IT WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT! ~ctm
Climate change tipping point could be coming sooner than we think
New study shows that vegetation may not be able to continue abating the effects of emissions from human activities
Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Science
New York, NY–January 23, 2019–Global carbon emissions reached a record high in 2018, rising by an estimated 3.4 percent in the U.S. alone. This trend is making scientists, government officials, and industry leaders more anxious than ever about the future of our planet. As United Nations Secretary General António Guterres said at the opening of the 24th annual U.N. climate conference on December 3, “We are in deep trouble with climate change.”
A Columbia Engineering study, published today in Nature, confirms the urgency to tackle climate change. While it’s known that extreme weather events can affect the year-to-year variability in carbon uptake, and some researchers have suggested that there may be longer-term effects, this new study is the first to actually quantify the effects through the 21st century and demonstrates that wetter-than-normal years do not compensate for losses in carbon uptake during dryer-than-normal years, caused by events such as droughts or heatwaves.
Anthropogenic emissions of CO2–emissions caused by human activities–are increasing the concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere and producing unnatural changes to the planet’s climate system. The effects of these emissions on global warming are only being partially abated by the land and ocean. Currently, the ocean and terrestrial biosphere (forests, savannas, etc.) are absorbing about 50% of these releases–explaining the bleaching of coral reefs and acidification of the ocean, as well as the increase of carbon storage in our forests.
“It is unclear, however, whether the land can continue to uptake anthropogenic emissions at the current rates,” says Pierre Gentine, associate professor of earth and environmental engineering and affiliated with the Earth Institute, who led the study. “Should the land reach a maximum carbon uptake rate, global warming could accelerate, with important consequences for people and the environment. This means that we all really need to act now to avoid greater consequences of climate change.”
Working with his PhD student Julia Green, Gentine wanted to understand how variability in the hydrological cycle (droughts and floods, and long-term drying trends) was affecting the capacity of the continents to trap some of the emissions of CO2. The research is particularly timely as climate scientists have predicted that extreme events will likely increase in frequency and intensity in the future, some of which we are already witnessing today, and that there will also be a change in rainfall patterns that will likely affect the ability of the Earth’s vegetation to uptake carbon.
To define the amount of carbon stored in vegetation and soil, Gentine and Green analyzed net biome productivity (NBP), defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as the net gain or loss of carbon from a region, equal to the net ecosystem production minus the carbon lost from disturbance like a forest fire or a forest harvest.
The researchers used data from four Earth System Models from the GLACE-CMIP5 (Global Land Atmosphere Coupling Experiment–Coupled Model Intercomparison Project) experiments, to run a series of experiments to isolate reductions in NBP that are due strictly to changes in soil moisture. They were able to isolate the effects of changes in long-term soil moisture trends (i.e. drying) as well as short-term variability (i.e., the effects of extreme events such as floods and droughts) on the ability of the land to uptake carbon.
“We saw that the value of NBP, in this instance a net gain of carbon on the land surface, would actually be almost twice as high if it weren’t for these changes (variability and trend) in soil moisture,” says Green, the paper’s lead author. “This is a big deal! If soil moisture continues to reduce NBP at the current rate, and the rate of carbon uptake by the land starts to decrease by the middle of this century–as we found in the models–we could potentially see a large increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and a corresponding rise in the effects of global warming and climate change.”
Gentine and Green note that soil-moisture variability notably reduces the present land carbon sink, and their results show that both variability and drying trends reduce it in the future. By quantifying the critical importance of soil-water variability for the terrestrial carbon cycle, and the reduction in carbon uptake due to the effects of these changes in soil moisture, the study findings highlight the necessity of implementing improved modeling of vegetation response to water stress and land-atmosphere coupling in Earth system models to constrain the future terrestrial carbon flux and to better predict future climate.
“Essentially, if there were no droughts and heat waves, if there were not going to be any long-term drying over the next century, then the continents would be able to store almost twice as much carbon as they do now,” says Gentine. “Because soil moisture plays such a large role in the carbon cycle, in the ability of the land to uptake carbon, it’s essential that processes related to its representation in models become a top research priority.”
There is still a great deal of uncertainty on how plants respond to water stress, and so Green and Gentine will continue their work on improving representations of vegetation response to soil moisture changes. They are now focusing on the tropics, a region with lots of unknowns, and the largest terrestrial carbon sink, to determine how vegetation activity is being controlled by both changes in soil moisture as well as atmospheric dryness. These findings will provide guidance on improving the representation of plant water stress in the tropics.
