The Earth's Tipping Point

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Last month Nature Magazine highlighted a study which indicates

Human activities are pushing Earth toward a "tipping point" that could cause sudden, irreversible changes in relatively stable conditions that have allowed civilization to flourish, a new study warns. There are signs that a toxic brew of climate change, habitat loss and population growth is dramatically reshaping life on Earth, an international team of researchers reported yesterday in the journal Nature. "We know that at the landscape scale, if you disturb between 50 to 90 percent of patches, you see major changes in ones that you haven't disturbed directly," Barnosky said. "We know that we are at a point on the planet where you have more than 43 percent of the land surface wholesale transformed for human needs. If we transform more and more, we'll be at a point where even places we haven't transformed with our sledgehammers will go through major changes." Read further: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-tipping-point

In today's news Al Jazeera reports:

Greenland's surface ice cover melted this month over a larger area than ever detected in more than 30 years of satellite observations, NASA has said. According to measurements from three separate satellites analysed by NASA and university scientists, an estimated 97 per cent of the ice sheet surface thawed at some point in mid-July, the agency said in a statement on Tuesday.

"This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result: was this real or was it due to data error?" NASA's Son Nghiem said.

The expert recalled noticing that most of Greenland appeared to have undergone surface melting on July 12 while analysing data from the Indian Space Research Organisation's Oceansat-2 satellite.Results from other satellites confirmed the findings. Melt maps drawn up showed that on July 8 about 40 per cent of the ice sheet's surface had melted, rising to 97 per cent four days later. Until now, the most extensive melt seen by satellites in the past 30 years was about 55 per cent. The news comes just days after NASA satellite imagery showed that a massive iceberg twice the size of Manhattan had broken off the Petermann Glacier in Greenland. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe...759801478.html

These reports keep coming and coming getting worse all the time and yet the world just keeps on trucking, it keeps on fracking (no Battlestar Galactica pun intended) even though it poisons the water and the environment turning vast tracks of healthy land into a dead zone. The Keystone pipeline is still on the table. Drought, heat waves. The beloved President of Change Obama disappointed the Greens at the European summit and Rio+20 but he's still less likely to be as much of a disaster compared to that other guy and at least his party doesn't deny climate change.

The politicians are failing us on this subject, the corporations have no care and we are blissfully blind as we enter into a perfect storm of economic hardship and environmental catastrophe. The scientists are not sure if its "too late" but they they are sure it is urgent. Or as the professor of integrative biology put it

"You can envision these state changes as a fast period of adjustment where we get pushed through the eye of the needle," Barnosky said. "As we're going through the eye of the needle, that's when we see political strife, economic strife, war and famine. These ecological systems actually give us our life support, our crops, our fisheries, clean water, as resources shift from one nation to another, political instability can easily follow." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1577835.html


Something is wrong in a world where we cannot even adequately and rationally respond to a threat the lives of our children and grandchildren depend on. Why aren't we responding? Why are our politicians not responding? How stupid are we that we can call fracking a success because its a "cheaper" avenue towards energy while paying a high human and environmental cost? Are we really that dim as a species? When a friend of mine sold all of his belongings and moved into pristine jungle in Belize living off the grid and hanging out in a cave we all thought he had lost it. His angst over what he called the recklessness of our civilization had just pushed him over the ledge but now I'm wondering if he really wasn't the sane one. When you realize how basic realities are being ignored politically, economically, in terms of human rights and the environment I'm starting to think it is us who are mad.

And no I didn't think this belonged in the earth science forum since death and destruction is a world event.

[Buddha12]

Using a satellite in orbit in the Lagrange Point ( http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...jckFtCGiudPRrg )area with a series of blue lasers inside it that could spread out like a fan you could shield the Earth from some harmful sunlight depending upon how many lasers you turn on at the same time. This satellite would be powered by the sun using solar panels and could be radio controled or automaticaly controled depending upon the Earths heating conditions.

[scheherazade]

I have pondered the same thing and concluded that the problem is multifaceted.

