Greenland Ice Sheet Melt Accelerates- Are We On The Cusp Of The Runaway Greenhouse Effect?

Graphic showing the process by which the Greenland Ice Sheet is melting.


Dog- sledding near Chena Hot Springs, AK in March, 2005. We were unable to go as far as we would have liked because the much higher temperatures had melted the surface ice.


The news that last Wednesday saw record high temperatures in Greenland,  40 degrees above normal, and a record melt event  over the Greenland Ice Sheet triggered more cause for concern among climate scientists.  According to Zachary Labe, a climate researcher at the University of California -Irvine (quoted in The Washington Post):

"It's another series of extreme events  consistent with the long term trend of a warming, changing Arctic..

Meanwhile, Marco Tedesco - an ice researcher at Columbia University, quoted in the same article, noted it's "been extremely warm in east and central Greenland, adding:

"This has triggered widespread melting that has reached about 45 percent of the ice sheet"

In addition, Jennifer Francis  - a leading researcher studying the connections between Arctic change and mid-latitude weather - has noted the relation of Arctic changes to deformation in the jet stream.  She also was one of those who had indicated that such changes could well have played a role in the extreme jet stream patterns that in recent months have wreaked havoc.  That includes spawning tornado swarms and record flooding in the central U.S. during the last two weeks in May. The analogy here has been made to "a refrigerator door left open" - with intensified warming displacing the normally cold air that remains in the Arctic.

 In her words, referencing last week's record Greenland melt:

"The jet stream this week was one of the craziest I've ever seen!...We can't say yet that the Arctic warming is causing this particular pattern, but it is certainly consistent with that."

This is serious and has grave repercussions continued local (e.g. mid-latitude) weather disruptions as well as sea level rise.  The most critical connection is to the clear change in planetary albedo (the reflecting surface).

Here on Earth we are faced with a positive albedo feedback mechanism playing a major role - driving us toward the runaway. This concept was well explicated by Sagan in one of his essays, 'Ambush : The Warming of the World', in his book:  'Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Beginning of the Millennium':

"Melting of ice caps (already occurring) results in diminished albedo (reflection of solar radiation back into space), and a darker Earth surface - with more infrared radiation absorbed - reinforcing the tendency while enhancing the melting effect, leading to further darkening of the surface, reduced albedo and more melting."

This mode of positive feedback is what we're faced with in the melting of the Arctic, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/04/bad-news-record-summer-melt-in.html

Adding to the urgency of facing the issue, Harvard climate scientist (professor of atmospheric chemistry) James Anderson has warned in a recent FORBES interview that we may have only "five years left to save ourselves from climate change".    

This is given the CO2 concentration currently  in the atmosphere (415 ppm)  hasn't been seen in 12 million years. This condition  is rapidly pushing the climate back to its state in the Eocene Epoch, over 33 million years ago, when no ice existed on either pole. Prof. Anderson, best known for  establishing   chloroflourocarbons were damaging the Ozone layer noted pointedly: 

"We have exquisite information about what that state is, because we have a paleo record going back millions of years, when the earth had no ice at either pole. There was almost no temperature difference between the equator and the pole,"

Adding:

"The ocean was running almost 10ºC warmer all the way to the bottom than it is today, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would have meant that storm systems would be violent in the extreme, because water vapor, which is an exponential function of water temperature, is the gasoline that fuels the frequency and intensity of storm systems."

Reinforcing that scenario Harvard's  Anderson acknowledges:

 "Can we lose 75-80 percent of permanent ice and recover? The answer is no." 

In other words, with that vast, reflecting ice surface gone, humans will have to figure out an alternative means of raising the albedo..  Basically, to avert such feedbacks would require perhaps the most monumental  engineering  effort  in the history of mankind -  dwarfing anything seen  hitherto. It would have to be mounted to reflect as much sunlight away from the Earth's poles as the melting ice sheets are now..   But here's the rub: short of launching into space twenty or so vast reflectors of 20 square kilometers surface each - likely at a cost of $2 trillion per reflector (conservative estimate) - that isn't going to happen.  

At the same time as intensifying warmth has accelerated melting in the Arctic and plausibly disrupted the jet stream leading to tornado swarms and flooding in the U.S. , heat waves have scorched India. (New Delhi recently topped 123 degrees F.)  But how many in the U. S. knew about India's travails at the same time flooding and tornadoes savaged the central U.S.?

