GLG
Well-Known Member
Ice has no agenda it just melts.
West Coast Salmon Vulnerable to Climate Change, but Some Show Resilience to Shifting Environment
- Thread starter agentaqua
- Start date
Ice has no agenda it just melts.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
Herd that on the radio this morning in my commute to work and instantly thought of your vision.
Climate change impacts on fisheries
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6430/930
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1126/science.aaw5824
Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate
https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/home/
https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/download-report/
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6430/930
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1126/science.aaw5824
Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate
https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/home/
https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/download-report/
So what are marine heat waves?
https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2559/So-what-are-marine-heat-waves
Genetic Evidence Points to Rapid, Large-Scale Northward Shift of Pacific Cod During Recent Climate Changes
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feat...ale-northward-shift-pacific-cod-during-recent
https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2559/So-what-are-marine-heat-waves
Genetic Evidence Points to Rapid, Large-Scale Northward Shift of Pacific Cod During Recent Climate Changes
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feat...ale-northward-shift-pacific-cod-during-recent
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Retracted Ocean Warming Paper And The IPCC
Oct 14, 2019
Last Halloween, the Washington Post ran a dramatic headline: Startling new research finds large buildup of heat in the oceans, suggesting a faster rate of global warming.
This story was huge news worldwide. Fortune magazine quoted Laure Resplandy, the Princeton University oceanographer who was the research paper’s lead author. “The planet warmed more than we thought,” she said. “It was hidden from us just because we didn’t sample it right.”
In fact, the problem wasn’t hiding in the ocean, but in the paper’s own mathematical calculations.
Within days Nic Lewis, a UK private citizen and math whiz, had published the first of four detailed critiques of the paper’s statistical methodology (see here, here, here, and here).
We’re told that research published in prestigious scientific journals is reliable, and that peer review is meaningful. Yet 19 days after those Halloween headlines, the journal announced the authors had acknowledged a number of errors.
Two weeks ago, presumably after months of attempting to rescue the paper, the journal threw in the towel and retracted it wholesale.
What happened in between? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a 1,200-page report about oceans. Chapter 5 of that report cites this now-retracted research (see pages 5-27 and 5-183 here).
In fairness, this single citation may just be a typo. There’s a good chance the IPCC meant to cite a different 2018 paper, in which Resplandy was also the lead author.
But the matter doesn’t end there. The UK-based Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is now pointing out that a crucial conclusion of the IPCC’s report relies heavily on a second paper titled How fast are the oceans warming?
Written by Lijing Cheng and colleagues John Abraham, Zeke Hausfather, and Kevin Trenberth, it was published in January 2019 in Science. The journal calls it a ‘Perspective,’ because rather than being a research paper, it’s more of an argument.
In three places, the Halloween research is cited to support its conclusions. Nowhere do Cheng and his colleagues acknowledge that the statistical methodology of the Halloween research had already been torn to shreds, that the paper’s authors had already conceded it was flawed.
The bottom line? Chapters 4 and 5 of the IPCC’s ocean report rely on the 2019 Cheng ‘Perspective.’ The Cheng ‘Perspective’ relies on research that has now been officially retracted.
The even worse bottom line? Lijing Cheng – an academic who concealed vital information in an article published in Science this year – was intimately involved in the preparation of the IPCC’s ocean report.
He was a lead author for Chapter 1. He was a contributing author for Chapters 3 and 5. And he helped draft the Summary for Policymakers.
Oct 14, 2019
This story was huge news worldwide. Fortune magazine quoted Laure Resplandy, the Princeton University oceanographer who was the research paper’s lead author. “The planet warmed more than we thought,” she said. “It was hidden from us just because we didn’t sample it right.”
In fact, the problem wasn’t hiding in the ocean, but in the paper’s own mathematical calculations.
Within days Nic Lewis, a UK private citizen and math whiz, had published the first of four detailed critiques of the paper’s statistical methodology (see here, here, here, and here).
We’re told that research published in prestigious scientific journals is reliable, and that peer review is meaningful. Yet 19 days after those Halloween headlines, the journal announced the authors had acknowledged a number of errors.
Two weeks ago, presumably after months of attempting to rescue the paper, the journal threw in the towel and retracted it wholesale.
What happened in between? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a 1,200-page report about oceans. Chapter 5 of that report cites this now-retracted research (see pages 5-27 and 5-183 here).
In fairness, this single citation may just be a typo. There’s a good chance the IPCC meant to cite a different 2018 paper, in which Resplandy was also the lead author.
But the matter doesn’t end there. The UK-based Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is now pointing out that a crucial conclusion of the IPCC’s report relies heavily on a second paper titled How fast are the oceans warming?