“This study is highly valuable as it shines a bright spotlight on just how important water is for the uptake of carbon by the biosphere,” says Chris Schwalm, an associate scientist at Woods Hole Research Center and an expert in global environmental change, carbon cycle sensitivity and modeling frameworks who was not involved in the study. “It also exposes underdeveloped aspects of Earth system modeling such as processes related to vegetation water-stress and soil moisture, which can be targeted during model development for better predictive capacity in the context of global environmental change.”
###
From EurekAlert! Public Release: 23-Jan-2019
About the Study
The study is titled “Large influence of soil moisture on long-term terrestrial carbon uptake.”
Authors are: Julia K. Green1, Sonia I. Seneviratne2, Alexis M. Berg3, Kirsten L. Findell4, Stefan Hagemann5, David M. Lawrence6 & Pierre Gentine1,7 (1Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering, Columbia Engineering; 2Department of Environmental Systems Science, ETH Zurich, Switzerland; 3Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University; 4Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, NJ; 5Institute of Coastal Research, Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Germany; 6Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory, Terrestrial Sciences, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO; 7The Earth Institute, Columbia University.)
The study was supported by NASA Earth and Space Science Fellowship (NNX16AO16H).
The authors declare no competing interests.
LINKS:
Paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0848-x
DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0848-x
Models again. Sigh!
YouReekAlert!
It’s hardly worth wasting time engaging with this nonsense, but a warmer world means a wetter world. Even warmista dogma includes the doctrine of positive feedback from additional water vapor. These kids haven’t studied their catechism.
Tipping point? A little like the Is. of Guam capsizing , remember?
No no no.
We were told here in Toronto a few years ago (when there was a low spring run off into the Great Lakes) that a warmer world meant a DRYER world. Why, we’d have to now spend billions of dollars dredging channels, and the pleasure boating industry was warning that it would go out of business because people couldn’t get to their docks, the water level would be that low.
The experts even PROVED this with a model that SAID SO.
Um…then last year we had floods due to…a high spring run off…proving a wetter world…billions in flood damage if we don’t spend billions fighting carbon…model said so…
Etc.
Repeast as needed.
Pretty much the same in Michigan. Water levels in the Great Lakes fell before before 2011, and “scientists” blamed global warming for the decline. Now that lake levels are above their historical levels, “scientists” have been searching for a mechanism to attribute the recovery to global warming also. The EPA web site even now states that water levels in the Great Lakes are a climate change indicator.
Horse
Cart
Ah, climate change “science”…
You put a happy face on me this morning Caligula. Thanks!
i didn’t even get that far, just the desperate ‘look at me, look at me, I’m a climate scientist too’ proposition.
This whole field has more in common with small dog breeding. The target is small, cutesy, yappy, urban environment adapted and able to do tricks.
Right!? I go from the first sentence “New study shows…Computer model blah, blah, blah…End of Days” straight to the comment board for a chuckle or three. There just aren’t enough hours in a day to keep up with all this socialist propaganda. Talk about CO2 footprint.
LOL +10
Columbia Engineers couldn’t engineer themselves out of a paper bag.
Heh.
My uncle was a sargeant-major in the Royal Canadian Engineers in WWII. He could pretty much solve any engineering problem with profanity and the sheer iron will as befits a CSM.
Best line I ever heard from him (after the war while working with him on a minor gardening project for my aunt): “You couldn’t show me gravity with a #$%#@ anvil…”
How much do those models get paid?
Okay, bad joke – but seriously, when is the desperate need for attention going to stop? Accuweather can’t even make accurate forecasts for three days out. How am I supposed to believe what these “modelers” come up with?
Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Science
Seriously? We have no other more practical and pressing Engineering needs than to create more rubbish climate models? Don’t we need to strengthen bridges and buildings against an “angry” Gaia making more violent earthquakes to punish man?
Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering
EXACTLY!
The weather channel forcasted above freezing for most of Jan. It was in the teens (F) last night and now the forecast calls for several days next week where the highs are below freezing. I’m sure the climate forecasts are better 😉
Not just models, but models using the output of other models.
“The researchers used data from four Earth System Models”
is the new:
“The psychic used data from dead people”.
“Anthropogenic emissions of CO2–emissions caused by human activities–are increasing the concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere”
Above is the lie that kills everything thereafter. There is no evidence that our escalating emissions are altering the almost linear increase in atmospheric CO2. With warming oceans from the Little Ice Age, the warmer oceans take time to outgas the corresponding CO2, thus the observed lag.
Recent talk about the deep ocean warming is bogus in regard to manmade warming. They are only detecting the warmer but still very cold water that sank to the depths many 100s, if not a thousand or more years ago. Nobody with half a brain should think that the ocean depths are warming due to anything we have done in the last 1000 years. Jeez.
One thing I know for sure is that plant life and human life will not survive a serious reduction in CO2.
So these geniuses have worked out that if the soil is too dry the plants don’t grow so good.
Very deep Sciency stuff….?
Do they take into account the fact that elevated CO2 reduces transpiration and therefore water uptake? link
Off topic: BoingBoing has a piece on 1500 private jets coming to Davos. link
proved by ?
oh yes models , of course models are great you can any result you ‘need’ if you feed them the right data and ask the right questions and no need at all to worry about troublesome reality
Want to ‘prove’ black is white and up is down , models can do that for you , and provided plenty of wriggle room for you too and your claim fall flat in their face.
Could , may , will be , considered , predicted , and 101 words that may I am guessing but I really do not want to admit to that .
Can the panel please explain why atmospheric CO2 has been gradually declining for the last 150 million years? Which means that for almost all of those 150 million years atmospheric CO2 was naturally much higher than today’s 410 ppm, with none of the catastrophic warmingthat is scheduled for 2031?
Planet death seems a little overstated?
ever heard of continental drift? circulation patterns were not the same.
a few thousand years ago there were not many large costal cities and infrastructure that would be upset by inundation – its easier to pull a few sticks and move a few hides than it is to build London another 20 metres higher!!
Are you really that dumb or are you just practicing to be a liberal politician ? Where does your 20 meters of SLR come from, excessive Unicorn pee ?
And to think, they complain when we call them alarmists.
20 metres????????
….in only 12 years
It needs to get a shift on. That dopey democrat tart in NY says the world is going to end in 12 years time. I bet my house and pension that I will still be off to the pub for a cold one 🍺😁
Maybe the “milli” part is silent?
ghalfrunt Are we being a little alarmist today? 12,000 years ago there were thousands of coastal cities. Today they are all 150 meters under the ocean from the melting and subsequent sea level rise associated with the end of the last glacial period. Stone age humans survived an 150 meter sea level rise and went on to prosper. 20 meters should be a piece of cake. At the same time the rising waters reached the Great Barrier Reef and after spending over 130,000 years drying in the sun the reef recovered and we can see it’s splendor today. Although for any of this to happen you first have to show some increase in the rate of sea level rise caused by CO2. So far there isn’t any.
…and aren’t there ancient coastal cities that are now miles inland? Meaning sea levels rise and fall normally, land rises and falls, silt and erosion, all over, all at the same time. Global sea level isn’t some simple little 1+1=3 thing. It is vastly complex with billions of tiny factors (and huge ones) all working together constantly to effect the coasts. The moon, planets, sun, asteroids, meteors, comets, space weather – these things would all have to be thrown into the mix as well. Volcanic activity, geothermal, geo-magnetic, geo-shift-such-thingy. I would really truly LOVE to see the model that could actually take every single factor involved and calculate it. That would be one massive monster melon of a milestone in calculation! I figure current models don’t touch a tithe of everything. It’s all just a bunch of pud pulling – and these brilliant men and women HAVE TO know this. The realm of complexity is perplexingly complex. So they simply guessimate and guessticulate and get another grant. It’s obscene really. Science has gone to the dogs. “We think” has turned into “We know” and it stinks to the highest heaven. Not even a thousand years of sea rise will cover it up. [gets off soapbox]
If you want to avoid moving parts of London the only thing to do is to invent a time machine and go back and prevent the last ice-age. Much of the rising relative sea-level is due to material displaced by the north-european ice-sheet slowly flowing back.
Oh – and while you are at it you might want to eliminate the Alps too, the weight of sediments carried down by the Rhine from there is also causing part of the downwarp in the southern North Sea.
unless the tectonic plates fold under you ain’t getting 20 meters of water anywhere.
What is “catestrophic warming”? Is that like, “catestrophic improvement”, or “catestrophic health” or “catestrophic pleasure”?
Because warming is good. Cooling is bad.
Well “DUH”, ……… it was to kill off the dinosaurs.
They were becoming way to large and overpopulated.
And besides, it was time for the meekly animals to inherit the earth.
Re falling CO2. Have a look at the white chalk cliffs of Dover. Then look at the size of the Great Barrier Reef. It’s calcium carbonate.
The process is ongoing. It’s the reason Ocean acidification claims are a load of crock.
Well it at least acknowleges the “Great Greening” although as other papers referencing it, it is a takedown of a very positive value of carbon – we must throw doubt on any good things happening out there if we want to capitalize on carnon taxation.
It is a confusing piece in that they express such certainty that this nice carbon honeymoon will end in divorce and scortched earth with a vengeance and yet they admit not knowing how plants really work with variable moisture – which plants have been dealing with since they shifyed onto land. And of course, their data is from CMIP and three other models not greenhouse nursery experiments.
Finally, the only thing they have to say about the ocean is acifification and coral bleaching non sequiturs garnered from the alarmist toolkit that has nothing to do with plants and moisture. They should have given space to the growth of plankton which is analogous to land plant action on ‘carbon’.
Gary Pearse: “yet they admit not knowing how plants really work with variable moisture”
And that’s quite an admission!
The ”they’ doing the admitting is the “Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Science”. Columbia University spent millions on the Biosphere 2 in Arizona after there were several failed attempts to live within a ‘closed’ environment. Columbia University had ample chance to do actual work with Biosphere 2 and derive actual knowledge about how “plants really work with variable moisture”. Alas, they produced very little of any scientific significance.
BTW, the attempts to live within Biosphere 2 as a ‘closed environment’ failed mostly because the Carbon Cycle is so poorly understood. Levels of Carbon Dioxide within the facility would swing dramatically in short time spans, including getting close to zero causing all pollinating insects to die.
I wonder what a review of the data from a team with an un-biased viewpoint would produce.
And a similar “dying” thingy happened over a long time span, ….. the Cretaceous Period (150-66 mya), ……… causing all the dinosaurs to die.
The stratospheric intrusion will move over the Great Lakes.
Then northeast.
The temperature at the equatorial Pacific falls. It could be a cold spring in the northern hemisphere.
Sorry.
It’s even worser than we think!
“in as little as a decade, they warn.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46976040
Where is Arctic sea ice NOW?
http://masie_web.apps.nsidc.org/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/latest/4km/masie_all_zoom_4km.png
We already passed the tipping point, after 350ppm/v CO2?
Well, as the story goes, a doctor gave a man 6 months to live. He couldn’t pay the bill so he gave him another 6 months.
You hit the proverbial nail on the head,Tom!
I forgot to credit Henny Youngman for that one.
my land and most aussie farmland ends up as dry dusty and bare by february, any rain and a few weeds will sprout usually. but that same land with an average 8 or so inches of rainfall and come spring ,its butt high in grasses and weeds if you havent planted a crop or slashed it.
an even more hot n arid ara i lived in prior also did very similar with even less rainfall but better soils
that said it was 43+c here yesterday and my corn and beans( even well soaked that morning in the cool,) were dried to crumble by 1pm for bean plants and 7pm for the corn;-(
and that was without much hot nth wind effect either;-/
this evening?
its 20c cooler and we even had spots of rain;-) blissful
Pretty much says it all.
So basically, the CO2-induced blizzard apocalypse will start any day now?
“The researchers used data from four Earth System Models from the GLACE-CMIP5 (Global Land Atmosphere Coupling Experiment–Coupled Model Intercomparison Project) experiments, to run a series of experiments to isolate reductions in NBP…”
This is a perfect example of how corrupt climate science has become.
The output of models is *not* data. Every model is just an expression of the opinions and beliefs of its creator, and the model output is also essentially an opinion. To get data you have to make measurements of the real world.
You cannot run “experiments” using the output of models. You can only run experiments by testing some aspect of the real world.
How people can create this junk and still believe they are scientists is beyond me.
Chris
Well now, iffen you were a PhD student working under the control and supervision of Pierre Gentine, associate professor of earth and environmental engineering at Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Science, ……. you would surely believe and do most anything that Professor Gentine told you to believe or do.
If ya don’t suck-up to your Professors they will fail you in a heartbeat …….. cause Federal Grant monies are more important than your education or your PhD Degree.
After looking at the reference via the link provided it is not easy to make a proper assessment of a paywalled article, but the “additional information ” – refs and figures , prompt these notes ;
1. There are more than 50 refs, on broadly the same topic to judge from titles. No one who is not a fulltime climate scientist or grad student can expect to review all those to see if the authors have drawn the appropriate conclusions from the earlier work.
2. the Figs are full of acronyms which are probably only fully explained in the full text – which in our case we do not have .
3. From the Figs again , the only model explicitly quoted is RCP8.5 – which I thought was generally discredited by all but the most extreme believers of the CAGW meme.
4. The overall effect in 50-80 years time , if their models are correct, is a diminution of CO2 capture of about 2 Gton/year which I thought would be just background noise compared to annual global CO2 emission (but I am prepared to be corrected on that point)
5. One of the figures has water content of a particular piece of land as about 500Kg/m^2 . That is almost 1/2 ton of water. Surely a mistake . Even in rain sodden Cheshire I would have noticed that I was lifting 1/2 ton or more of wet soil when preparing a sq m of earth (a spade deep) for the coming potato crop. Have I misunderstood the figure?
That’s OK – as long as it is about 50m deep.
Currently, the temperature in Chicago has fallen below -20 degrees C.
Yep, that’s global warming hard at work.
Odd how that works, eh? Ah, the good old magic of real climate science 🙂
“their results show that both variability and drying trends”
So less rain = less water vapour = negative feedback = CO2 warming non existent.
That is a nice home goal!
… to run a series of experiments to isolate reductions in NBP that are due strictly to changes in soil moisture. They were able to isolate the effects of changes in …
Sound sciency, right?
Only these are model runs, not experiments. The only thing that they can ‘isolate’ is how the underlying model has been programmed & designed. They could have asked the programmer or designer to explain.
Exactly, real experiments produce actual observation of real world results which are real data points. model runs involve none of that.
Climate change tipping point COULD COME?
Hasn’t it already been here? More than once?
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/06/15/history-of-the-global-warming-scare-chapter-6-2005-2010/
hence why ‘the end is always nigh ‘ and not now
I think the end is Nye.
I’m thinking the CAGW becomes
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment
if not already has.
Isn’t it already years too late to happen sooner than we think?
They should stick to engineering and leave the Applied Science to those with a better understanding of the subject.
From the article: “As United Nations Secretary General António Guterres said at the opening of the 24th annual U.N. climate conference on December 3, “We are in deep trouble with climate change.”
Yes, you at the UN are in deep trouble with climate change, but not the way you think you are.
Hint: No Evidence of CAGW.
Hint: It’s getting cooler, not hotter, even though CO2 levels are increasing.
Same old same old. Decide what the answer is and then write a model that produces the desired outcomes. It is not even a case of “worse than we thought”. It is exactly what they thought.
this new study is the first to actually quantify the effects through the 21st century and demonstrates that ….
Fantastic, does that mean we finally have some actual real world experiments producing real data for a change?
The researchers used data from four Earth System Models….
Sadly, nope, just more model wanking!
Since when did GCMs have skill at precipitation projections?
I don’t find this terribly convincing, but even if what they said was true I don’t understand how the biosphere taking in a smaller percentage of CO2 emissions constitutes any sort of “tipping point”. It just means that CO2 concentrations would be higher by the difference. Since RCP 8.5 isn’t happening, modeled sensitivity is too high, supposed damages aren’t remotely existential, the forcing of CO2 concentrations isn’t even linear, and higher CO2 is good for plants, what are we tipping to?
Where’s the beef?
Now, here’s where I have a problem with this.
It seems that it’s ONLY the ’emissions caused by human activities’ that are causing global warming, yet these are being ‘partially abated’ – 50%, they say. So here’s the problem I’m having:
If the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is (using round numbers) 400 ppm and the increase over the period of the AGW scare (since 1850, say) is actually, say, 100, and that only a proportion of that increase will be down to ‘human activities’ – say 50 – and that 50% of that is abated, then the whole of the man-made warming is down to the effect of 25 molecules of CO2 in a million. That’s an extremely powerful little sucker.
And how does that compare to the far more prevalent GHG, water vapour, which I believe is far more abundant? When do we start to see a drive to ban H2O (which will no doubt get truncated, like CO2 has become Carbon, to #HTOO).
Yep! Let’s ban #HTOO!
there’s already the petition to ban DHMO (DiHydrogen MonOxide) aka H2O
http://www.bandhmo.org/
Granted it’s not a serious attempt to ban H2O but it does highlight the absurdity of the anti-CO2 crowd.
