General Climate Change Discussion.......

[Admiral_Bobski]

C-Bob, so that you will not 'miss it' this time.

...

I will then cease to have reasons for my concerns over the impending/ongoing alterations we have caused within the climate system and can retire to the H1N1/H5N1 threads instead

Just to let you know, I have seen this post and read it and absorbed the information within, and this is me not responding to it.

CB

EDIT - Oh, by the way, despite your comments to the contrary, you have still not answered my question.

Edited October 26, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[Thundery wintry showers]

Here's an article that attempts to answer that question:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming.html

I don't like the article's use of the term "myths" as some of them are contentious rather than definitely false, but the analysis itself is very good (and well worth a look). In the case of CO2-temperature feedbacks the article simply refers to the line of evidence regarding building up of atmospheric greenhouse gases causing absorption and radiation of energy, and suggests that while temperature rises generally preceded CO2 rises, the two probably acted as a feedback with CO2 rises helping to amplify the degree of warming.

But it is also clear that other drivers caused the warming to happen in the first place and that CO2 only served to amplify it further- the question of "how much" then takes us back to the conundrum we're faced with today regarding AGW.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Here's an article that attempts to answer that question:

http://www.newscient...al-warming.html

I don't like the article's use of the term "myths" as some of them are contentious rather than definitely false, but the analysis itself is very good (and well worth a look). In the case of CO2-temperature feedbacks the article simply refers to the line of evidence regarding building up of atmospheric greenhouse gases causing absorption and radiation of energy, and suggests that while temperature rises generally preceded CO2 rises, the two probably acted as a feedback with CO2 rises helping to amplify the degree of warming.

But it is also clear that other drivers caused the warming to happen in the first place and that CO2 only served to amplify it further- the question of "how much" then takes us back to the conundrum we're faced with today regarding AGW.

Thanks TWS

I remember reading a piece on Real Climate about the CO2/temp lag issue and they said much the same thing. The problem with this answer is that there is no sign of amplification of warming caused by CO2, there is only the possibility that CO2 caused warming to continue at much the same rate as it was prior to CO2's effect coming into play (whenever that point might be).

The problem is that all historical data (in the form of proxies, of course) points to previous warmings being pretty linear - a feedback or amplification should give us a non-linear trend (a temperature graph which shows curvature, as the amplification adds to the pre-existing warming).

The only two ways around this conundrum, that I can see, are either 1./ for CO2's supposed amplifying effect to be near-perfectly negated by a decrease in some other forcing or 2./ CO2's logarithmic effect perfectly counteracting its own amplifying effect.

Both of these possibilities require a degree of coincidence at least as large as the coincidence between rising temperatures and the start of the industrial revolution.

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

You see TWS and yourself are quite happy with temp forcings and the carbon cycles responses to such temp forcings.

I can find no larger than the recent glacial age (that we may be instrumental in ending) and the temperature forcings of our precession ,tilt and the interaction with the gas giants on our orbit (perm any one from three or combine in any way you choose) and the differing amounts of energy our physical distance or attitude to the sun brings.

Neither of you address the periods of earth history when large amounts of Greenhouse gasses were introduced into the atmosphere ( by the many various avenues that are in built to achieve this)and what became of climate over those periods.

Do we not witness the 'normal' cycles being over written by the 'greenhouse world'?

Do we not see temperatures across the globe attain levels well above those of our more recent 'glacial age' ?

Are you content to say that when nature adds the CO2 to the system we do not see temps respond to that increased capacity to hold heat ( in direct opposition of our understanding of greenhouse gasses and their properties)?

Would not this 'extra' capacity to hold onto heat not cause 'warming'? Would not the carbon cycle add it's input of greenhouse gasses (as in the warm inter glacials of recent earth history) to compound the issues of warming (accelerating it by the mere additional loading of greenhouse gasses during this 'secondary phase' of Greenhouse gas accumulation)?

Which is a better analogy to man's introduction of large amounts of greenhouse gasses to the climate system?

Do we think that the recent glacial age ,of heat and less heat driving the carbon cycle, or do we think that the periods when Nature's introduction of large amounts of greenhouse gasses superimposed over this system (of less and more heat) and it's impacts on the carbon cycle are a closer analogy to man's impacts over the past 150yrs?