Written by Lijing Cheng and colleagues John Abraham, Zeke Hausfather, and Kevin Trenberth, it was published in January 2019 in Science. The journal calls it a ‘Perspective,’ because rather than being a research paper, it’s more of an argument.
In three places, the Halloween research is cited to support its conclusions. Nowhere do Cheng and his colleagues acknowledge that the statistical methodology of the Halloween research had already been torn to shreds, that the paper’s authors had already conceded it was flawed.
The bottom line? Chapters 4 and 5 of the IPCC’s ocean report rely on the 2019 Cheng ‘Perspective.’ The Cheng ‘Perspective’ relies on research that has now been officially retracted.
The even worse bottom line? Lijing Cheng – an academic who concealed vital information in an article published in Science this year – was intimately involved in the preparation of the IPCC’s ocean report.
He was a lead author for Chapter 1. He was a contributing author for Chapters 3 and 5. And he helped draft the Summary for Policymakers.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Is Wikipedia a reliable source 2018?
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong.
GLG
Well-Known Member
The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate
This Summary for Policymakers was formally approved at the Second Joint Session of Working Groups I and II of the IPCC and accepted by the 51th Session of the IPCC, Principality of Monaco, 24th September 2019
https://report.ipcc.ch/srocc/pdf/SROCC_SPM_Approved.pdf
Much easier to watch this video to get a good summary of the report.
This Summary for Policymakers was formally approved at the Second Joint Session of Working Groups I and II of the IPCC and accepted by the 51th Session of the IPCC, Principality of Monaco, 24th September 2019
https://report.ipcc.ch/srocc/pdf/SROCC_SPM_Approved.pdf
Much easier to watch this video to get a good summary of the report.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Climate ‘limits’ and timelines
1.5 C
Larry Kummer has a post today Did the IPCC predict a climate apocalypse? No.
Excerpts from the IPCC Special Report on 1.5C, Summary for Policy makers.
B1. Climate models project robust differences in regional climate characteristics between present-day and global warming of 1.5°C, and between 1.5°C and 2°C. …
B1.1. Evidence from attributed changes in some climate and weather extremes for a global warming of about 0.5°C supports the assessment that an additional 0.5°C of warming compared to present is associated with further detectable changes in these extremes (medium confidence). …
B1.3. Risks from droughts and precipitation deficits are projected to be higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C global warming in some regions (medium confidence). …
B2. By 2100, global mean sea level rise is projected to be around 0.1 metre lower {4″} with global warming of 1.5°C compared to 2°C (medium confidence). …
B2.1. Model-based projections of global mean sea level rise (relative to 1986-2005) suggest an indicative range of 0.26 to 0.77 m by 2100 for 1.5°C global warming, 0.1 m (0.04-0.16 m) {4″} less than for a global warming of 2°C (medium confidence). …
B3. On land, impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, including species loss and extinction, are projected to be lower at 1.5°C of global warming compared to 2°C. …
B3.1. Of 105,000 species studied,9 6% of insects, 8% of plants and 4% of vertebrates are projected to lose over half of their climatically determined geographic range for global warming of 1.5°C, compared with 18% of insects, 16% of plants and 8% of vertebrates for global warming of 2°C (medium confidence). …
B3.2. Approximately 4% (interquartile range 2–7%) of the global terrestrial land area is projected to undergo a transformation of ecosystems from one type to another at 1ºC of global warming, compared with 13% (interquartile range 8–20%) at 2°C (medium confidence). …
B4. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2ºC is projected to reduce increases in ocean temperature as well as associated increases in ocean acidity and decreases in ocean oxygen levels (high confidence). …
B4.1. There is high confidence that the probability of a sea-ice-free Arctic Ocean during summer is substantially lower at global warming of 1.5°C when compared to 2°C. With 1.5°C of global warming, one sea ice-free Arctic summer is projected per century. This likelihood is increased to at least one per decade with 2°C global warming. Effects of a temperature overshoot are reversible for Arctic sea ice cover on decadal time scales (high confidence). …
B4.4. Impacts of climate change in the ocean are increasing risks to fisheries and aquaculture via impacts on the physiology, survivorship, habitat, reproduction, disease incidence, and risk of invasive species (medium confidence) but are projected to be less at 1.5ºC of global warming than at 2ºC.
Larry Kummer’s comments:
“Most of the findings in the SPM of this Special Report are of two kinds. First, stating that the effects of 1.5°C warming are less than those of 2.0°C warming. Pretty obvious, but it means little unless we know the effects of 2°C warming. It seldom quantifies the difference in effects from that extra 0.5°C warming, which is the key information necessary to know when assessing the cost-benefit of limiting the coming warming.
Second, there are more specific findings – bad but not disastrous – given at a “medium” level of confidence. The IPCC uses five levels of confidence: very low, low, medium, high, and very high. “Medium” is a weak basis for extreme measures to restructure society and the global economy. Especially since it is human nature to overestimate confidence more often than to underestimate it.”
JC note: with regards to IPCC confidence definitions, seem my previous post A crisis of overconfidence
“There is nothing in this Special Report justifying belief that the world will end, that the world will burn, or that humanity will go extinct. It has been misrepresented just as past reports have been (e.g., the 4th US National Climate Assessment). The disasters described the Climate Emergency and Extinction Rebellion activists are those of RCP8.5, the worst-case scenario in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment report – or even beyond it. RCP8.5 is, as a worst-case scenario should be, a horrific but not apocalyptic future that is improbable or impossible.”
JC note: with regards to RCP8.5, see my previous post What’s the worst case? Emissions/concentrations scenarios
JC conclusion
Bottom line is that these timelines are meaningless. While we have confidence in the sign of the temperature change, we have no idea what its magnitude will turn out to be. Apart from uncertainties in emissions and the Earth’s carbon cycle, we are still facing a factor of 3 or more uncertainty in the sensitivity of the Earth’s climate to CO2, and we have no idea how natural climate variability (solar, volcanoes, ocean oscillations) will play out in the 21st century. And even if we did have significant confidence in the amount of global warming, we still don’t have much of a handle on how this will change extreme weather events. With regards to species and ecosystems, land use and exploitation is a far bigger issue.
Cleaner sources of energy have several different threads of justification, but thinking that sending CO2 emissions to zero by 2050 or whenever is going to improve the weather and the environment by 2100 is a pipe dream. If such reductions come at the expense of economic development, then vulnerability to extreme weather events will increase.
1.5 C
Larry Kummer has a post today Did the IPCC predict a climate apocalypse? No.
Excerpts from the IPCC Special Report on 1.5C, Summary for Policy makers.
B1. Climate models project robust differences in regional climate characteristics between present-day and global warming of 1.5°C, and between 1.5°C and 2°C. …
B1.1. Evidence from attributed changes in some climate and weather extremes for a global warming of about 0.5°C supports the assessment that an additional 0.5°C of warming compared to present is associated with further detectable changes in these extremes (medium confidence). …
B1.3. Risks from droughts and precipitation deficits are projected to be higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C global warming in some regions (medium confidence). …
B2. By 2100, global mean sea level rise is projected to be around 0.1 metre lower {4″} with global warming of 1.5°C compared to 2°C (medium confidence). …
B2.1. Model-based projections of global mean sea level rise (relative to 1986-2005) suggest an indicative range of 0.26 to 0.77 m by 2100 for 1.5°C global warming, 0.1 m (0.04-0.16 m) {4″} less than for a global warming of 2°C (medium confidence). …
B3. On land, impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, including species loss and extinction, are projected to be lower at 1.5°C of global warming compared to 2°C. …
B3.1. Of 105,000 species studied,9 6% of insects, 8% of plants and 4% of vertebrates are projected to lose over half of their climatically determined geographic range for global warming of 1.5°C, compared with 18% of insects, 16% of plants and 8% of vertebrates for global warming of 2°C (medium confidence). …
B3.2. Approximately 4% (interquartile range 2–7%) of the global terrestrial land area is projected to undergo a transformation of ecosystems from one type to another at 1ºC of global warming, compared with 13% (interquartile range 8–20%) at 2°C (medium confidence). …
B4. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2ºC is projected to reduce increases in ocean temperature as well as associated increases in ocean acidity and decreases in ocean oxygen levels (high confidence). …
B4.1. There is high confidence that the probability of a sea-ice-free Arctic Ocean during summer is substantially lower at global warming of 1.5°C when compared to 2°C. With 1.5°C of global warming, one sea ice-free Arctic summer is projected per century. This likelihood is increased to at least one per decade with 2°C global warming. Effects of a temperature overshoot are reversible for Arctic sea ice cover on decadal time scales (high confidence). …
B4.4. Impacts of climate change in the ocean are increasing risks to fisheries and aquaculture via impacts on the physiology, survivorship, habitat, reproduction, disease incidence, and risk of invasive species (medium confidence) but are projected to be less at 1.5ºC of global warming than at 2ºC.
Larry Kummer’s comments:
“Most of the findings in the SPM of this Special Report are of two kinds. First, stating that the effects of 1.5°C warming are less than those of 2.0°C warming. Pretty obvious, but it means little unless we know the effects of 2°C warming. It seldom quantifies the difference in effects from that extra 0.5°C warming, which is the key information necessary to know when assessing the cost-benefit of limiting the coming warming.
