Premier among their many unscientific beliefs, deniers cling to the notion that some magical negative feedback will avert serious climate impacts. Sadly, we will need magic to save humanity if we foolishly decide to listen to the deniers and to keep ignoring the one negative feedback that science says can certainly save humanity — simply reducing greenhouse gas emisions.
The scientific reality based on actual observations (not to mention the paleoclimate record) is that the climate models are not underestimating negative feedbacks — the models are wildly underestimating the positive or amplifying feedbacks. Among the greatest concerns is the growing evidence that the major carbon sinks are saturating, that a greater and greater fraction of human emissions will end up in the atmosphere.
A new study in Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d), “Sudden, considerable reduction in recent uptake of anthropogenic CO2 by the East/Japan Sea,” finds
The results presented in this paper indicate that the rate of CO2 accumulation in the deepest basin of the East/Japan Sea has considerably decreased over the transition period between 1992-1999 and 1999-2007.
The authors explain to the UK’s Guardian why this is an amplifying feedback, why warming is diminishing the ability of the ocean sink to absorb CO2:
The world’s oceans soak up about 11bn tonnes of human carbon dioxide pollution each year, about a quarter of all produced, and even a slight weakening of this natural process would leave significantly more CO2 in the atmosphere. That would require countries to adopt much stricter emissions targets to prevent dangerous rises in temperature.
Kitack Lee, an associate professor at Pohang University of Science and Technology, who led the research, says the discovery is the “very first observation that directly relates ocean CO2 uptake change to ocean warming”.
He says the warmer conditions disrupt a process known as “ventilation” — the way seawater flows and mixes and drags absorbed CO2 from surface waters to the depths. He warns that the effect is probably not confined to the Sea of Japan. It could also affect CO2 uptake in the Atlantic and Southern oceans.
“Our result … unequivocally demonstrated that oceanic uptake of CO2 has been directly affected by warming-induced weakening of vertical ventilation,” he says….
Lee adds: “In other words, the increase in atmospheric temperature due to global warming can profoundly influence the ocean ventilation, thereby decreasing the uptake rate of CO2.”
This study matches other recent research on ocean sink saturation. In 2007, the BBC reported, “The amount of carbon dioxide being absorbed by the world’s oceans has reduced” based on more than 90,000 ship-based measurements of CO2 absorption over ten years. The Global Carbon Project analysis of the “natural land and ocean CO2 sinks” finds:
… the efficiency of these sinks in removing CO2 has decreased by 5% over the last 50 years, and will continue to do so in the future. That is, 50 years ago, for every ton of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere, natural sinks removed 600 kg. Currently, the sinks are removing only 550 kg for every ton of CO2 emitted, and this amount is falling.
Equally ominous, many existing carbon sinks are increasing their emissions because of global warming — and the major climate models are missing these key amplifying feedbacks, which include:
- The defrosting of the permafrost
- The drying of the Northern peatlands (bogs, moors, and mires).
- The destruction of the tropical wetlands
- Decelerating growth in tropical forest trees — thanks to accelerating carbon dioxide
- Wildfires and Climate-Driven forest destruction by pests
- The desertification-global warming feedback
These myriad unmodeled amplifying feedbacks support the analysis that the climate is much more sensitive to changes in greenhouse gas emissions and other “forcings” than the IPCC models have been saying. In turn, this suggests that a doubling of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide from preindustrial levels to 550 ppm will ultimately warm the planet far more than 3°C, as NASA’s James Hansen argues (see ‘Long-term’ climate sensitivity of 6°C for doubled CO2).
A number of major studies looking at paleoclimate data come to the same conclusion. Here are three:
Scientists analyzed data from a major expedition to retrieve deep marine sediments beneath the Arctic to understand the Paleocene Eocene thermal maximum, a brief period some 55 million years ago of “widespread, extreme climatic warming that was associated with massive atmospheric greenhouse gas input.” This 2006 study, published in Nature (subs. req’d), found Artic temperatures almost beyond imagination–above 23°C (74°F)–temperatures more than 18°F warmer than current climate models had predicted when applied to this period. The three dozen authors conclude that existing climate models are missing crucial feedbacks that can significantly amplify polar warming.
A second study, published in Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d), looked at temperature and atmospheric changes during the Middle Ages. This 2006 study found that the effect of amplifying feedbacks in the climate system–where global warming boosts atmospheric CO2 levels–”will promote warming by an extra 15 percent to 78 percent on a century-scale” compared to typical estimates by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The study notes these results may even be “conservative” because they ignore other greenhouse gases such as methane, whose levels will likely be boosted as temperatures warm.
The third study, published in Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d), looked at temperature and atmospheric changes during the past 400,000 years. This study found evidence for significant increases in both CO2 and methane (CH4) levels as temperatures rise. The conclusion: If our current climate models correctly accounted for such “missing feedbacks,” then “we would be predicting a significantly greater increase in global warming than is currently forecast over the next century and beyond”–as much as 1.5°C warmer this century alone.
Yes, natural negative feedbacks exist that would “eventually” absorb any excess carbon dioxide, but as one of the authors of a 2008 Nature Geosciences article explained, “not for hundreds of thousands of years” (see “Humans boosting CO2 14,000 times faster than nature, overwhelming slow negative feedbacks“).
As one recent study of the water vapor feedback concluded
The existence of a strong and positive water-vapor feedback means that projected business-as-usual greenhouse-gas emissions over the next century are virtually guaranteed to produce warming of several degrees Celsius. The only way that will not happen is if a strong, negative, and currently unknown feedback is discovered somewhere in our climate system.
In short, absent the magical deus ex machina negative feedback, we are facing catastrophic 5-7°C warming by 2100 on our current emissions path, just as the Hadley Center recently warned.
Truly only one negative feedback in the planet’s overall carbon cycle can act with sufficient speed and strength to avert catastrophic climate impacts: The dominant carbon-based life form on this planet will have to respond to the already painfully clear impacts of our carbon emissions by slashing those emissions sharply and eventually running the planet on carbon-negative power.
The time for this negative feedback is now.
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
You forgot the other negative feedback: More melting arctic ice means more open water to absorb co2.
Nice post.
See Polovina et. al for similar scientific research showing declining biological productivity as a result of enhanced vertical stratification. This one uses satellite data to show that large areas of the ocean are suffering from reduced mixing and hence have declining CO2 absorption.
http://www.agu.org/ pubs/ crossref/ 2008/ 2007GL031745.shtml
Joe,
These are disturbing and necessary reports.. .Thanks so much.
Deniers promote the most damaging attitudes and obstruct serious change, but there is another group that is starting to congeal — far more disturbing – call them the well-informed stoics – having a solid grasp of the science but cannot see a solution. I have met a few .. one a retired university professor… they are beyond alarmism, having moved to fatalism. No one is proselytizing, and neither politically involved, nor hedonistic. I must say it was far more upsetting than the most strident denialist. Although the greatest change can come from casting off denialism.
To balance this thought, I was very encouraged to read Bill McKibben’s article “Multiplication Saves the Day”
http://www.orionmagazine.org/ index.php/ articles/ article/ 3650/
he says “We naïvely believe that it takes 51 percent of the people to make change in a democracy, but it clearly doesn’t—5 percent is plenty, if…mobilize politically” etc.
@Richard P…
I’ve had the exact same experience lately… People who do seem to get it, but who see no hope for humanity, no way out of the morass. And you’re right… it just takes the wind right out of your sails.
There is no need for deniers to deny this fairly trivial “headline” study of CO2 absorption in one part of the ocean over two relatively small time intervals. What deniers deny is that CO2 levels drive climate change. Therefore, it doesn’t matter how much CO2 the oceans absorb, nor how much is in the atmosphere.
[JR: Thanks for clarifying your anti-scientific views.]
Could larger, more powerful and more frequent cyclonic storms be considered a negative feedback, with all that agitation converting heat into motion, evaporating water, and mixing warm air from the surface to the upper atmosphere? Property insurance might start getting more expensive.
I’m not a denier, but I don’t get the U Pohang study. More CO2 in the air, more in the surface waters, but less below 300M? Or less absorbed?? What does that mean? What did they measure and calculate? Is the cause temperature gradient or something to do with carbonate chemistry? They only have two points: mid nineties and mid 00’s?
Nice post.
One typo, though
“The authors explain to the UK’s Guardian why this is an amplifying feedback, why warming is diminishing the ability of the ocean sink to absorb __water__:”
CO2!
Bob: Less overturning, means the surface saturates with CO2 and doesn’t carry CO2 to the deep water.
Thanks Andy!
While listening to a lecture last week by Peter Ward regarding the climate conditions during past major extinction events, he made a big point to audience; when the surface waters become more stratified, like this article states, the oceans ability to absorb CO2 diminish greatly. What was very scary to hear, was that when the oceans become very stratified, surface waters become anoxic, the chemocline rises, and sulfur dioxide migrates to the surface waters. Talk about a recipe for disaster…and we’re kind of swimming towards that very thing.
To the Richards–Pauli and Lavangie:
This is eerie. I’ve also recently encountered the sort of fatalism. but felt sure that it was rare, so never mentioned it to anyone else. Now that others have noticed, I’m not so sure. I’d be interested to know a few things about this: Have other posters here noticed the same thing? Has anyone (a sociologist or some related discipline) studied this phenomenon? Is it widespread enough to even be described as a phenomenon?