There are few people who seem capable of examining the whole scope of the issue objectively. Most of us are caught up in the subjective details of our own existence and continuance.

Those who perhaps can see the big picture more clearly, are often not the ones in a position to implement change on a significant scale.

We have become enamored of our own cleverness and technology to the extent that we have lost sight of our humble beginnings and our place in ecology.

Civilizations have risen and fallen many times in the history of our species and if things change dramatically enough, we could even become just another species on the endangered or extinct list.

Ten people in a room can seldom agree on the simplest of things. Seven billion and counting? I think the numbers of our population make it too daunting for any person or authority to contemplate and so the instinct for individual survival would have us continue on the path of least resistance until there is no other alternative. If we take action at all, it will be an 'eleventh hour' response. The problem as I see it, is that we have not been heeding the acceleration of the pace of change and so we are going to get caught flat-footed for the most part.

I suppose I might as well enjoy my favorite foods in moderation while they last as their availability in future is becoming questionable. Chocolate, Maple syrup, honey, red wine, coffee are all on the endangered list. You beer drinkers, peanut butter lovers and pasta eaters might want to take note as well....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...#slide=1054132

[KilljoyKlown]

Some of the problems as I see them are people don't like to change their lives unless they can perceive being better off by the change. They would rather believe the fairytale that science will solve all our problems without having to give up what we already have. We might want to ask why do people build towns and cities next to volcanoes or on the downside of a dam? The average person doesn't plan for the long haul. They need to see the bodies piling up, before they realize there is a real problem.

I don't really care where the blame is, because climate change is part of our world cycle. We need to devise ways to mitigate the effects of climate change whether it's warming or cooling.

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@KilljoyKlown

Its difficult to devise ways of mitigating climate disaster when the subject is subsumed by a variety of other concerns both individual and national, economic and political. I'm not sure if its normal for people not to plan for the long haul, we try and stave off disease with managed health care, we plan for our retirement, we raise our children for future self-sufficiency. So why are we playing the ostrich on this subject? Its irrational. What I sense on this subject is a kind of apathy, it makes me wonder if there isn't some secret desire to just 'let it happen', no doubt everyone will scramble at the 11th hour as Sheherazade predicts but people don't react well in the midst of crisis. I do trust the scientists on this, they are not to blame, they have done as much as they can to raise awareness and ring the bell, its our nation states and citizens that are unresponsive.

The secret destructive compulsion, Freud's "death drive" or "thanatos the drive towards death, self-destruction and the return to the inorganic". The willingness to get so close to the edge of disaster and the negation of our collective will seems to be a driving force in our whole species at this point.

[Tiassa]

Discussions of weather and global warming are amusing in a macabre sense. You know, it's pointless to look at those people who say, "Look, it's record cold this winter! What was that about global warming?" and say, "Look, it's record hot this summer!" To the one, exaggerated extremes are predictable under a global warming model. To another, weather and climate are not synonymous. To a third, what does it really matter, anyway, when you're trying to argue with people who consider logic, science, and reality as heresies?

At any rate, NASA offers up this image:

And the caption that goes with it:

Extent of surface melt over Greenland’s ice sheet on July 8 (left) and July 12 (right). Measurements from three satellites showed that on July 8, about 40 percent of the ice sheet had undergone thawing at or near the surface. In just a few days, the melting had dramatically accelerated and an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface had thawed by July 12. In the image, the areas classified as “probable melt” (light pink) correspond to those sites where at least one satellite detected surface melting. The areas classified as “melt” (dark pink) correspond to sites where two or three satellites detected surface melting. The satellites are measuring different physical properties at different scales and are passing over Greenland at different times. As a whole, they provide a picture of an extreme melt event about which scientists are very confident.

And Maria-José Viñas, of Goddard Space Flight Center, notes:

Son Nghiem of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., was analyzing radar data from the Indian Space Research Organisation's (ISRO) Oceansat-2 satellite last week when he noticed that most of Greenland appeared to have undergone surface melting on July 12. Nghiem said, "This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result: was this real or was it due to a data error?"

Nghiem consulted with Dorothy Hall at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. Hall studies the surface temperature of Greenland using the Moderate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA's Terra and Aqua satellites. She confirmed that MODIS showed unusually high temperatures and that melt was extensive over the ice sheet surface.

(Boldface accent added)

I think we would all rather it turn out to be a data error, but it seems this is not the case. Thomas Mote, of the University of Georgia, and Marco Tedesco, of City University of New York "confirmed the melt seen by Oceansat-2 and MODIS with passive-microwave satellite data from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder on a U.S. Air Force meteorological satellite".

Summit Station, at nearly the highest point on the ice sheet, has not seen such melting since 1889. Lora Koenig, a Goddard scientist, noted, "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time. But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."

The deniers will stop after Koenig's first sentence in the above quote. Let us hope this is merely a cyclical event. After all, those who would encourage us to wait will blame everyone else for waiting if it turns out we're too late in addressing the problem.
____________________

Notes:

Viñas, Maria-José. "Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt". National Aeronautics and Space Administration. July 24, 2012. NASA.gov. July 25, 2012. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...land-melt.html

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@Tiassa

The "this is just a cyclical event" doesn't coincide with "Human activities are pushing Earth toward a "tipping point". When you look at the glacier you are only looking at one factor in a series, one scientist said the trouble with the discussion is that people think of the subject as simply melting ice, they never think of the droughts, the wild weather patters or heat waves. If its simply a cyclical event, you know like having ones period, then you will not presume that you're actually bleeding to death.

[KilljoyKlown]

The deniers will stop after Koenig's first sentence in the above quote. Let us hope this is merely a cyclical event. After all, those who would encourage us to wait will blame everyone else for waiting if it turns out we're too late in addressing the problem.

That's assuming were not already to late, and here we are still trying to convince the population that global warming is real and happening now. At this point even if the whole world believed it and was willing to take action. What could we do to stop or even slow it down? I think the next few generations are going to have a very bad time and foot dragging at this time will make it worse and a lot longer lasting.

I don't think the scientists have got the timeline right either. I believe when the melting reaches a certain point it will cascade the effect that will raise the ocean level several feet by the end of this century and not the few inches they are predicting.

[Trippy]

I think we would all rather it turn out to be a data error, but it seems this is not the case.

It's... Funny, for want of a better word. This is exactly what they thought about the ozone hole. It was initially dismissed as an artifact/error.

[Trippy]

As far as denialism goes, I literaly don't know where to start. Moderating the Earth Science forum, you can probably guess how frequently I come across it.

I think the funniest thing I've experience in that regard backing a denialist into the position of acknowledging that the laws of physics demand that not only does the presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere cause bulk warming, but that increasing the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere neccessarily increases the degree of warming caused. He stopped talking to me shortly after that.

[Tiassa]

The "this is just a cyclical event" doesn't coincide with "Human activities are pushing Earth toward a "tipping point". When you look at the glacier you are only looking at one factor in a series, one scientist said the trouble with the discussion is that people think of the subject as simply melting ice, they never think of the droughts, the wild weather patters or heat waves. If its simply a cyclical event, you know like having ones period, then you will not presume that you're actually bleeding to death.

I don't actually disagree.

But there are some things worth considering, that even lend to that point:

• At an average of 150 years, Koenig says this event is "right on time". From 1889 to 2012, we have seen the passage of 123 years. That average includes a variance of at least eighteen percent. I am not inclined to call that eighteen percent insignificant.

• There are reasonably detailed records; if subsequent years suggest a deviation from the nineteenth century figures, the whole idea that it is specifically a cyclical event goes out the window. As Koenig put it, "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."

• The context of the word "unprecedented" is important, too. Does the NASA headline mean unprecedented in the age of satellite observation? Or does it mean unprecedented compared to recorded history? While we might expect a certain amount of detail in the 1889 record, what of the eighteenth-century record, or the sixteenth?

• One NASA program manager noted that the ice sheet has a varied history of change. One can reasonably expect this diversity to be reflected in the ice cores.

To the one, I feel it would be misrepresentative of the NASA article to omit Koenig's observation about 1889. To the other, I think if this was merely cyclical, scientists wouldn't be so unsettled by the data; that is, there wouldn't really be much of a story here. Of course, we can always cynically presume the scientists putting their own interests ahead of reality, but that is an exercise best left to the deniers.

Furthermore, combined with other events observed in Greenland and around the world, such a widespread surface melt takes on specific significance in the question of global warming; without massive ice calving, deviations in global weather patterns, and other phenomena predictable within a global warming model, yes, we could take comfort in the proposition of a cyclical event.

We can certainly hope that this is a cyclical event. But if it's not, it is certainly a sign of the global warming era.

(The menstrual comparison is interesting; it is my understanding that women do come to know their periods, so that if there is discoloration, excessive tissue in the flow, or other deviations, some sort of alarm bell should be going off in a woman's mind. Of course, I'm neither a meteorologist nor climatologist, and I'm certainly not a woman. Perhaps I overstate the significance of an eighteen percent variation compared to the ice core average, and maybe I overstate a woman's familiarity with her reproductive cycle.)

[Trippy]

We can certainly hope that this is a cyclical event. But if it's not, it is certainly a sign of the global warming era.

I wonder if anybody has looked in to how this cycle behaved during the little ice age and the midieval warm period.

One of the things i've always found interesting is that no denialist I have ever come across ever wants to discuss the behaviour of ENSO during this period. It could be interesting to investigate whether the cyclicity you're referring to behaved typically or atypically during these periods.

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@Tiassa

I wasn't trying to imply you shouldn't highlight that the melting may be cyclical, I provided all the links to be read for a reason. I was trying to point out the fact that the ice melts are not the only information in the OP or even the main point of the OP. To pin point what could be cyclical while ignoring the other information kind of typifies how so many want to distract themselves from the issue altogether, a kind of "the scientists have a handle on this, its all just some cyclical occurrence happening up north, not something happening in my back yard, certainly not to the world at large", kind of thinking (and no I am not accusing you of having that kind of thinking). The fact is scientists are deeply concerned with what is going on with the earth, they are trying to alert the media, government, people at large but they are being ignored. Climate change is being ignored or rather the ramifications of human activity is being ignored. That's why I went on to ask what is so wrong that there isn't a rational response to the information. Government is unresponsive, environmental groups are pulling their hair out, corporations do what they do and the citizenry just keeps on trucking. Meanwhile there are reports such as this one last year:

In a new report, they warn that ocean life is "at high risk of entering a phase of extinction of marine species unprecedented in human history".They conclude that issues such as over-fishing, pollution and climate change are acting together in ways that have not previously been recognized. The impacts, they say, are already affecting humanity. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13796479

Human activity, climate change, pollution. The panel was convened by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO), and brought together experts from different disciplines, including coral reef ecologists, toxicologists, and fisheries scientists.


But we just keep on trucking

Its a collective unwillingness to deal with the subject and on a deeper sinister level I do believe its a death drive, an unconscious walk off a cliff. Look at the thread, if I had a story featuring something inane or politically controversial there would be 16 posts by now (more if I had a poll featuring "name your favorite pokemon"). These scientists must be losing their minds, no matter how dire the announcement, how serious the warning, the subject matter goes ignored or worse DOWNPLAYED.



*Have you ever know a woman to hemorrhage from fibroids? Fibroids can grow and she'll think that every month she's just getting some heavy bleeding, until one day the bleeding just doesn't stop and she finds herself in surgery or dead.*

[scheherazade]

Originally posted by Mrs.Lucysnow

But we just keep on trucking

Its a collective unwillingness to deal with the subject and on a deeper sinister level I do believe its a death drive, an unconscious walk off a cliff. Look at the thread, if I had a story featuring something inane or politically controversial there would be 16 posts by now (more if I had a poll featuring "name your favorite pokemon"). These scientists must be losing their minds, no matter how dire the announcement, how serious the warning, the subject matter goes ignored or worse DOWNPLAYED.

I have a sense that no one really knows what to do, and whether any actions taken can affect the final outcome. Many individuals are doing what they can to reduce their environmental footprint, yet while we have such a disparity of wealth in developed nations, a lot of people may also be questioning why they should accept less in life while others are actually turning the 'save the environment' concern into profitable industries.

It all just seems so skewed that I think we are in a state of emotional shock and denial even though our logical thinking is slapping us in the face with evidence of accelerating change daily.

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

I have a sense that no one really knows what to do, and whether any actions taken can affect the final outcome. Many individuals are doing what they can to reduce their environmental footprint, yet while we have such a disparity of wealth in developed nations, a lot of people may also be questioning why they should accept less in life while others are actually turning the 'save the environment' concern into profitable industries.

It all just seems so skewed that I think we are in a state of emotional shock and denial even though our logical thinking is slapping us in the face with evidence of accelerating change daily.

I agree. People don't know what to do but there is also a lack of outrage if you know what I mean. There is no pressure on government except for the few who actually join environmental activist groups etc. I know what you mean about making changes in ones personal life and there is a huge push in that direction again by a few but any systematic shift in policy or way of life, certainly the way we take care of our resources and regulating corporate behaviour is going to take more than just individuals watching their environmental footprint. I still believe most people only have a vague idea of what's happening to the planet and that most simply skirt over the issue as if its not something that affects them directly and if not them their children and grandchildren. Most of the news stories that appear concerning the environment don't even make it to the front page.

[Trippy]

I agree. People don't know what to do but there is also a lack of outrage if you know what I mean. There is no pressure on government except for the few who actually join environmental activist groups etc. I know what you mean about making changes in ones personal life and there is a huge push in that direction again by a few but any systematic shift in policy or way of life, certainly the way we take care of our resources and regulating corporate behaviour is going to take more than just individuals watching their environmental footprint. I still believe most people only have a vague idea of what's happening to the planet and that most simply skirt over the issue as if its not something that affects them directly and if not them their children and grandchildren. Most of the news stories that appear concerning the environment don't even make it to the front page.

The biggest problem is the volume of disinformation that's out there. Most people that are opposed to the idea of global warming, for example, appear to think that it's a modern socialist construct and a direct ploy for scientists and the government to take more money from them.

What they don't understand is that the first predictions regarding global warming date back to 1840 or so, and rely on physics that is no more complicated than the Beer-Lambert law and Simple Harmonic Motion (i've gone into extensive detail in various threads here and elsewhere - sometimes I think I should just sit down and write an essay or something). That the atmosphere causes was one of the first predictions made in 1840 (that humans might alter the climate was predicted in 1890). The other thing that both saddens and amuses me is that, aside from perhaps Svensmarks works (which doesn't actually negate AGW) every argument I have seen presented was examined by the scientific community between about 1950 and the politicization of the issue in 1969 by Carter and they've all been discredited.

Personally, in our house, we bought the most fuel efficient vehicle we could afford and rather than replacing every incandessant bulb in the house, we simply replaced the incadessants with CFLs as they blew. The ridiculous thing is that the same steps that individuals can take (CFLs, insulating your house and so on) actually just make good sense from a financial perspective. If you can't be fucked saving the environment because you think scientists are full of shit and just can't be bothere - do it because it save money in the long term.

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@Trippy-"The other thing that both saddens and amuses me is that, aside from perhaps Svensmarks works (which doesn't actually negate AGW) every argument I have seen presented was examined by the scientific community between about 1950 and the politicization of the issue in 1969 by Carter and they've all been discredited."

Could you please elaborate on this a little? Presented to whom? Discredited by whom?

You should right an essay. Post it here, I'll read it.

[Trippy]

Could you please elaborate on this a little? Presented to whom? Discredited by whom?