Second, there are more specific findings – bad but not disastrous – given at a “medium” level of confidence. The IPCC uses five levels of confidence: very low, low, medium, high, and very high. “Medium” is a weak basis for extreme measures to restructure society and the global economy. Especially since it is human nature to overestimate confidence more often than to underestimate it.”
JC note: with regards to IPCC confidence definitions, seem my previous post A crisis of overconfidence
“There is nothing in this Special Report justifying belief that the world will end, that the world will burn, or that humanity will go extinct. It has been misrepresented just as past reports have been (e.g., the 4th US National Climate Assessment). The disasters described the Climate Emergency and Extinction Rebellion activists are those of RCP8.5, the worst-case scenario in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment report – or even beyond it. RCP8.5 is, as a worst-case scenario should be, a horrific but not apocalyptic future that is improbable or impossible.”
JC note: with regards to RCP8.5, see my previous post What’s the worst case? Emissions/concentrations scenarios
JC conclusion
Bottom line is that these timelines are meaningless. While we have confidence in the sign of the temperature change, we have no idea what its magnitude will turn out to be. Apart from uncertainties in emissions and the Earth’s carbon cycle, we are still facing a factor of 3 or more uncertainty in the sensitivity of the Earth’s climate to CO2, and we have no idea how natural climate variability (solar, volcanoes, ocean oscillations) will play out in the 21st century. And even if we did have significant confidence in the amount of global warming, we still don’t have much of a handle on how this will change extreme weather events. With regards to species and ecosystems, land use and exploitation is a far bigger issue.
Cleaner sources of energy have several different threads of justification, but thinking that sending CO2 emissions to zero by 2050 or whenever is going to improve the weather and the environment by 2100 is a pipe dream. If such reductions come at the expense of economic development, then vulnerability to extreme weather events will increase.
Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers, politicians who cater to them
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calg...limate-change-deniers-conservatives-1.4694549
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calg...limate-change-deniers-conservatives-1.4694549
Event: Surrey: October 23rd
Climate Change and the Future of Salmon
https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/climate...lmon-tickets-75081030383?aff=ebdssbdestsearch
Climate Change and the Future of Salmon
https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/climate...lmon-tickets-75081030383?aff=ebdssbdestsearch
Stephen Kowalski
Active Member
Do you agree with Steve Williams? Just so you know, I completely agree with him. It doesn't mean that every climate activist is correct or every climate denier is incorrect. It means that science can't be denied or changed to just reflect a political view. So in the case of not being a climate denier, maybe there is a third category: climate adapter. Maybe that is what we are seeing with salmon as well. PS: World not coming to an end in 11 years and as Steve Williams says, we need to use our fossil fuels wisely over the next 200 years.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
Scientists breathe easier as marine heat wave off west coast weakens
https://www.saobserver.net/news/sci...r-as-marine-heat-wave-off-west-coast-weakens/
Mantua said “many energetic storms and unusually strong winds from the north off the west coast” have cooled surface waters back to near normal temperatures for much of the region.
“On the other hand, the offshore warming is still in place, and by historical standards, it is still a large marine heat wave,” he said in an email.
The latest climate model forecasts from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center suggest that the offshore warming will gradually weaken over the next seven months, but even by spring will still be warmer than normal, Mantua said.
https://www.saobserver.net/news/sci...r-as-marine-heat-wave-off-west-coast-weakens/
Mantua said “many energetic storms and unusually strong winds from the north off the west coast” have cooled surface waters back to near normal temperatures for much of the region.
“On the other hand, the offshore warming is still in place, and by historical standards, it is still a large marine heat wave,” he said in an email.
The latest climate model forecasts from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center suggest that the offshore warming will gradually weaken over the next seven months, but even by spring will still be warmer than normal, Mantua said.
Saxe Point
Well-Known Member
Here's some more on climate change and salmon: https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...ate-change-japan-pacific-sea-salmon-ice-loss/
cuttlefish
Well-Known Member
This is a good article from the other side of the ocean describing a common conundrum. Thanks for the link.
cuttlefish
Well-Known Member
Trying to get back on track; https://www.myyellowknifenow.com/45...166909385&mc_cid=b66c0eac45&mc_eid=a13d42a87a
Salmon frenzy in western Arctic reaches historic high
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/arctic-salmon-project-2400-samples-1.5396867
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/arctic-salmon-project-2400-samples-1.5396867
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
I like how our solution to salmon attempting to colonize artic flows is to kill them off. That seems so bizarre
Similar threads