What a ‘great’ headline….
@Will Koroluk
And yes, I am also now seeing a lot of ‘ordinary’ folk who had GW on their periphery and now are a) recognizing/admitting that it is perhaps more serious than they thought and b) not sure what the hell can be done about it now and we will just have to ‘ride it out’
scary stuff.
Kübler-Ross identified five stages people go through to deal with grief and tragedy:
-1- denial
-2- anger
-3- bargaining
-4- depression “why bother…i’m going to die”
-5- acceptance “it will be OK, i’m ready to fight it”
don’t give up on people in depression stage any more than those in the denial stage. eventually most will get up, accept it, and take on the challenge when strong hopeful progress starts.
also, the toxic suphur releases from the sea already happen off parts of the African coast. Upwelling there caused by winds has lead to strong plankton growth that dies and creates anoxia dead zones. Sulphur is released in these events…sometimes on the magnitude that people report crabs and other sea creatures crawling out of the sea to escape. these events have occurred naturally there pre-climate chaos. but recent research points to climate change increasing the frequency of these events by changing wind patterns.
Same climate chaos induced wind changes leading to anoxia dead zones is happening here in pacific NW too…minus the sulphur. mile after mile where everything is dead. this is totally new event in an area well studied for many decades.
One very, very good thing is that Obama selected Jane Lubchenco to head NOAA and she has been front and center on this problem out here. As Joe has pointed out very clearly, we are getting an amazingly qualified and knowledgeable group of people in charge of key agencies!
groweg:
> What deniers deny is that CO2 levels drive climate change.
Some do. Others deny that it’s significant. Others deny the urgency. Others deny that it is harmful. Others deny that we can do anything about it. Others say the economic cost of change outweighs the ‘theoretical’ benefits. Others firmly believe that it’s all some commie / socialist / Marxist / New World Order conspiracy to steal their SUV.
The denial stretches the entire spectrum of the science. And some of these Deniers aren’t sure what they deny – they just *know* that ACC is not true and, any day now, they’re going to find the evidence.
The Deniers think the proclamations of a cherry-picking, radio weather presenter or some B-grade economic pundit are the equal of a PhD climate scientist.
Trying to argue against these people is near-impossible – partly because it’s so difficult to address what each individual believes. If you do, they’ll ultimately claim the source that disproves their position is unreliable or ‘just one opinion’.
And while it seems that all of our leaders are saying the right things about climate change, their actions don’t match – http://www.guardian.co.uk/ uk/ 2009/ jan/ 15/ bbaaviation-theairlineindustry This makes it clear that some of our leaders are either ignorant of or in denial of the science.
@Barry – it would be nice if stages of denial were being followed. I don’t see any sign of that – the Deniers become more firmly entrenched as the evidence mounts up. They can go to echo chambers of stupidity (ClimateAudit, WattsUpWithThat, the Telegraph, the Australian, etc.) to confirm their belief that the ’science is still undecided’.
Steven W. Running at the University of Montana authored a nice post on the Five Stages of Climate Grief
http://www.ntsg.umt.edu/files/5StagesClimateGrief.htm
One site has revised these steps as
1. Denial,
2. Skepticism (anger for dealing with grief)
3. Delay (bargaining)
4. Depression
5. Activism (acceptance)
http://getenergysmartnow.com/ 2008/ 04/ 12/ the-five-stages-denial-to-determination/
Don’t you mean ‘carbon sources’? Permafrost, as far as I know, is not a carbon sink unless new permafrost is consistently being made.
[JR: The permafrost is a (former) carbon sink.]
The “hand wringers” – when the ship is sinking there’s always the hope that bailing and hollering will buy some time for rescue. Those who won’t help bail should get out of the way of those who are trying.
If we save their sorry butts along with everyone else’s they can thank us later….
The “deniers” – from everything I can see they are a very small and declining minority. In fact, it seems that there are fewer and fewer BS posts on climate forums. (Or maybe just better forum mods. ;o)
Some people will continue to believe in “flat earths” regardless of the data presented to them. It might be time to simply start ignoring them.
One strategy to do so might be to limit their voice on forums. We could, for example, start putting their posts behind a separate click. Leave their post so that they can’t complain of censorship, but take them out of the active discussion.
We need one very excellent site that deals with all the denial arguments (and is kept up to date). Just replace their posts with links to the “real stuff” site and a click to show their buried post as is done with Digg.
The denier posts should be fed to the maintainers of the “real stuff” site so that all denier arguments can be covered there.
Bob Wallace — The misinformed and misinformants might be a small minority, but they are increasingly spreading their cant all over the web.