Depends on which arguments you want to talk about, but they were the hurdles that AGW had to overcome before it gained the degree of acceptance in the scientific community that it has. But is's all been discussed in peer reviewed journals starting with the original predictions made by Arrhenius.

Up until the 50's or 60's it was regarded as being siomething of a scientific curiosity.
I think it was Angstrom said that the absorbance values used by Arrhenius were to high.
First they thought that the overlap between water absorption and CO2 absorption would mitigate any warming, but quantum mechanics predicted less overlap. Improved spectroscopy during the cold war to try and keep a better eye on the Red Menace demonstrated that the overlap wasn't as much as they thought.
They thought that the oceans would absorb any excess CO2, but then at some point in the 60s they discovered that the oceans weren't absorbing as much as they thought.
1967 saw the introduction of the first climate model that included the effects of convection. There were a couple of other breakthroughs in the mid to late 60, made by people looking into other things that lead the scientific community from "Eh, it's a scientific curiosity" to "Hey wait a minute, it could happen, and it looks like it might be happening now."

As far as citing specific papers and authors go, I could probably find them again, but I don't have that information at my fingertips right now.

[Trippy]

Just as a follow up from my previous post, he's an excerpt from a PM discussion I had with someone recently:

Joseph Fourier is credited with discovering the greenhouse effect. He calculated in 1820 that the Earth was warmer than it should be if it was warmed by the sun alone, and hypothesized that the atmosphere might have a contributing effect.

The first predictions were made by Svante Arrhenius, who was inspired by Fourier. In 1896 he used Infra-red observations made of the moon by Very and Langley to calculate infra-red absorption by water and carbondioxide in the atmosphere. From that using the Stefan-Boltzman law he hypothesized that "if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression."

Arrhenius was criticised by Angstrom in 1901 for the strong carbondioxide absorption values he used. There was a bit of to-ing and fro-ing, but in "Worlds in the making" published in english in 1908 Arrhenius said:
"On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth's surface by 4�..."
"Although the sea, by absorbing carbonic acid, acts as a regulator of huge capacity, which takes up about five-sixths of the produced carbonic acid, we yet recognize that the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may by the advances of industry be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries."
"The enormous combustion of coal by our industrial establishments suffices to increase the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air to a perceptible degree."
"By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind."

I understand he also published in 1906 that a doubliing would lead to a 2.1K rise, including water feedback, but I don't recall if I've ever been able to verify that through primary sources.

Between 1900 and 1950, Arrhenius' work was either ignored or disputed by all but a handful of scientists. The scientific consensus at the time being that the oceans would absorb any excess CO2, and that the absorption in that part of the spectrum was saturated by water anyway. Although it remained something of a scientific curiosity during this period, there were a handfull of important papers published. I think I've detailed some of them in posts I've made here on sciforums (searching all of my posts for the term Arrhenius should catch them).

Between 1950 and 1960, the theory began to gain traction. This was for a bunch of reasons, advancments in our understanding of quantum mechanics, improved atmospheric spectroscopy as a result of the cold war. Scientists began to come increasingly to the conclusion that it was more than just a curiosity, and somethign that needed to be taken seriously. Spectroscopy showed us that there was less overlap than previously thought, and no water vapor in the upper atmosphere. Isotopic chemistry showed us that carbondioxide wasn't absorbed into the oceans as quickly as we thought, and by 1959 people were predicting rises of 25% by 2000 with potentially radical effects on the environment.

Between 1960 and 1970 advances in technology improved the accuracy of our models. The first computer model to take convection into account was in 1967 and predicted that a doubling from 300ppm to 600ppm would cause a 2.4K rise in temperature.

By 1969 enough people were concerned about it that it was bought to the attention of Jimmy Carter who politicised the issue.

[Asguard]

It's to late now but to show why we failed just look at the comments by one Liberal party nobjob "we should expand our economy to increase wealth as much as possible and leave the problem to the next generation". Sadly disappointing