Global Cooling will kill us all!

[ghostface]

Why do we rule out rapid warming events yet want to include other rapid warming events?

I've already stated the reason for ruling out D-O events more than once.

Though typically a Dansgaard-Oeschger event takes 1500 yrs?

D-O events cause rapid warming on the decadal-century scale, and as such are the only natural events (should they prove to indeed reflect global increase) to come close to anthropogenic observed and projected rate of warming. Their periodicity is not the same as their rate of warming.

Please read the raw Vostok (or others) icecore data.

Don't do that.

Depth (m) 202-200
Sample ages 8226 to 8135 YBp (span of 81 years) Please note, the cores where taken in 1999 so another ~9 yrs should be added (not sure which month it was pulled).

Temperature changes from -0.87 deg C to + 2.06 deg C

An anomaly change of +2.93 deg C in a span of 81 years. I assume an 81 yr event counts?

If it isn’t an outlier... However, DOME C doesn’t show the same jump, meaning that such warming didn’t even extend across Antarctica itself let alone the globe. Looking at the range of temperatures before and after, it’s clear that the 8135 reading is an outlier that isn’t reflective of a meaningful trend.

EDIT to add:

And of course the idea that such warming was global is refuted by the numerous records suggesting an 8.2 ka NH if not global cooling event, likely related to a slowdown of the- what else- thermohaline circulation.

or am I cherry picking and this is a D-O event we should discount?

You don’t seem to understand the terminology you’re using.

.... 128357 YBp the temp was 3.23 deg C above 'norm' or 2.52 deg C higher than summer of 2007 anomoly (I picked it since it was a high anomaly).


I'm missing the extreme? I don't need to write a paper...the data is out there.

Yes, temperatures warmer than current are well known. However, the changes don't occur in less than 100 years. You have to go 1,000+ years in either direction to get a change of +3C. This is the point we keep having to drive home over and over. We could easily see +4C of warming by the end of 2100 without mitigation.

Paleoclimatologists theorize that it would take many years (decades?)of plus 2 degrees C to melt both ice caps. So I think we have a way to go.

Decades at least, yes. It’s not a done deal. That’s why mitigation is crucial. We still have enough time to prevent it.

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I do not deny humans (as I stated before) have caused a plus 100ppm increase over the last 100 years.

And what is the resulting change to radiative forcing such an increase necessitates?

BUT temperatures are NOT following....thus I am dubious....

I don’t understand this. Based on what? Less than 5 years?

want to talk water vapor then we may have something

Water vapor acts as a feedback, not a forcing. Increased on its own, it precipitates out in a week. Some other forcing has to raise temps in order to increase water vapor influence over a meaningful time frame.

In the interest of not driving everyone insane with a discussion that really does not address the original purpose of this forum...I will shut up and let you have the last word....

Some people seem to be very interested in the subject. For their benefit, I’ll keep the discussion going as long as there are questions, comments, etc.

[Osiris Risen]

I don't have much to add, Ghostface is doing a better job than I could, but I'd like to see this discussion continue. I don't hear many Climate Change criticisms that don't involve something completely irrelevant.

[Old_Man]

I'm sure you are correct on all counts...no correlation only outliers...

http://www.bgc.bris.ac.uk/research/RES/5_correl.html

I wonder why the last 80 years isn't also an outlier?

[ghostface]

I'm sure you are correct on all counts...no correlation only outliers...

There is plenty of broad correlation. I never claimed otherwise. However there are exceptions, your 8135 "warming" example being one of them.

Claiming an alleged global warming event of ~+2C during a period of significant Northern Hemisphere if not global cooling doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but if you wish to pursue this further, we can do so. Please tell me, when you told me to read the Vostok + other data, why were you not aware that the example you selected was unsupported by the other ice core surveys and proxy data?

I wonder why the last 80 years isn't also an outlier?

You didn't show 80 years of global warming. You showed a range of 80 years from a single core sample with a temp spike not supported a few thousand miles away, let alone globally, that would have had to have occurred at the same time as a hemispheric if not global cooling event.

Do you really not see the problem here?

And you never answered my question- why do you cite sources as evidence of your position that explicitly endorse anthropogenic warming when you do not?

[19kilo]

I'm sure you are correct on all counts...no correlation only outliers...

There is plenty of broad correlation. I never claimed otherwise. However there are exceptions, your 8135 "warming" example being one of them.

Claiming an alleged global warming event of ~+2C during a period of significant Northern Hemisphere if not global cooling doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but if you wish to pursue this further, we can do so. Please tell me, when you told me to read the Vostok + other data, why were you not aware that the example you selected was unsupported by the other ice core surveys and proxy data?

I wonder why the last 80 years isn't also an outlier?

You didn't show 80 years of global warming. You showed a range of 80 years from a single core sample with a temp spike not supported a few thousand miles away, let alone globally, that would have had to have occurred at the same time as a hemispheric if not global cooling event.

Do you really not see the problem here?

And you never answered my question- why do you cite sources as evidence of your position that explicitly endorse anthropogenic warming when you do not?

What do you do for a living Ghostface?? Don't want to pry but you seem to have plenty of recourses at hand on this one particular subject.

[Old_Man]

"Large, abrupt climate changes have affected hemispheric to global regions repeatedly, as shown by numerous paleoclimate records (Broecker, 1995, 1997). Changes of up to 16°C and a factor of 2 in precipitation have occurred in some places in periods as short as decades to years (Alley and Clark, 1999; Lang et al., 1999). However, before the 1990s, the dominant view of past climate change emphasized the slow, gradual swings of the ice ages tied to features of the earth’s orbit over tens of millennia or the 100-million-year changes occurring with continental drift. But unequivocal geologic evidence pieced together over the last few decades shows that climate can change abruptly, and this has forced a reexamination of climate instability and feedback processes (NRC, 1998). Just as occasional floods punctuate the peace of river towns and occasional earthquakes shake usually quiet regions near active faults, abrupt changes punctuate the sweep of climate history."

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn= ... 347&page=1

I certainly would hope EPICA, Vostok and even Dome Fuji would show some differences, especially in the polar regions where wind and precip. patterns constantly change. All show large increases and decreases over mere decadal time periods....far exceeding todays rise.

Edit (multiple) for too much coffee and looming deadlines baking my brain:
"This abrupt transition to a warmer world led to a three-fold drop in wind-blown sea salt, a seven-fold drop in wind-blown dust, and a climate warming of 9-18ºF (5-10ºC) in Greenland, all in less than a decade. "
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/seminars/980217DD.html

I do not deny humans are causing change and damage...I don't believe CO2 is THE cause or even the main cause. CO2 seems a distraction. Deforestation, urban heating (though some reason is false according to you), redirection of fresh water via non-pervious/direct loading into streams/rivers/oceans...etc. are larger issues in my mind.

"The annual mean temperature of a large city (say
1000000inhabitants) may be 1°–2°C warmer than before development, and on individual calm, clearnights may be up to 12°C warmer.
The warmth extends vertically to form an urban heat dome in nearcalm, and an urban heat plume in more windy conditions."
http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/resources/p ... _a_UHI.pdf


Could I be wrong? sure. But I still think other issues are far larger concern. Yes, I want off fossil fuels they are terribly inefficient, cause loss of habitat, wars, etc.

[ghostface]

"Large, abrupt climate changes...

Broecker 95 and 97 dealt with cooling. Alley and Clark 1999 and Lang et al. 1999 are discussing, once again, D-O events.

"This abrupt transition to a warmer world led to a three-fold drop in wind-blown sea salt, a seven-fold drop in wind-blown dust, and a climate warming of 9-18ºF (5-10ºC) in Greenland, all in less than a decade. "

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/seminars/980217DD.html

This is the termination of the Younger Dryas event, that had a huge impact on Greenland that extended to other parts of the NH and there is some evidence of its impact in the SH as well- however, that amount and rate of warming described for Greenland is not evident globally. And like D-O events, this most likely attributable to rapid changes in the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation, which we know is not driving the current warming.

Also, Broecker and your second link endorse anthropogenic warming driven climate change. Why are you citing them if you do not believe anthropogenic warming is driving climate change?

By the way, what happened to your 8135 warming event?

I do not deny humans are causing change and damage...I don't believe CO2 is THE cause or even the main cause.

It is the main cause. You can "not believe it", but that's

CO2 seems a distraction.

Based on what? Your gut feeling?

Deforestation

Increases CO2.

urban heating (though some reason is false according to you),

I will touch on UHI below.

"The annual mean temperature of a large city (say
1000000inhabitants) may be 1°–2°C warmer than before development, and on individual calm, clearnights may be up to 12°C warmer.
The warmth extends vertically to form an urban heat dome in nearcalm, and an urban heat plume in more windy conditions."
http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/resources/p ... _a_UHI.pdf

The existence of UHI is known and adjusted for by comparing rural and urban stations. Subsequent surveys of UHI reveal that after adjustment, there is no statistically significant impact of UHI on the surface record{1}{2}{3}. It is certainly real, it simply isn't contaminating the temperature record in a significant way. Unless you'd like to explain how UHI is warming virtually uninhabited areas of the North as much as many times that of populated areas of the US?



Additionally UHI can't produce stratospheric cooling, which is a tell-tale sign of increased greenhouse warming.