One problem with educating the global citizenry on the existential crisis of greenhouse warming, is that information tends to be localized.   Hence, a  resident of New Delhi may have no clue of the tumultuous havoc wrought in the U.S. with massive flooding, hundreds of tornadoes and what not. Similarly, the typical U.S. resident may have no clue of the rising, infernal temperatures in Delhi lately, reaching a record 118.4 degrees on June 10   As one VOX media piece put it:  "Caucus voters in flood-ravaged Iowa, can see climate disruption simply by looking out the window."

This information disconnect means too many are unaware of global warming as a global phenomenon.  Even worse, the Trump cabal - "graduated" from climate change deniers to planet destroyers - is now determined to actively interfere in research by federal scientists.  As The New York Times reports , those scientists who prepared the National Climate Assessment will now be instructed not to include the worst-case scenarios of climate change in their reports, so the full extent of potential impacts will be hidden from readers. They will also be asked to project their model results through 2040 instead of the end of the century, masking some of the most dire effects of climate change.

Compounding that, the Trump criminal enterprise is reportedly setting up a “review panel” to publicly scrutinize the conclusions of the National Climate Assessment

Blogger John Atcheson-   much like Harvard's Anderson - put the current crisis in stark perspective when he observed:

"Most of the climate-related estimates you hear in the news and from the IPCC have built in assumptions that we humans will take necessary actions to mitigate the worst of the climate crisis. There’s no evidence that making such assumptions is a prudent thing to do. We’ve known about this unfolding tragedy for three decades now, yet we’ve been steadily increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses we release. In fact, in 2018 we set a record for the most CO₂ ever emitted, and for the single largest increase in emissions year-to-year. Meanwhile, in May of this year, atmospheric CO₂ levels reached 415 parts per million, a level higher than it’s been for more than 3 million years – literally before the dawn of human existence.

The second reason the climate crisis is likely far more dire than most people have been led to believe is that the IPCC, most of the scientific community, and the media present mid-range scenarios for temperature increases, not worst-case forecasts, and usually they don’t include potentially dangerous feedbacks.." 

Let's be clear all of the techno-baloney "solutions" advanced  thus far in order to dodge the necessary revolution in our economic system (based on radical consumption and waste), e.g..

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/11/dont-trust-economists-with-climate.html

 - are essentially refined balderdash and baloney.

  Hence fixes like tinkering with the amount of sunlight that strikes the Earth by injecting sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere (to increase cloud cover)   is like trying to douse a kitchen fire with a cup of water. It simply can't work given the scale of the problem.   

The 'good'  news, despite the fact that warming conditions are likely being understated, e.g.

Climate report understates threat

Is that we are not yet at the cusp of the runaway Greenhouse effect.  The late Carl Sagan estimated this sub-threshold to occur near a CO2 concentration of 500 ppm.  We are currently at 415 ppm but the rate now seems to be increasing at 2.5 ppm/ yr compared to the previous 2.0 ppm/yr.   Doing the math this means we'd not arrive at the cusp concentration for another 30 years - assuming of course the rate of increasing concentration stays the same. Similarly, we'd reach the actual runaway (taken as 600 ppm) 40 years later, at around 2089-90.   That means our grandchildren will be the ones having to deal with what can only be regarded as catastrophic climatic conditions.

What about the accelerated melting of the Greenland ice sheet? We can perhaps take some mild comfort from the perspective of Mike MacFerrin - a glaciologist at the University of Colorado.  He has suggested in one recent tweet that it may be too early to panic and the observations of rapid melting thus far in 2019 have merely been "anomalous variations."  

Well, we have to hope he's correct.  Ultimately, when all is said and done, John Atcheson is correct and nations have blithely allowed CO2 emissions to increase over 3 or more decades taking us to the brink of climate apocalypse.  Much of this is a result of gov't retrenchment of regulations - say when administrations change in the U.S. (or elsewhere). And not too put too much of a fine point on it but the Trumpies now have rolled back coal plant rules. ('EPA Rescinds Obama Power Plant Rules', WSJ today, p. A4).  As another WSJ columnist (James Mackintosh) noted, nothing will change so long as it remains more profitable to extract oil, gas or coal and burn them.  

That leaves humans with a Hobson's choice decision: Enjoy more comfort today using more fossil fuels, e.g. for a/c, heating, plane trips, car trips etc. and toss the planet into the dustbin for future generations. OR shape up, cut back on consumption, allow carbon taxes and at least provide a chance (albeit slim) of leaving their progeny with a halfway livable world.

See also:

Environmental Policy | Healthcare Policy

The Climate Crisis Is Also a Health Emergency

And:

Economics 101 and Ecological Collapse

And:

Life Changes At The Cusp Of The Runaway Greenhouse - Brane Space

Holman Jenkins' Quest For "Climate Maturity" Ought To Start With His Own Op-Eds

Above: U.S. maps comparing increase in days each year above 95 F (top) and increase in degrees F for average summer temperatures (late 20th century vs. mid -21st century predictions).


Looks like the WSJ's Holman Jenkins is at it again, or maybe he wearied of pumping and humping his "Hillary, James Comey, FBI" conspiracy codswallop   for now.   Little Holman asks in his latest piece ('Will 2019 See Climate Maturity?" p. A16):  

"For almost 40 years, science has failed to advance on a basic question: how much warming can we expect from a given increase in atmospheric CO2"

He then goes on to cite IPCC estimates in the same ballpark as those from the Charney Report in 1979, i.e. :  "A doubling of CO2 corresponds to a temperature increase between 2.7 and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit."  Jenkins'  purpose is to try to show the wide variability in projected temperatures doesn't square with the claim of higher CO2 being a confident temperature indicator. Hence, climate scientists are nowhere near "climate maturity" if they are unable to specify the temperature increase much better, say to a doubling of CO2 concentration

But, of course, little Holman - who likely never took a college thermal physics course in his life-  plays fast and loose using his journalistic license.  My point? The very expectation that a climate scientist can be as precise in temperature forecasts tied to CO2 is itself a sign of scientific immaturity and indeed juvenile on its face.

Let's examine why. First, what we do know is that for the previous 800,000 years (thanks to the ice core analyses of climate scientists like Gunter Weller,


CO2 levels never exceeded 300 parts per million.  Prof. Weller's results showed that the greatest ambient temperatures corresponded to the highest CO2 concentrations in the gas extracted from the ice cores.  The CO2 concentration was about 280 ppm at the start of the Industrial Revolution and is now approaching 415 ppm.    We also know (again from ice core studies) that there has never been an ice age when the CO2 concentration exceeded  200 ppm.   This is critical because it tells us (like the Keeling curve, top)  in the most general terms that CO2 is indeed tied to temperature increases.   The question then is why these increases cannot be quantified more exactly. 


One reason is the differential properties of cloud cover in terms of albedo (or degree of reflection of solar energy back into space.)  A major research paper in this regard appeared in Eos Transactions: 'Can Earth’s Albedo and Surface Temperature Increase Together’ (Vol. 87, No. 4, Jan. 24, 2006, p. 37) wherein the authors pointedly noted evidence that Earth’s albedo increased from 2000 to 2004 but that this had NOT led to a reversal in global warming. They also remarked on apparent temperature anomalies and divergence between differing altitudes but pointed to the differences between clouds at those altitudes.

The authors cited (to then) the most up to date cloud data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP). The data – from a range of meteorological satellites covering the entire Earth- disclosed the most likely reason for the anomaly was primarily in the redistribution of the clouds. As the authors observed:

"whereas low clouds have decreased during the most recent years, high clouds have increased to a larger extent leading to both an increase in cloud amount and an increased trapping of infrared radiation.”

 The complex  issues surrounding cloud feedbacks and their relation to temperatures was discussed in a previous blog post, including the most recent research, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2017/01/decomposing-cloud-feedbacks-enhances.html

As I noted in that post, regading  the convergence of cloud properties in relation to global warming:

"Zelinka et al discovered that all climate models agree on the direction of three main feedbacks that accompany global warming. First, upper level clouds rise to higher altitudes in all models, warming the planet by trapping more heat. Although this was previously known, the positive feedback is actually smaller and better constrained than past research has suggested. Second, low-level cloud cover decreases in all models, warming the planet by reflecting less incoming sunlight back to space. And third, optical depth of low-level clouds increases in all models, cooling the planet by reflecting more sunlight."


The progress toward tying cloud properties to higher temperatures is a work still in progress and requires not only factoring in albedo, but also resolving the types of cloud feedbacks into the underlying mechanisms in play.  Until this aspect is resolved, and given the wide distribution of cl0uds in the atmosphere, there will be large uncertainty in terms of the predicted temperature.  Is Jenkins even aware that no  experimental scientific quantity is given as a single absolute number but with a range "+" ?  I doubt it. 

What about temperature measurements themselves?  Much needed light was shed on this by Thomas Karl, Director of the National Centers for Environmental Information of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in a June 4, 2015 paper which appeared in the journal Science.

This concerned inconsistent data treatment, particularly in processing sea surface temperatures - especially as measured by buoys.   This error was likely compounded in conjunction with the misinterpretation of Hadley UK Center future projections on climate that I've already discussed at length, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/06/george-will-no-warming-for-last-16.html

I would even venture to say that the preponderance of false judgments by too many (mainly conservatives like George Will,  i.e. in his only recent appearance on Bill Maher's Real Time) is due to inadequate study of the climate backstory. That includes the role of changing carbon isotope ratios over geological time, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/12/carbon-isotope-ratios-and-climate.html

As Thomas Karl observed, quoted in Eos Transactions - Earth & Space Science (July 1, 2015):

"The biggest takeaway is there is no slowdown in global warming".

Indeed, he added that warming the past fifteen years is the "strongest it's been since the latter half of the 20th century". Putting an exclamation point on that, July that year (2015) was the hottest July since records were initiated. 

Readers can learn more on  the background issues here:

http://news.mit.edu/2017/correcting-records-thomas-karl-0425

Why the measurement difficulty? Well, because the data gathering and process of analysis are inherently complex.  In order to achieve such measurements, i.e. as to how Earth's average global temperature is increasing, there's a lot of "sausage making".  

First, scientists must combine thousands of measurements from Earth's surface, taken by land instruments, ships. buoys and orbital satellites.  Second, each of these has its own random errors, all of which must be identified. Not only must researchers comb through the data to eliminate these errors, they must also correct for any differences in how each type of instrument measures temperature.

Thus, the authors of Prof. Karl's  Science paper had to dig into NOAA's global surface temperature analysis data to examine how sea surface temperatures (SSTs) were being measured. SSTs are measured in various ways:

-  collecting ocean water in a bucket and measuring its temperature directly

- measuring the temperature of water taken in by a ship engine as a coolant

- using floating buoys moored in the various oceans

Each technique records slightly different temperatures in the same region so scientists have to adjust and 'harmonize'  the data. In the past couple decades the number of buoys has increased - adding 15% more coverage to the ocean. But because buoys tend to read colder temperatures than ships at the same locations, a measurement bias is introduced which must be corrected for. This was the primary task set out by Karl et al.  They corrected for the bias by adding 0.12C to each buoy temperature. 

By then combining the ocean data with improved calculations of air temperatures over land around the world, Karl and colleagues found that overall global surface warming over 2000-14 was 0.116C per decade or more than twice the estimated 0.039C starting in 1998 that the IPCC had reported.

Basically then, the WSJ's know nothing climate opinionators  like the editors,  Holman Jenkins, Dan Henninger etc. are guilty mainly of rank ignorance in: a) not knowing how sea surface or other global temperatures are processed, and b) failing to appreciate the significance and why the rise in temperatures fully comports with Hansen's model.  Oh, and oversimplifying the CO2-temperatures connections with the intent to misinform.

All of this also comports with the latest reports  from the IPCC, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2018/10/new-ipcc-report-confirms-humans-have.html


And even warnings from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that the warming risks are understated, e.g.

Climate report understates threat

Excerpt:

"So far, average temperatures have risen by one degree Celsius. Adding 50 percent more warming to reach 1.5 degrees won’t simply increase impacts by the same percentage—bad as that would be. Instead, it risks setting up feedbacks that could fall like dangerous dominoes, fundamentally destabilizing the planet. This is analyzed in a recent study showing that the window to prevent runaway climate change and a “hot house” super-heated planet is closing much faster than previously understood."


Jenkins' biggest wet dream is the Right's "carbon tax" idiocy which he claims:

"For decades this was the recommended policy of economists of every political disposition, but increasingly dismissed on the hard-bitten left as 'right wing dogma'"

Well, he has the last part correct, but why? Well, because this "tax" - the spawn of economists who fancy themselves real scientists like physicists -  has nothing but hot air behind it.  It is a mere McGuffin, tossed out for the non critically thinking to guzzle as a specious counterpoint to actual fuel taxes.  The reason is because "The revenue obtained via the tax is not always used to compensate for the carbon emissions on which the tax is levied"  

More specifically, if you are going to tax something, the price or value needs to be known. But up to now  all efforts of U.S. legislation that might have put a price on carbon have failed.  So there's no known way to practically tax it and hence to compensate for actual carbon emissions.  In other words the whole scheme is a joke.  It will not delay or abate the coming Climate Armageddon one iota.   This is what leads little Holman to belch such bollocks as:

"If climate politics reaches its overdue maturity, it will advance on the right rather than the left under the aegis of tax reform."