Now iffen an increase of 25 molecules of atmospheric CO2 is powerful enough to cause a 1 degree C increase in near-surface air temperatures …….. then an increase of 25,000 to 30,000 molecules of atmospheric H2O vapor should be powerful enough to burn the socks off your feet while standing ankle deep in water. 😊
Liked that, Samuel!
Lines like …
Anthropogenic emissions of CO2–emissions caused by human activities–are increasing the concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere and producing unnatural changes to the planet’s climate system. .. bring out a case of “What You Mean Me, Whiteman”
“It is unclear, however, whether the land can continue to uptake anthropogenic emissions at the current rates,” says Pierre Gentine, associate professor of earth and environmental engineering and affiliated with the Earth Institute, ”
It is unclear but we are sounding the alarm any way. Another brick in the wall of the 97% consensus.
I thought we already past the tipping point… several times!
Who would have thought that moving goalposts would become such a high paying occupation.
Yes, it is happening so fast we just keep tipping over and over and over….just Guam…. ; )
Just LIKE Guam…..D’OH !
Didn’t we just miss a tipping point with the carbon dioxide starvation of the earth’s vegetation?
More history denial from the alarmists. Or is it wilful ignorance of history as opening their eyes and thoughts could remove the confirmation bias they all seem to suffer from?
Apparently we’ll reach a tipping point when the oceans dry out. In 50-80 years.
Junk science if there ever were.
“The authors declare no competing interests.” nope, just paid to produce a result…
Gentine and Green note that soil-moisture variability notably reduces the present land carbon sink
which is why some of the wettest places are also some of the greenest places such has the tropical jungles that would be green as in ‘good carbon sinks ‘
The tipping point problem goes away if there is no AGW.
1) There are a dozen different papers that show CO2 does not even correlate with temperature change in the ancient climate.
2) There are also a dozen papers that show the majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 was due to the increase in temperature not human emissions. (William: This second issue is interesting as there is geological evidence that explains what is happening.)
3) The temperature rise in the atmosphere that did happen in the last 390 years does not match the signature of AGW.
Example of 1 in a 2017 peer reviewed paper.
…This study demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate.
http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76/pdf
The Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years
Atmospheric CO2 concentration is correlated weakly but negatively with linearly-detrended T proxies over the last 425 million years.
Of 68 correlation coefficients (half non-parametric) between CO2 and T proxies encompassing all known major Phanerozoic climate transitions, 77.9% are non-discernible (p > 0.05) and 60.0% of discernible correlations are negative.
Marginal radiative forcing (DRFCO2), the change in forcing at the top of the troposphere associated with a unit increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, was computed using MODTRAN.
The correlation between DRFCO2 and linearly-detrended T across the Phanerozoic Eon is positive and discernible, but only 2.6% of variance in T is attributable to variance in DRFCO2….
…This study demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate.
“There is still a great deal of uncertainty on how plants respond to water stress, and so Green and Gentine will continue their work on improving representations of vegetation response to soil moisture changes. They are now focusing on the tropics, a region with lots of unknowns, and the largest terrestrial carbon sink”
….so please send money so we can go all expenses paid to the Amazon to try to measure something we could more easily quantify by making a terrarium.
Climate change ‘tipping points’ only exist in climate models. They bear no relation to the real world.
New study shows that vegetation may not be able to continue keeping squadrons of pigs from taking to the air, or attacks by space aliens. Stupid vegetation.
Regarding sea level rise, the best “model” I know of are the sea level gauges at The Battery in NYC, or Baltimore or Philadelphia. All three are mounted on crystal rock. All three show uniform rates of sea level rise for 168 years (The Battery) or 118 years (Baltimore and Philadelphia.) None show any inflection whatsoever up or down. All three have recently installed GPS elevation measuring devices which show slow subsidence over the past decade or so, suggesting that about half the measured rise is due to subsidence. When these devices start to show rapidly increasing sea level rise rates, I will believe the warmists. Folks have been watching now for up to 168 years with nothing revealed except slow and very steady sea level rise which some sources suggest has been going on for the past 6,000 years.
Check out PSMSL.org and see for yourself. NOAA has the same sea level charts available but unfortunately (or perhaps intentionally) does not show the elevation changes .
Water is important to plants: NO!!!!!!