You're throwing things at the wall to see what sticks without an underlying understanding of what is being discussed.

On the one hand you imply that it is a natural cycle by comparing it to thermohaline driven warming, which we know is not occurring, on the other that it is UHI- you have no cohesive explanation for your rejection of mainstream science but are none the less convinced that it is wrong. Why?

Could I be wrong? sure. But I still think other issues are far larger concern. Yes, I want off fossil fuels they are terribly inefficient, cause loss of habitat, wars, etc.

So now it's not that anthropogenic warming isn't happening, it's just that you don't consider it all that important? Emissions driven climate change will likely exacerbate almost any problem you consider to be "more important", short of an asteroid strike, from conflicts over dwindling resources to shifting disease vectors.

Deleted some extraneous commentary.

[SSgtMobley]

Largley for Ghostface (but open to anyone) -

Assuming that Global Warming is anthropgenic and assuming that it is occuring at a rate that is increasing temperatures at an unnatural speed -

1. What specific global environmental changes do you foresee? Please list Good ones as well, if you forsee any.

2. What effect do you see this having on human living conditions in first, second and third world countries alike?

3. Although the change is at an unnatural rate do you think the change is a bad one? And if so, why?

Finally, in an effort to drive this thread slightly more on topic (but in line with the discussion above) -

1. What do you think we should do about it?

2. Do you think those efforts can be made significantly effective?

3. What sacrifices do you foresee being necessary to achieve those changes?

4. How do you propose those changes be implemented and by whom (and at what cost) ?

5. Aside from these answers what can we, as individuals, do to prepare and be more effecient for our own survival and comfort of living?

[19kilo]

I still really want to know what it is you do for a living Ghostface. You just seem to have ANy bit of information at hand that supports your arguement.


And like Mobley said. What will fix it?

[Sapient]

I still really want to know what it is you do for a living Ghostface. You just seem to have ANy bit of information at hand that supports your arguement.

Are you saying anyone who argues the point with too much skill must provide personal background information?

[crypto]

Ghostface certainly appears to be well-versed and have plenty of access to research materials.

It's pretty awesome to see someone break out the science this thoroughly and wield it so expertly. He obviously knows his shit.




Thank you for going to bat here, Ghostface. I'm thoroughly impressed.

[19kilo]

Nevermind, I will send a pm.

[Dave_M]

I've never met a geologist that hasn't said "global warming" without a smirk on their face.

CO2 levels increase AFTER warming because cold water holds gases much better than warm water. Temp increases, water release its CO2, CO2 increases. This has been turned into, "CO2 causes global warming!" when in fact, water vapor is the #1, by FAR, so-called "greenhouse gas".

So, long story short, let's get rid of all the water--to save the planet.

[Valekhai]

So, long story short, let's get rid of all the water--to save the planet.

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

[dogbane]

CO2 levels increase AFTER warming because cold water holds gases much better than warm water. Temp increases, water release its CO2, CO2 increases. This has been turned into, "CO2 causes global warming!" when in fact, water vapor is the #1, by FAR, so-called "greenhouse gas".

I'm not exactly sure what direct expertise a geologist would have in the field of climatology, but seawater absorbs CO2:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6 ... ution.html

This is a concern because this results in increased acidity (carbonic acid) of seawater, which then dissolves the calcium carobonate shells of sea animals and plankton.

[marzpan]

Vast Antarctic Ice Shelf on Verge of Collapse

Western Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapses

These two stories appeared within an hour of each other.

[SSgtMobley]

I still really want to know what it is you do for a living Ghostface. You just seem to have ANy bit of information at hand that supports your arguement.

Are you saying anyone who argues the point with too much skill must provide personal background information?

Actually I think he's pointing out that the average person is considerably less informed than Ghostface and is simply curious as to what factors have lead ghostface to be more informed. The less informed we are the more we seem to mistrust the information being provided, IMO.

If ghostface is a climentologist or a researcher at some sort of school, then it makes sense for him to have extraordinary levels of information. If not, what is he doing differently than most that makes him so informed?

I think, largely, its curiosity.

[ghostface]

I've never met a geologist that hasn't said "global warming" without a smirk on their face.

On the other hand, I have. That's why anecdotal evidence isn't credible.

CO2 levels increase AFTER warming because cold water holds gases much better than warm water. Temp increases, water release its CO2, CO2 increases.

CO2 will increase (from decreased oceanic uptake due to solubility and saturation as well as a decline in the biological ocean carbon pump as warming/acidification spreads) in response to warming, but that in no way precludes another source of CO2, like combusting millions of years of sequestered carbon, from causing initial warming to occur.

This has been turned into, "CO2 causes global warming!"

