Study: Pushing Toward Tipping Point

August 8, 2018

Popular news meme: “2° C – the level scientists consider safe”.

2 degrees is not safe. It’s, we hope,  less catastrophic than 3, or 4 degrees – but it’s not “safe”.


A domino-like cascade of melting ice, warming seas, shifting currents and dying forests could tilt the Earth into a “hothouse” state beyond which human efforts to reduce emissions will be increasingly futile, a group of leading climate scientists has warned.

This grim prospect is sketched out in a journal paper that considers the combined consequences of 10 climate change processes, including the release of methane trapped in Siberian permafrost and the impact of melting ice in Greenland on the Antarctic.

The authors of the essay, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, stress their analysis is not conclusive, but warn the Paris commitment to keep warming at 2C above pre-industrial levels may not be enough to “park” the planet’s climate at a stable temperature.

They warn that the hothouse trajectory “would almost certainly flood deltaic environments, increase the risk of damage from coastal storms, and eliminate coral reefs (and all of the benefits that they provide for societies) by the end of this century or earlier.”

“I do hope we are wrong, but as scientists we have a responsibility to explore whether this is real,” said Johan Rockström, executive director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre. “We need to know now. It’s so urgent. This is one of the most existential questions in science.”

Rockström and his co-authors are among the world’s leading authorities on positive feedback loops, by which warming temperatures release new sources of greenhouse gases or destroy the Earth’s ability to absorb carbon or reflect heat.

Their new paper asks whether the planet’s temperature can stabilise at 2C or whether it will gravitate towards a more extreme state. The authors attempt to assess whether warming can be halted or whether it will tip towards a “hothouse” world that is 4C warmer than pre-industrial times and far less supportive of human life.

Katherine Richardson from the University of Copenhagen, one of the authors, said the paper showed that climate action was not just a case of turning the knob on emissions, but of understanding how various factors interact at a global level.

“We note that the Earth has never in its history had a quasi-stable state that is around 2C warmer than the preindustrial and suggest that there is substantial risk that the system, itself, will ‘want’ to continue warming because of all of these other processes – even if we stop emissions,” she said. “This implies not only reducing emissions but much more.”

New feedback loops are still being discovered. A separate paper published inPNAS reveals that increased rainfall – a symptom of climate change in some regions – is making it harder for forest soils to trap greenhouse gases such as methane.

Previous studies have shown that weakening carbon sinks will add 0.25C, forest dieback will add 0.11C, permafrost thaw will add 0.9C and increased bacterial respiration will add 0.02C. The authors of the new paper also look at the loss of methane hydrates from the ocean floor and the reduction of snow and ice cover at the poles.

Rockström says there are huge gaps in data and knowledge about how one process might amplify another. Contrary to the Gaia theory, which suggests the Earth has a self-righting tendency, he says the feedbacks could push the planet to a more extreme state.

As an example, the authors say the loss of Greenland ice could disrupt the Gulf Stream ocean current, which would raise sea levels and accumulate heat in the Southern Ocean, which would in turn accelerate ice loss from the east Antarctic. Concerns about this possibility were heightened earlier this year by reports that the Gulf Stream was at its weakest level in 1,600 years.

Currently, global average temperatures are just over 1C above pre-industrial levels and rising at 0.17C per decade. The Paris climate agreement set actions to keep warming limited to 1.5C-2C by the end of the century, but the authors warn more drastic action may be necessary.

“The heatwave we now have in Europe is not something that was expected with just 1C of warming,” Rockström said. “Several positive feedback loops are already in operation, but they are still weak. We need studies to show when they might cause a runaway effect.

Another climate scientist – who was not involved in the paper – emphasised the document aimed to raise questions rather than prove a theory. “It’s rather selective, but not outlandish,” said Prof Martin Siegert, co-director of the Grantham Institute. “Threshold and tipping points have been discussed previously, but to state that 2C is a threshold we can’t pull back from is new, I think. I’m not sure what ‘evidence’ there is for this – or indeed whether there can be until we experience it.”

Rockström said the question needed asking. “We could end up delivering the Paris agreement and keep to 2C of warming, but then face an ugly surprise if the system starts to slip away,” he said. “We don’t say this will definitely happen. We just list all the disruptive events and come up with plausible occurrences … 50 years ago, this would be dismissed as alarmist, but now scientists have become really worried.”

“In the context of the summer of 2018, this is definitely not a case of crying wolf, raising a false alarm: the wolves are now in sight,” said Dr Phil Williamson, a climate researcher at the University of East Anglia. “The authors argue that we need to be much more proactive in that regard, not just ending greenhouse gas emissions as rapidly as possible, but also building resilience in the context of complex Earth system processes that we might not fully understand until it is too late.”