That form of "advance", of course, will mark zilch in physical reality - where it counts - and by then we will already be in the throes of the runaway greenhouse.  I hope Holman and his Right cadre of nincompoops have plenty of emergency generators to keep their a/c going when the runaway emerges.  They will need it.

It is evident to me that Holman Jenkins, along with his denier cohort,  are the ones who need to attain climate 'maturity'.   A first step would be to see if they are even qualified to comment on climate change, say by passing the thermal physics quiz below:

---------------------------
In each case, either solve the problem as given, or provide the correct answer (A, B, C , D or E) for multiple choice:

1) An air conditioner has a power rating of 1.0 kilowatt. A solar panel on the roof of a house has a collective efficiency of 12% and is 5 meters by 5 meters. The solar power (insolation) constant is 1360 watts per square meter. Assuming the ac will be run from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. , will the panel be able to achieve the objective? Assume no cloud cover, and no significant variation in insolation. Show all working.

2) A hot air balloon of constant volume contains air at 100 C. The fraction of this air which escapes if the temperature is increased by 1 K (Kelvin) – the pressure remaining constant is:

A) 1/ 373 B) 1/ 273 C) 1/ 100 D) 374/373 E) 101/100

3) The first law of thermodynamics is often stated in the form: Q = DU + W. Which of the quantities, Q , DU or W must necessarily be zero when a real gas undergoes a change at constant pressure?

A) Q only B) DU only C) W only D) none of DU, Q, W E) all of DU. Q, W

(Note Q denotes heat added, W is work done, and DU denotes change in internal energy)

4) Two identical copper calorimeters of mass 0.1 kg contain 1 kg of water and 2 kg of alcohol, respectively. It’s found that they both take 60 minutes to cool from 350 K to 300 K under similar conditions. Find the specific heat of the alcohol (in J/ (kg K) ) based on this information:

A) 600 B) 2060 C) 2100 D) 2140 E) 3800

5) Which of the following statements about temperature is NOT true?

A) It represents the amount of heat contained in the body.
B) It is a measure of degree of hotness or coldness of a body
C) It is a property that determines the direction of heat flow in a body.
D) It is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles of which it’s composed.
E) It may be measured by examining the length of a column of mercury.

6) A detector of thermal energy is placed an equal distance in turn from each of four faces of a hollow metal cube full of water. The reading on the detector is greatest when the face is turned toward the face that is:

A) painted silver B) painted shiny white C) painted dull black
D) highly polish E) neither of the faces makes any significant difference

7) A bottle of water is placed in the freezer of a fridge and forgotten. It’s recovered after 24 hrs. and found to be broken. The reason for breakage is:

A) the bottle expanded as it cooled 
B) water expanded more than the bottle as it froze
C) the bottle contracted as it cooled
 D) the water contracted as it froze
E) the water and bottle both expanded as they cooled

9) The diagram below shows two bodies of equal mass (A and B) within a thermally insulated material. A has a thermometer inserted to take readings. A was initially at a temperature of 100C and B at 50 C when placed in thermal contact.


[ [A][B] ]


a) Find the temperature of the system of two bodies in thermal equilibrium. Is this the same as the reading of A’s temperature? (Show work, explain)
b) Which body undergoes a positive change in entropy?
c) Which body undergoes a negative change in entropy?
d) What is the total entropy change for the system, A + B?

10)a) Describe the principle of operation of a basic, glass-enclosed greenhouse. What specific features enable more heat to be collected within than available from the immediate, outside environment?

b) One kilogram of mercury is initially at 0 C. Find its change in entropy when heat is slowly added to raise its temperature to 100 C.

Data: Heat of fusion for Hg = 1.17 x 10 4 J/ kg, specific heat (Hg) = 138 J/ kg C; Melting temperature (Hg) = -39 C)

Specific heat (H2O) = 4,200 J/ kg C

Marking scheme: Problems 1 through 8, 8 marks each. Problem 9: 16 marks ; Problem 10: 20 marks