CO2, as a greenhouse gas, is transparent to shortwave radiation but absorbs and reradiates longwave IR radiation. This is a fundamental physical property of carbon dioxide, not some sort of "spin". More CO2 means more radiative forcing. This is not controversial. As I have cited in the past, increasing atmospheric CO2 leading to warming is an over 110 year old idea in physics, written about long before the ice core correlations between temp and CO2 were known.

when in fact, water vapor is the #1, by FAR, so-called "greenhouse gas".

Water vapor is the dominant contributor to the normal greenhouse effect ~60% IIRC), yes. However, it is, as I've explained before, not the dominant GHG driving current warming. On its own, water vapor increase can only last ~7-10 days in the atmosphere before precipitating out. Something else has to increase temperature to allow a greater concentration of water vapor, which then contributes to more warming allowing more water vapor- a positive feedback. And it is a big one. Nearly a third of the warming projected for a doubling of preindustrial CO2 could be attributable to water vapor feedback.

How do we know that we are properly accounting for water vapor in climate models? We can run them against known changes to the atmosphere where responses to the actual climate are measured and compare them- such as with the eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

Do you really think that climate scientists just up and forgot to check on things like this?

Vast Antarctic Ice Shelf on Verge of Collapse

Western Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapses

These two stories appeared within an hour of each other.

Without further evidence, I would say it would be a mistake to attribute this expressly to anthropogenic warming, though it seems to be consistent with it. However, there could be as of yet natural variations at work that hastened the collapse.

[Sapient]

I still really want to know what it is you do for a living Ghostface. You just seem to have ANy bit of information at hand that supports your arguement.

Are you saying anyone who argues the point with too much skill must provide personal background information?

Actually I think he's pointing out that the average person is considerably less informed than Ghostface and is simply curious as to what factors have lead ghostface to be more informed. The less informed we are the more we seem to mistrust the information being provided, IMO.

If ghostface is a climatologist or a researcher at some sort of school, then it makes sense for him to have extraordinary levels of information. If not, what is he doing differently than most that makes him so informed?

I think, largely, it's curiosity.

I appreciate your clarification, and also the clarification 19kilo had made earlier (before the current edit of that particular reply).

[marzpan]

Without further evidence, I would say it would be a mistake to attribute this expressly to anthropogenic warming, though it seems to be consistent with it. However, there could be as of yet natural variations at work that hastened the collapse.

I just posted the links because it was the right thread and I thought it was relevant to the subject at hand. I actually didn't mean to attribute anything to it, just thought it was interesting.

[ghostface]

Without further evidence, I would say it would be a mistake to attribute this expressly to anthropogenic warming, though it seems to be consistent with it. However, there could be as of yet natural variations at work that hastened the collapse.

I just posted the links because it was the right thread and I thought it was relevant to the subject at hand. I actually didn't mean to attribute anything to it, just thought it was interesting.

I was referring to someone quoted in the article, not you. Sorry!

[marzpan]

I was referring to someone quoted in the article, not you. Sorry!

No problem! Now that you mention it, I did notice that the scientists were quick to decide that it happened because of global warming. I should have thought of that. *facepalm*

[Osiris Risen]

1. What specific global environmental changes do you foresee? Please list Good ones as well, if you forsee any.

1. There's already a number of species that have gone extinct or are facing extinction due to climate change. Particularly vulnerable are species living at high elevations, as the temperature rises, they move to a higher elevation and eventually they run out of mountain. Coral reefs are having difficulty adjusting to the warmer sea water, and 1/4 of all marine life utilizes reefs for some portion of it's life so reefs aren't something I'd want to fuck with. Herpetiles are also going to be hit pretty hard, many have temperature dependent sex determination, which could lead to cock blocking on a scale never before seen. Most amphibians aren't particularly mobile, and already have trouble migrating due to roads and other habitat fragmentation.

If the local weather shifts and becomes unsuitable, animals are going to have to migrate to new habitat. People will also need to relocate, many farms out west depend on snowmelt for water in the summer, but increased temperatures cause more of the snow to melt before it's needed, leaving less for the dry summer. That may be fixed by dams, but maybe not. If the amount of precipitation in an area drops too low, you won't be able to farm at all, it'd be an inconvenience to say the least.

I'm a wildlife biologist, so I know the effects on animals better than people. I'll leave the rest to someone else. There will undoubtedly be some good effects, but I can't think of any offhand.

[ghostface]

I'll leave the rest to someone else. There will undoubtedly be some good effects, but I can't think of any offhand.

Access to reserves of hydrocarbons under the Arctic and increased arable land for high latitude countries like the US, Canada, China and Russia, at least in the short term.

Mobley,

Projected effects and mitigation/adaptation are huge topics. If I have time I might be able to throw together something brief later tonight.