My answer is that we are ape-ing the previous 'greenhouse worlds' when nature (not man) introduced 'extra' greenhouse gasses into the system ( by one or more of the means previously discussed) and not the recent past glacial age that you seem content to focus on alone.

Are we (humanity) not better served at looking at what occurs in scenario's were more greenhouse gasses than are 'normal' for that epoch are added into the system ,esp. when we know we have overturned the first phase of the 'Milankovich' cool down ( in the polar region) from the interglacial optimum and reversed it?

"A study published in the journal Science last month that involved CU-Boulder researchers and reconstructed past temperatures in the Arctic using ice cores, tree rings and lake sediments concluded that recent warming around the Arctic is overriding a cooling trend caused by Earth's periodic wobble. Earth is now about 0.6 million miles further from the sun during the Northern Hemisphere summer solstice than it was in 1 B.C. -- a trend that has caused overall cooling in the Arctic until recently.INSTAAR researcher and CU-Boulder geological sciences Professor Gifford Miller was a co-author on both the PNAS study and the recent Science study"

Edited October 26, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Thundery wintry showers]

My answer is that we are ape-ing the previous 'greenhouse worlds' when nature (not man) introduced 'extra' greenhouse gasses into the system ( by one or more of the means previously discussed) and not the recent past glacial age that you seem content to focus on alone.

Nope, my post was referring to past climates in general- including the times when global temperatures were much higher than they are now.

We probably are, indeed, in an equivalent situation to when natural forcings released similar amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and history certainly isn't inconsistent with the notion that it could cause a significant amount of warming. Part of the problem here is that it is difficult to work out how much of the warming on those earlier occasions was due to natural forcings and how much of it was amplified by feedbacks with greenhouse gases. If we could somehow work that out, it would give us a strong idea of how much of a forcing on temperature the current anthropogenic activity will have.

But there's very little out there to support the notion of irreversible tipping points or runaway warming. The problem isn't whether the Earth can survive, the problem is whether we can, in view of the potentially large rate of change.

[Gray-Wolf]

Nope, my post was referring to past climates in general- including the times when global temperatures were much higher than they are now.

We probably are, indeed, in an equivalent situation to when natural forcings released similar amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and history certainly isn't inconsistent with the notion that it could cause a significant amount of warming. Part of the problem here is that it is difficult to work out how much of the warming on those earlier occasions was due to natural forcings and how much of it was amplified by feedbacks with greenhouse gases. If we could somehow work that out, it would give us a strong idea of how much of a forcing on temperature the current anthropogenic activity will have.

But there's very little out there to support the notion of irreversible tipping points or runaway warming. The problem isn't whether the Earth can survive, the problem is whether we can, in view of the potentially large rate of change.

I do accept all you say TWS but, and I'm here with my big brush again, we must accept the fact of what GHG's do.

They ( GHG's) may have a 'maximum effect' in that ,beyond certain levels, any additional GHG does not 'impact' as much as the same ppm at lower levels, but we are pushing the envelope (of GHG concentrations) to the levels that we 'know' created greenhouse' environment (without a huge variance of continental configuration and so ocean/atmosphere circulation are not hugely dissimilar [apart from the added depth of the oceans and the altered coastlines this generates]) in the recent geological past.

Are we to abandon any comparisons with this period in earths history because the 'finer brush strokes' of that time are absent or are we to take note of the elevated GHG's (at that time) and accept that ,without the presence [to my knowledge] of any novel heat source to 'pump up ' global temps, this is the only agent to allow the heat build that we see across the globe?

I cannot abandon the process we all agree on ( as having impact in 'recent' geological time) as being fundamental in the forcing of global temps in the times when it's (GHG's) concentrations were elevated beyond the levels we have ice core data for.If not it (GHG) then what?

This isn't 'fact' TWS ,this is 'best guess'. It is all we have (for the moment).

Who dunnit?

[noggin]

http://www.nothingtodowithco2.com/pdf/AGW_presentation_ILMCD.pdf

These graphs look convincing to me, with regard to warming and cooling of the Earth being a natural occurrence. Does anyone have any thoughts on them or comments to make? I like to hear what people think about these things. As long as it's polite! It helps me to sort things out in my own mind.

Ta!

[Methuselah]

Until the Industrial Revolution (space aliens notwithstanding) all global climate change must have been of natural origin...But, that fact alone says nothing about anthropogenically-produced greenhouse gases. Except that they are greenhouse gases??

[Thundery wintry showers]

I don't really know what you're getting at GW- are you saying that humans risk causing a rise in global temperature due to greenhouse gas emissions, or that we could end up with a runaway feedback loop? The available evidence from past climate is not inconsistent with the former, but it is highly inconsistent with the latter.

[Admiral_Bobski]

You see TWS and yourself are quite happy with temp forcings and the carbon cycles responses to such temp forcings.

<snip>

I have to confess to being in something of a quandary - I've had enough of this circular and ridiculous argument and I can no longer be bothered with it, but on the other hand I need to make clear the fact that you have in no way "won" the argument.

I have tried various different presentations of the argument against your claims, and you seem utterly incapable of grasping it. Your responses are little more than repetitions - repeating something ad nauseum does not make it true, Gray-Wolf.

And despite my attempts to answer your questions, and your demands that I give you some "proof" that you need not worry, you have still failed to answer my question to you - where, in the historical record, is the evidence that CO2 accelerated temperature increases?

It's a simple question, and one that asks only for evidence (since I have been told on numerous occasions that asking for proof is unreasonable - funny how that only works one way, isn't it?).

Anyway, that's it from me - at least on this subject. I don't have the time for this kind of rubbish, and I'm rapidly losing the enthusiasm as well.

CB

[laserguy]

Anyway, that's it from me - at least on this subject. I don't have the time for this kind of rubbish, and I'm rapidly losing the enthusiasm as well.

CB

You'll be back,CB. You cannot keep a good man down!

[Iceberg]

I have to admit I too have kept out of these threads recently, becoming rather fed up with the circular notion of things and the constant calls of global cooling.

Nope, my post was referring to past climates in general- including the times when global temperatures were much higher than they are now.

We probably are, indeed, in an equivalent situation to when natural forcings released similar amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and history certainly isn't inconsistent with the notion that it could cause a significant amount of warming. Part of the problem here is that it is difficult to work out how much of the warming on those earlier occasions was due to natural forcings and how much of it was amplified by feedbacks with greenhouse gases. If we could somehow work that out, it would give us a strong idea of how much of a forcing on temperature the current anthropogenic activity will have.

But there's very little out there to support the notion of irreversible tipping points or runaway warming. The problem isn't whether the Earth can survive, the problem is whether we can, in view of the potentially large rate of change.

It's a sensible approach but there is noway we can workout how much of the past warming was attributable to greenhouse gases and what percentage of it was due to changes in land mass location, ocean current circulation and heat transfer. We argue over what the temperature is now and what is was 200 years ago let alone 500K years ago.

The best we can do is look back over the last maybe 100-200 years and try and model and look at the various natural forcings.

The runaway warming cannot happen IMO, the glacial cycles will far outway the effects of short-term releases of gases with a half-life of a few hundred years. However runaway warming in the concept of 300 years of massively increased temperatures due to glacial reversible tipping points remains a possibility.

I do accept all you say TWS but, and I'm here with my big brush again, we must accept the fact of what GHG's do.

They ( GHG's) may have a 'maximum effect' in that ,beyond certain levels, any additional GHG does not 'impact' as much as the same ppm at lower levels, but we are pushing the envelope (of GHG concentrations) to the levels that we 'know' created greenhouse' environment (without a huge variance of continental configuration and so ocean/atmosphere circulation are not hugely dissimilar [apart from the added depth of the oceans and the altered coastlines this generates]) in the recent geological past.

Who dunnit?

sorry GW, but a tiny change in land masse configuration can have a very large impact on global temperatures, even 12K years ago the landmasses where different enough to cause a very large variation in climate.

[Gray-Wolf]

sorry GW, but a tiny change in land masse configuration can have a very large impact on global temperatures, even 12K years ago the landmasses where different enough to cause a very large variation in climate.

12k yrs is not that dissimilar in continental 'positioning' but ,with sea levels so much lower ,the map would have made for different possibilities in temperature forcings/carbon cycle responses.

As a 'for instance' the Rhine Seine and Thames all followed the 'old river' which had it's delta off Portugal so the biomass deposition (and cathrites) were positioned on the continental shelf there.