8 Responses to “Study: Pushing Toward Tipping Point”

    • grindupbaker Says:

      This isn’t science unless it gets related to the risk assessments as in perhaps coral bleaching (or whatever else) can occur periodically to a significant extent for several years a decade or more earlier than the general temperature anomaly trend during the largest El Nino events. That sort of thing. Otherwise, it’s non-science to point to an anomaly 1 month long in the largest El Nino. It’s non-science to show heavy snow fall and proclaim a Solar Grand Minimum commencement and it’s non-science to point to the warmest month of the largest El Nino unless WG2 scientists have quantified 1 month (or less) as the time scale over which significant harm happens.

  1. grindupbaker Says:

    I’m not keen on her phrasing “will ‘want’ to continue warming” because it has the delicate aroma of the favourite “denier” meme “a natural cycle”. That the ecosphere just warmed the last 50 years because it ‘wanted’ to do that right then (no physical reason). Should stick with the reality that positive feedbacks aren’t necessarily known entirely in type or amount of each so there’s a very large risk. Find a better socio-political phrasing than Earth ‘wants to’.

    I note that the paleo climate GMST record from ~80,000,000 to 53,000,000 years ago does not show a multi-degree jump even over millenial time scales until the PETM. It was certainly (if the paleo is at all credible) a few degrees higher GMST than now before the PETM happened. However, a climate scientist responded essentially “we don’t know” when I requested on sks whether there were large GMST blips of a few centuries hidden in the multi-millenial averages.

    I note this posting is feedbacks so I suppose that’s why the ocean isn’t listed. At 10 zettajoules / year the last couple of decades that’s 0.63 w/m**2 so it’s 0.21 degrees to balance. I recall that Jim Hansen disagreed by 15% with the surface response curve (small-scale ocean mixing). GISTEMP land = +1.2, ocean = +0.7 and I think the surface must be held back since the wind is always mixing it so it seems most improbable that temperature anomaly +0.7 is balanced for the surface. Also, the land would increase a little, perhaps +1.2 —-> +1.3 as the ocean well-mixed layer balances. Perhaps +0.2 to +0.3 degrees in there over the next several decades, unless somebody can refer to analysis for some value. I used 1880-1900 to 2014 because the large El Nino makes those statistics a bit unsteady for a couple more years.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Also stop doing all this backward-looking math and trying to project from the past. What has happened over the past 150 years and is accelerating now in so many ways is where the answers lie.

      People need to read and reread the study as many times as needed to understand that SHTF time is upon us—-it’s only 8 pages long and is downloadable as a PDF. Diagrams 2 and 3 say it all—-the possibility (actually likelihood) of hothouse earth is not “fake news” or something to be “pondered by pundits”until it actually happens.

  2. J4Zonian Says:

    In another way of looking at it, feedbacks are just one factor in the seriousness of the situation. While the items on this list aren’t factors on the same scale they are warnings that we need to act immediately or face exponentially rising risk of such disasters that we’ll be unable to implement solutions at all.

    The factors of dire are, briefly:

    1. Underestimation of damage at various temperature levels;
    2. the pipeline; ~40 year slow fuse of heating of CO2 already emitted
    3. aerosols; 0.5-1°C of warming hidden by the cooling effect of pollution
    4. the carbon cost of new infrastructure;
    5. tipping points (fast, mostly internal to processes like ice melt, and slow);
    6. BECCS bomb & geoengimagicalism;
    7. increasing reliance on metapetrolic and near 1:1 EROEI fuels and methods;
    8. diversion of resources to adaptation, eroding ability to deploy solutions;
    9. collapsing social and political cohesion;
    10. CO2 v. CO2e;
    11. GHG measures understating short-term warming; (methane)
    12. lowball estimates of sensitivity;
    13. hidden odds in projections; often 50 or 66% chance of maintaining temp.
    14. Stranded assets and the fight the’ll involve
    15. revision of pre-industrial starting point (Mann)
    16. ENSO feedback;
    17. unknowns that include fugitive emissions and undiscovered feedbacks
    18. Synergistic collapse of nature

    • dumboldguy Says:

      It’s nice to see Jeffy maundering around in some sciencey things rather than the Jungian psychobabble about “aspects” that he regaled us with on another thread.

      However, his need to appear all-knowing has once again caused him to overdo it and lose his way. Positive feedbacks are NOT just “one factor in the seriousness of the situation”, they are the THE things that will lead to tipping points and irreversible runaway global warming.

      The only things we really need to pay attention to are the interlocking feedback web of atmospheric and oceanic temperature increase, increase in GHG in the atmosphere, melting of ice (including permafrost), and the reduction of natural sequestration of CO2 in the oceans, soil, and forests.

      Read the freaking study, Jeffy—-Sir Chucky gave you the link to the PDF. It’s written in language that even your science-deprived mind can understand.

      (And “the facts of dire” and particularly “geoengimagicalism” are just SO cute that I had to smile).

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: