by climate change, but we're not prepared for the extremes we already encounter."
    Those changes pose a threat to ecosystems, human systems, infrastructure, the financial system, and security, Field said. But "in every case we could make smart decisions that put us in position to more successfully cope with risks that are present now, and put us in a better position to deal with them in the future," he said.
    The report also will contrast risks in a future world in which high emissions continue, and a one where polluters substantially lower emissions. "There's really a big, big difference between what those worlds look like," said Field.
    Given current emissions, the planet is committed to warming in the future, according to the assessment of climate science that the IPCC's Working Group I released in September. Making the changes necessary to stave off major impacts will take a long time, Field said, and "the risks go up the longer you wait."
    The latest report will, for the first time, look at the potential for climate variability to drive human conflict. The potential for domestic and international conflict related to issues like food security, water access, poverty and migration has been raised in the past, but have not made it into previous IPCC reports. Field stressed that climate change's impact on human systems is difficult to determine, but the report will "deal seriously with the literature that is out there."
    The IPCC's Working Group II writing team consists of about 80 scientists, drawing from the work of hundreds of scientists around the world. The writers have received 2,000 comments on just the summary for policymakers, Field said. The IPCC review process also involves input from representatives from 194 member countries, who weigh in on the final text. The scientists and members will meet in Yokohama, Japan, from March 25 to March 29 to complete the report.
    Field said the document is still in development. An earlier draft of this report made it into the press only after it was posted on a climate denier website under the subheadline, "The latest document the IPCC doesn’t want you to see."
    "IPCC puts a lot of emphasis on a process that builds on expert and government review comments," said Field. "The reason they've discouraged coverage of early drafts is that they really do change a lot."

    Justin Gillis, NYT: The Flood Next Time

    by Justin Gillis, "By Degrees," The New York Times, January 6, 2014


    Launch media viewer
    Stephen Gill, an oceanographer for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, at the Battery tide gauge in Manhattan. Tides have been measured there since the 1850s.  Credit Nicole Bengiveno/The New York Times

    The little white shack at the water’s edge in Lower Manhattan is unobtrusive — so much so that the tourists strolling the promenade at Battery Park the other day did not give it a second glance.

    Up close, though, the roof of the shed behind a Coast Guard building bristled with antennas and other gear. Though not much bigger than a closet, this facility is helping scientists confront one of the great environmental mysteries of the age.


    The equipment inside is linked to probes in the water that keep track of the ebb and flow of the tides in New York Harbor, its readings beamed up to a satellite every six minutes.


    While the gear today is of the latest type, some kind of tide gauge has been operating at the Battery since the 1850s, by a government office originally founded by Thomas Jefferson. That long data record has become invaluable to scientists grappling with this question: How much has the ocean already risen, and how much more will it go up?


    Scientists have spent decades examining all the factors that can influence the rise of the seas, and their research is finally leading to answers. And the more the scientists learn, the more they perceive an enormous risk for the United States. 




    A young kayaker on Manchester Avenue in Norfolk, Va., in October 2012, when Hurricane Sandy caused flooding. Norfolk is struggling to cope with rising seawater and sinking land.CreditMatthew Eich for The New York Times

    Much of the population and economy of the country is concentrated on the East Coast, which the accumulating scientific evidence suggests will be a global hot spot for a rising sea level over the coming century.

    The detective work has required scientists to grapple with the influence of ancient ice sheets, the meaning of islands that are sinking in the Chesapeake Bay, and even the effect of a giant meteor that slammed into the earth.


    The work starts with the tides. Because of their importance to navigation, they have been measured for the better part of two centuries. While the record is not perfect, scientists say it leaves no doubt that the world’s oceans are rising. The best calculation suggests that from 1880 to 2009, the global average sea level rose a little over eight inches.


    Continue reading the main story

    Rising Sea, Sinking Land

    Tide gauges along the East Coast show a long-term increase in relative sea levels, in part because the ocean is rising and in part because areas of the coast are sinking.
    CONN.
    N.Y.
    Montauk
    Bridgeport
    ATLANTIC
    OCEAN
    Queens
    The Battery
    New York City
    AVERAGE SEA LEVEL RISE
    measured by tide gauges
    PA.
    Sandy Hook
    1.5 inches per decade
    1
    N.J.
    0.5
    Philadelphia
    Atlantic City
    1.5
    feet
    Norfolk, Va.
    Baltimore
    Cape May
    MD.
    CUMULATIVE SEA LEVEL RISE
    above the 1900–20 average
    1.0
    DEL.
    Washington
    0.5
    The
    Battery
    Holland
    Island
    0
    1900
    1920
    1950
    2000
    VA.
    A METEOR IMPACT
    about 35 million years ago weakened sediment around what is now Chesapeake Bay, which may contribute to rapid land subsidence in the area.
    Norfolk

    That may not sound like much, but scientists say even the smallest increase causes the seawater to eat away more aggressively at the shoreline in calm weather, and leads to higher tidal surges during storms. The sea-level rise of decades past thus explains why coastal towns nearly everywhere are having to spend billions of dollars fighting erosion.

    The evidence suggests that the sea-level rise has probably accelerated, to about a foot a century, and scientists think it will accelerate still more with the continued emission of large amounts of greenhouse gases into the air. The gases heat the planet and cause land ice to melt into the sea.


    The official stance of the world’s climate scientists is that the global sea level could rise as much as three feet by the end of this century, if emissions continue at a rapid pace. But some scientific evidence supports even higher numbers, five feet and beyond in the worst case. 


    Scientists say the East Coast will be hit harder for many reasons, but among the most important is that even as the seawater rises, the land in this part of the world is sinking. And that goes back to the last ice age, which peaked some 20,000 years ago.

    As a massive ice sheet, more than a mile thick, grew over what are now Canada and the northern reaches of the United States, the weight of it depressed the crust of the earth. Areas away from the ice sheet bulged upward in response, as though somebody had stepped on one edge of a balloon, causing the other side to pop up. Now that the ice sheet has melted, the ground that was directly beneath it is rising, and the peripheral bulge is falling. 


    Some degree of sinking is going on all the way from southern Maine to northern Florida, and it manifests itself as an apparent rising of the sea. 


    The sinking is fastest in the Chesapeake Bay region. Whole island communities that contained hundreds of residents in the 19th century have already disappeared. Holland Island, where the population peaked at nearly 400 people around 1910, had stores, a school, a baseball team and scores of homes. But as the water rose and the island eroded, the community had to be abandoned.


    Eventually just a single, sturdy Victorian house, built in 1888, stood on a remaining spit of land, seeming at high tide to rise from the waters of the bay itself. A few years ago, a Washington Post reporter, David A. Fahrenthold, chronicled its collapse. 


    Aside from this general sinking of land up and down the East Coast, some places sit on soft sediments that tend to compress over time, so the localized land subsidence can be even worse than the regional trend. Much of the New Jersey coast is like that. The sea-level record from the Battery has been particularly valuable in sorting out this factor, because the tide gauge there is attached to bedrock and the record is thus immune to sediment compression.




    Launch media viewer
    The last house on Holland Island in Chesapeake Bay, which once had a population of almost 400,  finally toppled in October 2010. As the water rose and the island eroded, it had to be abandoned. CreditAstrid Riecken for The Washington Post, via Getty Images

    Perhaps the weirdest factor of all pertains to Norfolk, Va., and points nearby. What is now the Tidewater region of Virginia was slammed by a meteor about 35 million years ago — a collision so violent it may have killed nearly everything on the East Coast and sent tsunami waves crashing against the Blue Ridge Mountains. The meteor impact disturbed and weakened the sediments across a 50-mile zone. Norfolk is at the edge of that zone, and some scientists think the ancient cataclysm may be one reason it is sinking especially fast, though others doubt it is much of a factor.

    Coastal flooding has already become such a severe problem that Norfolk is spending millions to raise streets and improve drainage. Truly protecting the city could cost as much as $1 billion, money that Norfolk officials say they do not have. Norfolk’s mayor, Paul Fraim, made headlines a couple of years ago by acknowledging that some areas might eventually have to be abandoned.

    Up and down the Eastern Seaboard, municipal planners want to know: How bad are things going to get, and how fast?

    One of the most ambitious attempts to take account of all known factors came just a few weeks ago from Kenneth G. Miller and Robert E. Kopp of Rutgers University, and a handful of their colleagues. Their calculations, centered on New Jersey, suggest this is not just some problem of the distant future.

    People considering whether to buy or rebuild at the storm-damaged Jersey Shore, for instance, could be looking at nearly a foot of sea-level rise by the time they would pay off a 30-year mortgage, according to the Rutgers projections. That would make coastal flooding and further property damage considerably more likely than in the past.

    Even if the global sea level rises only 8 more inches by 2050, a moderate forecast, the Rutgers group foresees relative increases of 14 inches at bedrock locations like the Battery, and 15 inches along the New Jersey coastal plain, where the sediments are compressing. By 2100, they calculate, a global ocean rise of 28 inches would produce increases of 36 inches at the Battery and 39 inches on the coastal plain.

    These numbers are profoundly threatening, and among the American public, the impulse toward denial is still strong. But in towns like Norfolk — where neighborhoods are already flooding repeatedly even in the absence of storms, and where some homes have become unsaleable — people are starting to pay attention.

    “In the last couple or three years, there’s really been a change,” said William A. Stiles Jr., head of Wetlands Watch, a Norfolk environmental group. “What you get now is people saying, ‘I’m tired of driving through salt water on my way to work, and I need some solutions.’ ”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/science/earth/grappling-with-sea-level-rise-sooner-not-later.html


    Coal Industry Report On Social Cost Of Carbon Relies On Climate Science Denial

    by Graham Readfearn, DeSmogBlog, February 6, 2014

    The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) seems a confusing and confused organisation of major coal miners and burners - even if you only consider its oxymoronic title.
    When the industry group was launched in 2008, the message was that coal — the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning globally — could be part of the future.
    “I believe we can limit greenhouse gases,” declared one of the wholesome American citizens depicted in the ACCCE television adverts.
    One can only presume that the ACCCE has now dropped its hopes of limiting greenhouse gases, given that its latest “landmark report” claims the benefits to society of putting extra carbon dioxide into the atmosphere massively outweigh the costs. Surely the message should be, "burn baby, burn"?
    The Social Costs Of Carbon? No, The Social Benefits Of Carbon report by ACCCE claims the benefits of adding extra CO2 to the atmosphere are between 50 and 500 times higher than the costs.
    But the report attacks climate change science using sources as ideologically tainted as the Heartland Institute – an organisation which once ran a billboard campaign with a picture of Unabomber Ted Kaczynski to claim that the "most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.”
    At its core, the ACCCE report is one long misrepresentation of the impact of coal on the planet, from its effects on growing food crops to raising sea levels to fuelling risk-laden climate change.

    Carbon Dioxide as “food for plants”

    One of the most popular debating points for climate science deniers is to tell you that carbon dioxide is simply food for plants.
    The ACCCE report takes this well worn and simplistic climate science denial talking point and pushes it to its extreme. While it’s true that some plants generally grow quicker when more carbon dioxide is available, this is grossly simplistic and ignores the impacts of human-caused climate change on flooding and prolonged drought.
    According to ACCCE, “the more CO2 there is in the air, the better plants grow” and that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will only have positive benefits.
    Professor Arnold Bloom, of the Department of Plant Sciences at the University of California at Davis, told DeSmogBlog:
    The coal industry in the United States has repeatedly tried to make such claims, but the short-term stimulation of plant productivity and crop yields at elevated CO2 diminishes with longer exposures (weeks, months, years), a phenomenon known as CO2 acclimation. Moreover, longer exposures to elevated CO2 decrease food quality and increase pest problems because pests must consume more plant product to meet their nutritional needs. I have discovered that elevated CO2 inhibits the conversion of nitrate into protein in most plants.
    Several passages of the section of ACCCE report on plant growth are near identical to text from a report produced by Craig Idso, of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
    Internal documents from the Heartland Institute have revealed that Craig Idsoreceives $11,600 a month from the climate denial group.
    Idso is also a former director at Peabody Energy — one of the world’s biggest coal companies and a member of the ACCCE.

    Social Cost of Carbon

    The report takes time to sully the concept of Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) that are a method used to work out how much each tonne of carbon dioxide costs society. This is known as the social cost of carbon (SCC) and the US administration currently has the figure at about $37 per metric tonne.
    The ACCCE report heavily cites the work of Robert Pindyck, a Professor at the Massachusets Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management.
    Pindyck has been critical of IAMs and the ACCCE report quotes a working paper produced last year where he described IAMs as being “close to useless” as a tool for policy analysis. However, the ACCCE report did not choose to cite the very first sentence of Pindyck’s paper, which said:
    There is almost no disagreement among economists that the full cost to society of burning a ton of carbon is greater than its private cost.
    Nor did the coal group’s report cite another concern Pindyck has with the use of IAMs, which was also outlined in the abstract of the report, and said:
    …the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility of a catastrophic climate outcome.
    Also cited in the report’s section looking at IAMs is James Risbey, a climatologist now at Australia’s government-funded science agency the CSIRO. The coal report cites a scientific paper written by Risbey 18 years ago and which warned that the use of IAMs came with several pitfalls. After viewing the coal report, Risbey told me:
    The ACCCE report questions a number of issues as if they were in dispute or subject to major uncertainties that have been resolved for decades.  The report appears to question the relative roles of natural and anthropogenic emissions in driving climate change.  It has long been known that anthropogenic emissions are driving the increase in CO2 concentration. 
    The ACCCE report appears to question whether greenhouse climate change will cause damages.  The methods of accounting and costing damages from climate change have been contentious and often questioned.  Much of that questioning has been based on a concern that the way damages are represented is too simple, leading to damage assessments that could grossly under-represent the true damages.  The uncertainties relate to the scale of the damages, not to the very likelihood of them happening as implied in the report.
    In other words, two key sources used by ACCCE in its criticisms of IAMs seem in reality to disagree with the key message of the report.

    Sea Level Rise

    The ACCCE paper claims that future damages caused by rising sea levels based on predictions from computer models "must be considered inflated and unreliable." The paper also claims that there has been no recent acceleration in sea level rise and that real world observations are showing a slowdown.
    Australia-based Dr John Hunter, of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, has published extensively on sea level rise in leading peer-reviewed journals. After reviewing the ACCCE report on sea level rise, Dr Hunter told DeSmogBlog:
    If this was a review of the literature written by a student, then it would get a very poor fail - it ignores most of the scientific work that has been done, and instead relies on relatively obscure and carefully selected papers from a small number of authors.
    One of those authors is an Australia-based engineer called Alberto Boretti, who recently changed his name to Albert Parker. Dr Parker works on “green engines” at RMIT University in Melbourne. He is a member of a group known as Principia Scientific International whose head claims carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas and cannot warm the planet. PSI is on the very fringes of the climate science denial fringe.
    Dr Parker has published several papers with another Australian, Thomas Watson,who believes CO2 cannot cause climate change and instead has blamed “magnetism” – a theory sparked in Watson’s mind after seeing a UFO while backstage at a rock concert.
    A claim in the ACCCE report that "observations reveal no acceleration of sea level rise over the past century" was, Hunter told DeSmogBlog, “both misleading and largely irrelevant.”
    He said observations of global sea levels were actually in line with the predictions of climate models. Dr Hunter said:
    The authors provide no quantitative estimate of what the acceleration "should" be if sea level were actually rising according to "AGW theory." The real test of the models is whether they reproduce observed sea level, and over the past half-century (when we have good observational data), they do appear to. The models in fact show that the present acceleration should be small.
    A belief in themselves
    With reports like this, the coal industry in the US and Australia seems desperate to convince policy makers and the public that its position as the historically dominant source of the world’s electricity should continue.
    Yet an increasing number of global investors with an influence over billions of dollars in funds – including the World Bank – disagree.
    “I believe in the future,” said ACCCE in its original 2008 television advertisements.
    The self-interested ACCCE does not appear to believe in an honest appraisal of the science of climate change and seems happy to rely on denial, at the expense of society at large.
    Image credit: Mark Fiore