Scripps Study - Poleward Shift In Clouds Means Nothing Stands Between Us And 4-5 Degrees Of Warming

[hatrack]

EDIT

The study was led by Ramanathan’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography colleague Joel Norris, though Ramanathan said he was not involved in the work and didn’t know about it until shortly before publication. But Ramanathan said that the study basically confirms that there’s nothing to prevent the world from reaching the high levels of warming that have long been feared — except for our own swift policy actions, that is.

“My reaction was, my goodness,” Ramanathan said. “Maybe the 4 to 5 degree warming, certainly we were all wishing there was some certainty that would make it go away. So I consider the findings of this paper, the data shows major reorganization of the cloud system.” This matters because clouds are fundamental regulators of how much solar radiation makes it to the Earth’s surface (rather than being reflected back to space by white cloud tops), and how much infrared or “longwave” radiation escapes back to space once again.

The new study used satellite records going back to 1983 to show that cloud patterns have shifted on the Earth as cloud belts have pushed poleward, expanding what are called subtropical dry zones between about 20 and 30 degrees latitude in both hemispheres. The shift is expected to exacerbate climate change, as moving clouds toward the poles means they reflect less sunlight back to space — there is less sunlight at the poles than at Equator, so the reflectivity of clouds counts for less there.

The shift has long been predicted by climate models — but is not exactly something that’s easy to measure. Thus the new study presents key observational evidence that it is actually happening.

EDIT

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/07/14/the-most-singular-of-all-the-things-that-we-have-found-clouds-study-alarms-top-scientist/?postshare=1701468515940306&tid=ss_tw

[6chars]

1. can we geoengineer clouds at the equator?

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

[tk2kewl]

2. how about we politically engineer some sane policy

and just civil engineer some better energy infrastructure

[6chars]

3. how about both?

[tk2kewl]

4. geoengineering can't possible turn out well imo

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. First, you need to define “Geoengineering”

To my way of thinking, any large scale action which is taken with the intention of affecting the global environment in a desired way, is geoengineering.

So, for example, dumping lots of iron into the ocean (in the hopes of stimulating microbial growth) or lots of sulfur compounds into the air (in the hopes of blocking the sun) are geoengineering, but, then, so is planting forests or attempting to save the coral reefs.

Like all living creatures, we affect our environment. If we do it in a conscious, deliberate manner, hoping to make things better, that’s geoengineering.

[tk2kewl]

14. i'll draw the line on messing with chemistry of the planet on a large scale

studying ecosystems and then preserving biodiversity and re-establishing biodiversity with native plant and animal species is much less likely to have unintended consequences than large scale chemistry experiments

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. However, it is still geogengineering

I think that if we are to get ourselves out of this mess, it will require some sort of large scale effort, beyond ecosystem restoration.

So far as we can tell, it takes an intact ecosystem about 1,000 years to lower atmospheric CO₂ levels 1 ppm. Assuming James Hansen and co. are correct, we need to lower atmospheric CO₂ levels more than 50 ppm.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha00410c.html

…

Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3°C for doubled CO₂, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6°C for doubled CO₂ for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. Decreasing CO₂ was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, the planet being nearly ice-free until CO₂ fell to 450 ± 100 ppm; barring prompt policy changes, that critical level will be passed, in the opposite direction, within decades. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO₂ will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO₂ forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO₂ target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO₂ is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO₂ is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.

…

We suggest an initial objective of reducing atmospheric CO₂ to 350 ppm, with the target to be adjusted as scientific understanding and empirical evidence of climate effects accumulate. Although a case already could be made that the eventual target probably needs to be lower, the 350 ppm target is sufficient to qualitatively change the discussion and drive fundamental changes in energy policy. Limited opportunities for reduction of non-CO₂ human-caused forcings are important to pursue but do not alter the initial 350 ppm CO₂ target. This target must be pursued on a timescale of decades, as paleoclimate and ongoing changes, and the ocean response time, suggest that it would be foolhardy to allow CO₂ to stay in the dangerous zone for centuries.

…

[tk2kewl]

16. i'll go with extraction and sequestration for CO2

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. And how will we accomplish “extraction” without messing about with chemistry?

Remember, we need to do this in a matter of decades.

[tk2kewl]

18. you do have a point there

my concern is mainly with altering chemistry to counteract the effects of warming rather than addressing the cause of it

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. Yeah, spraying sulfur compounds into the stratosphere seems like a really bad idea

However, we may find ourselves resorting to band-aids like that.

[tk2kewl]

5. and geoengineer gives people the excuse not to do the basics

[6chars]

6. I wouldn't count on too much sanity

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-department-killed-off-by-theresa-may-in-plain-stupid-and-deeply-worrying-move-a7137166.html

One of Theresa May’s first acts as Prime Minister was to move responsibility for climate change to a new Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy.

[tk2kewl]

7. are you suggesting we should resort to geoengineering as the solution?

[6chars]

8. i think we should use all means, rather than being clever

the reason for countries ignoring the threat is not that they are consoled by the possibility of geoengineering, it is that they are denying science.

clearly geoengineering is possible, since we have already done it (negatively).

the only long term solution is reducing our carbon consumption, but given the lags in the system, by the time the world really commits to that it may be too late. i would support geoengineering if it buys time. beats extinction.

[tk2kewl]

9. no "country" is really denying science

their leaders are doing the bidding of the wealthy

[Nihil]

20. And by using "geoengineering" to "buy time" you are advocating the complete opposite of "clever".

> the reason for countries ignoring the threat is not that they are consoled
> by the possibility of geoengineering, it is that they are denying science.

No, it is that they fervently believe in kicking the can down the road by
whatever means possible in order to maintain short-term profits for
themselves and - more importantly - their owners.

They are not denying science, they know full well that it is correct.
They just don't want to face up to doing anything significant so any little
pointless & destructive ploys that will "buy them time" are grasped with
both greedy hands.

"Geoengineering" is one of those pointless & destructive ploys and the
people who support it are fighting to maintain Business As Usual.

[6chars]

21. Historically, people are like Wile E. Coyote

and don't know we are over the cliff until it is too late.

We shall see how it all goes. I predict disaster.

[OKIsItJustMe]

22. I believe the error you are making is assuming there is some sort of rational thought at work

People are in denial. To rationalize that, they come to the conclusion that the “science is wrong.”

Why do people believe that NASA faked the moon landings? Because they have some sort of valid proof? No. They simply deny it happened, and since NASA claims that it did, NASA must have faked it.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf

[Ohioblue22]

10. Tag

[Binkie The Clown]

11. We are past the point of no return.

It's no longer possible to "fix" this problem. We are on an express highway to extinction. Sad, but we might as well learn to accept it and enjoy what time we have left.

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. More here…

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1127103246