You do not say:
6H2O + 6 CO2 plus light gives you C6H12O6 + 6O2 anyone?
Photosynthesis requires water!
Give me a Nobel Prize immediately!
How many tipping points are you allowed before your called out?
Apparently some politicians are allowed more than others
I knew a guy who got a master’s degree from Columbia. He was a complete idiot. I’m sure that this is not the case with all that attend that prestigious school but it proves that it is possible to attend, receive an advanced degree and still be an imbecile.
Probably does a lot of talking, too.
Nailed it!
I have a Master from the EPFL which is considered a prestigious school in Europe, some of my colleagues have said that me arguing against CAGW was a crime against humanity. I counter argued along the lines of Alex Epstein’s moral case for fossil fuels, it shut them up but I am not sure I convinced them. Some of these colleagues are very smart, but when it comes to climate they seem to lose their minds and forget the principles of the scientific method…
I know a literal rocket scientist.
He once crashed our entire computer network when he loaded up Napster…
As they say: knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting a tomato in a fruit salad.
And according to the same climastrology models, as tundra thaws into marsh, bogs, and lakes, there will be net carbon output and less carbon sequestration. So now dryer soils = loss of soil carbon and wetter soil = loss of soil carbon. It definitely sounds worse than we thought, the state of the “science” that is.
It’s worse than we thought!!!
Again.
And again, and again, and….
Despite passing all the deadlines of all the predictions of having no more than 10 years to act with no catastrophe.
Seems to me the actual observable evidence contradicts all the doomsday predictions. They should be saying it’s nowhere near as bad as we thought.
In the beginning there was headline journalism and then it spread to headline science positioning.
Yes, as I posted yesterday about something on CNN.com:
1) headline said climate change “will” affect gender
2) the VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH said climate change “might” affect gender based on a new report
3) the new report “verified” a previous report that said the same thing
4) the new report said it wasn’t sure why climate change might affec gender
Science reporting: clickbait about murky research getting torqued to maintain the Narrative…
“The researchers used data from four Earth System Models from the GLACE-CMIP5 (Global Land Atmosphere Coupling Experiment–Coupled Model Intercomparison Project) experiments, to run a series of experiments to isolate reductions in NBP that are due strictly to changes in soil moisture.”
Reasrchers? Experiments?
Garbage, Garbage In Garbage out. They researched nothing. They ran no experiments. They didn’t know how the real world worked when they started, and they still don’t. They never left the campus of Columbia University in the middle of one of the most densely urbanized places on the planet. They neither touched nor saw a plant, a forest, the ocean or anything other than their keyboards and monitors.
This is not science. It is mathematical onanism. And, they need to stop before they go blind.
Graph of UAH v6.0 temperatures shows that the temperature uptrend ended in about 2002-2005. Comparison with TPW (water vapor) and CO2 demonstrates what has been driving average global temperature. Apparently, in spite of it being a ghg, CO2 has little if any effect on average global temperature and therefore no significant effect on climate.
Water vapor has increased about twice as much as calculated from temperature increase of liquid surface water. Both changed slope trend from up to flat about 2002-2005 interrupted by el Nino which peaked in Jan 2016. Both are still in downtrend. Global Warming appears to be over. Is all that snow/rain just bad weather or has increased water vapor contributed?
As Mike and Dale and Dale said up-thread – this doomster news is brought to us by RCP8.5.
This is a two-fer. It not only uses RCP8.5 and only RCP8.5, but describes it as a “business-as-usual” scenario. Which is a lie at this point in time, as that claim has been repeatedly debunked. There is no valid excuse for it. It is also a failure in peer review.
RCP8.5 is the worst-case analysis used in AR5. To get that level of forcing requires large changes in long-standing trends – such as fertility and technological progress.
“It is unclear…”
I suggest making it clear before sounding the alarm.
How many is this? Aren’t there supposed to be only one tipping point?
“Climate change tipping point could be coming sooner than we think”
================
I hate these vague statements.
Does it mean I should just cancel my weekend plans, or start preparing for anarchy ??
The ‘tipping point’ will be the day before the second coming.
“Climate change” tipping point will come sooner than alarmists think as this exposed scam will soon be over.
Since NOW is an infinitely brief moment between past and future, the speed with which it proceeds along the timeline is infinite, every moment is a tipping point. If it were not for gravity we’d all be somewhere else, and if it were not for celestial movement our future selves will have already smacked into our past arses and will again, eventually.