Joe,
The results stated in the paper “Sudden considerable reduction in anthopogenic CO2 by the East/Japan Sea” are certainly interesting but hardly catastrophic. The problem is that the results are not statistically significant at a high level. That is, there is about a 9% probability that the mean value of antropogenic CO2 take up in the 1999-2007 period actually exceeded the same takeup in the 1992-1999 period (this result comes from taking the figures noted in the abstract and running simulations based on those distributions). An interesting but not compelling result.
As the authors note: “The rapid and substantial reduction in accumulation in the more recent period is surprising, and is attributed to considerable weakening of overturning circulation”. However, can the weakening of overturning circulation in the Japan Sea be attributed largely or solely to human activity? It is entirely possible that much or most of the change observed in the paper (assuming it is in fact real) is the result of natural circulation. Afterall, the amount of human activity in the Japan Sea is relatively low since the major cities in both Japan and Korea do not face this sea.
That said, it is interesting to note that surface temperature anomalies in the Japan Sea are overall currently dramatically positive:
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ PSB/ EPS/ SST/ data/ anomp.1.15.2009.gif
However, to say, as Professor Lee states that ‘“Our result … unequivocally demonstrated that oceanic uptake of CO2 has been directly affected by warming-induced weakening of vertical ventilation,”’ and Lee further adds: “In other words, the increase in atmospheric temperature due to global warming can profoundly influence the ocean ventilation, thereby decreasing the uptake rate of CO2.”
This is nonsense. To take a result (which is, statistically, somewhat marginal) for a shallow ocean sea and project it over the deep ocean over the entire planet is ridiculous. There is no question that an increasing level of atmospheric CO2 will result in a transfer of heat energy to the earth’s oceans. There is also no question that warmer oceans will reduce the amount of additional anthropogenic CO2 that will be taken up by the earth’s oceans. But to say that: “This previously undocumented finding may be an indicator of future changes in the global ocean during the coming period of global warming” as the authors of this paper state is pure speculation and no truly rational, skeptical person should do anything more than note that this is a potentially interesting result.
[JR: They (and perhaps you) seem unaware of the other research showing the saturation of the ocean sink. Had they included it in their paper, their case would have been stronger.]
Bob Wallace, et al,
Part of me says “Hear hear” to putting deniers behind a wall of click; the smarter part of me says that whatever is repressed in a system (a person, a society…) finds its way back into the system. If not allowed in conscious ways, it will be in unconscious, often sabotaging ways. Other posters have suggested ignoring the denying and despairing people but that is the worst thing we could do. If you listen to the far right, one thing you hear constantly is complaints about not being heard, and how intolerable that is for them. (in the form of diatribes about the “liberal media” e.g. ) It is a basic human need to be seen, heard and reflected back. (Saying to a toddler “Oh, I know you really want that candy” (in an emotional tone like what is being used by the toddler) is a much more effective way of dealing with strong desire for bad things than some intellectual explanation: “We’re having dinner at blah blah o’clock blah blah…” The response from the child, not rational in a hyper-rational “scientific” way but absolutely central in human developmental psychology, is to ‘think’ (unconsciously, the way 90% of what goes on with us is): “Mommy/Daddy isn’t hearing me; I have to get louder and more emotional to get my dire (felt) need across”. When words don’t work, actions will follow—pounding, kicking, throwing things, running… It’s not about the candy; it’s about the psychophysiological pathways by which we create ourselves through interaction with others. None of us get all of what we need, when it causes us or others problems it needs to be addressed later in life.
We (by that I mean someone) need/s to listen to and compassionately interact with the climate-denying scum (just joking) and address their deeper needs and desires—especially the ones they don’t know about themselves—in order to stop this acrimonious, distracting and counterproductive ‘debate’. This is a hard, hard job and takes putting aside our personal reactions, conscious and un-, emotional and visceral. Do it if you can. Otherwise, do what you can to help other people do it. Like all real human interaction I don’t think it can be done on the internet—only in person. I’m envisioning public ‘debates’ in which the needs behind people’s questions are answered by psychotherapists and other capable and willing people—the modern equivalent of the public healing function of a shaman. Arguing ain’t gonna get it done. ‘They’ have more money and more media than we do and can always find ways to destroy and derail what we do. ‘They’ have to be brought on board, not sequestered and ignored.
No worries. Evolutionary studies suggest there should be a surge in aquatic lifeforms utilizing acidic carbon soon. Pending that, other authorities seem to agree the planet can handle ten or fifteen billion humans, easy, if human migration is freely allowed to follow available resources and resource distribution is leveled.
One day, you are going to have very red faces. Doesn’t that worry you at all?
Justin: I would love to be proven wrong. Unfortunately all the evidence is continuing to point to serious trouble in shorter and shorter time frames. With all your Anti-Science Sink Hole denier babble I have not seen one FACT that is to the contrary.