The other obvious feature is the amount of land mass available for daily heating (and night time heat loss of course) which would have had afar greater diurnal range than it does as the English channel/Bay of Biscay so you expect the weather to alter in line with this. If you look at how far Germany currently is from the Atlantic influence and see how it's climate compares to ours you'll see just how much extra land would be open to a more continental climate than is today which ,in the warming phase, must lead to a much quicker response than it would as a maritime climate.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.scienceda...91026132932.htm

Another serendipitous moment.

It seems we have past events where sequestration of CO2 from the atmosphere (by the weathering of exposed strata) lead to a major glaciation.

I know this record appears 'stuck in it's groove' but the world just doesn't seem to want to give it the 'jolt' to move it on.

So now we have natural 'blips' in Elevated CO2 leading to 'Greenhouse worlds' and natural events that soaked up more CO2 than normal leading to major Glaciations.

We all know that differences in energy arriving on the planet will lead to the temp/CO2 dance we agree on but are we any closer to accepting that when the world adds, or takes away, CO2 temps will follow?

Edited October 27, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Admiral_Bobski]

http://www.scienceda...91026132932.htm

Another serendipitous moment.

It seems we have past events where sequestration of CO2 from the atmosphere (by the weathering of exposed strata) lead to a major glaciation.

I know this record appears 'stuck in it's groove' but the world just doesn't seem to want to give it the 'jolt' to move it on.

So now we have natural 'blips' in Elevated CO2 leading to 'Greenhouse worlds' and natural events that soaked up more CO2 than normal leading to major Glaciations.

We all know that differences in energy arriving on the planet will lead to the temp/CO2 dance we agree on but are we any closer to accepting that when the world adds, or takes away, CO2 temps will follow?

So, the Earth cools at the same time that CO2 drops and from this we can deduce that the loss of CO2 caused cooling?

This seems like the same argument as "Earth warms at the same time that CO2 rises and from this we can deduce that the gain of CO2 caused warming."

I'd have to read the full paper to be sure, but something doesn't seem quite right from reading the sciencedaily article. My spidey-senses started tingling at this:

Lava from those volcanoes eventually collided with North America to form the Appalachian Mountains.

Lava from these volcanoes formed the Appalachians? I'm pretty sure they were formed from colliding tectonic plates. One quick check on Wiki later and we find this:

Thrust faulting uplifted and warped older sedimentary rock laid down on the passive margin.

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_Mountains )

Not sure what to make of all this, but the full paper would be worth a read.

And that article serves only to give you an alternative wording of exactly what you've been saying all along, which is still tenuous at best.

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm sure you'll do just that but to help you up to speed when subduction zones form the surface boundary is 'scraped' as it is subducted and so these sediments go into the mountains that begin to be uplifted. At the same time plenty of water is subducted with the oceanic crust which heats as the crust is drawn down into the mantle. this water helps with the melt of the mix of oceanic crust (the Ophiolite complex of Dyke's as we find in the Torredos[?] mountains in Cypress) and the sediments laid down on top (that weren't 'scraped off in the initial run in with the subduction zone). This melt passes through the overlying continental crust and melts some as it goes changing it into a more 'acidic' rock than the 'basic' makeup of the extruded oceanic crust and so we find the Andesitic lava's, with their tendency towards viscosity (as opposed to the 'runny' basaltic lava's we find extruding from the mantle at 'ridge' lines and 'hot spots'), are the result with the more 'composite cone' style of volcano forming as opposed to the 'shield volcanoes' of the basaltic suite (like the Hawaiian islands for e.g.).

It's the chemistry of these Andesitic/Acidic extrusive/intrusives that I feel is where you would profit from focusing as it is their properties that lead to the CO2 sequestration.

Sorry it all may sound like a fairy tale to you at the moment but I'm sure you'll cope with the complexities involved when you apply yourself fully to the subject and also gain insight into the quantities of gasses we're talking about during such phases.

Do yourself service though and look through the many national geological organisations and don't overly rely on the paraphrasing of Wiki (though it will serve to give you the 'flavour' I'm sure).

Edited October 27, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Admiral_Bobski]

I'm sure you'll do just that but to help you up to speed when subduction zones form the surface boundary is 'scraped' as it is subducted and so these sediments go into the mountains that begin to be uplifted...

...Do yourself service though and look through the many national geological organisations and don't overly rely on the paraphrasing of Wiki (though it will serve to give you the 'flavour' I'm sure).

I was not talking about the CO2 sequestration aspect of their work; I was talking about the formation of the Appalachians. I wonder whether the original paper has lost something in the translation by sciencedaily, or if the authors' work actually proposed this process.

I know quite a bit about tectonics, thank you very much, thanks to many months of studying geology textbooks while helping my brother study for his degree in the subject. Your detailed description does not have anything to do with the authors' claim that the "giant volcanoes that formed during the closing of the proto-Atlantic Ocean" produced "lava [which] eventually collided with North America to form the Appalachian Mountains." A somewhat different proposition to the accepted process, and one for which I have, as yet, been unable to find any supporting evidence.

No amount of "Wikification" could paraphrase the above as "Thrust faulting uplifted and warped older sedimentary rock laid down on the passive margin." It's an entirely different process from that which the authors suggest.

Besides, I thought we were going to use layman's terms so that we didn't alienate the non-scientifically-minded contingent on these boards. If so then Wiki was, in this case, a good choice.

CB

EDIT - Ah, I think I've sussed it - it must be a "lost in translation" thing. The Appalachians were formed because the subduction drew the "giant volcanoes" (as the article puts it, though technically the volcanic Taconic island arc) towards the North American mainland. The resulting collision formed the Appalachian mountains.

Well, it just goes to show that you can't trust journalists to do their jobs properly, doesn't it?

With regards the sequestration, though, there was plenty going on in the world at the time to potentially explain both the global cooling and the CO2 sequestration without having to attribute the cooling directly to the CO2 drop. Cause and effect, or just two effects of another cause?

Edited October 27, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[Gray-Wolf]

Thank's for that C-Bob and ,surprisingly, I agree with your slant on things.

So far , so good.

[Gray-Wolf]

Climate change 'could see price of a pint rise to £18 by 2030'

http://www.24dash.com/news/Environment/2009-10-28-Climate-change-could-see-price-of-a-pint-rise-to-18-by-2030

Now that's what I call a 'scare story'..............

[Thundery wintry showers]

I notice further down the list of links it suggests going vegetarian to combat climate change. I have a problem with that as I don't think there is enough vegetarian alternative food out there that I actually like the taste of. I hope that eating meat does not go the way of driving over the coming decades.

Wasting less food (I always endeavour to keep wasted food to the absolute minimum) and in particular wasting less meat strikes me as potentially being every bit as effective.

[laserguy]

I notice further down the list of links it suggests going vegetarian to combat climate change. I have a problem with that as I don't think there is enough vegetarian alternative food out there that I actually like the taste of.........

I'm not going to get involved in an argument about climate change and the virtues or otherwise of an omnivorous diet,but I've recently developed an addiction to... broccoli,grapefruit and black grapes!! No idea why,never been much of a fruit and veg fan. Hope I'm not pregnant,you never know,what with all the hormones and stuff that's supposed to get into the water supply! Seriously tho' (climate change apart) I'd have no problem being a veggie if 'I had to'. Anyways,you might have read elsewhere that I've been brewing today. Job done,and there's no waste - 5Kg of spent grain and 100g of spent hops added to my compost heap! LG not green? Pah!

[Gray-Wolf]

From Reuters;

12:37 October 30th, 2009

Panic at 2 a.m. the search for multiyear Arctic ice

Post a commentPosted by: David LjunggrenTags: Environment, Canada Arctic ice, global greenhouse, global warming, oceans When you're looking for shrinking packs of multiyear ice in the Arctic Ocean, bizarre things tend to happen. Top Canadian scientist David Barber knows this first hand, as he explained in a presentation in Parliament on Wednesday. Barber said that to all extents and purposes the multiyear ice in the Arctic had already vanished, which could open up the region to shipping and mineral exploitation.

Barber, who holds Canada's Research Chair in Arctic System Science at the University of Manitoba, boarded the icebreaker Amundsen last month and steamed north from the Arctic port of Tuktoyaktuk to look for the Beaufort Sea pack ice, the "thickest, hardest, meanest, multi year sea we have left in the northern hemisphere".

According to up-to-date satellite maps provided by the Canadian Ice Service, the Amundsen should have started ploughing into progressively thicker ice almost from the start. Soon after the ship set sail Barber went to bed, and then woke up at 2 am in a panic.

"I looked on my screen and we're doing 13 knots. We do 13.7 knots in open water and we're right here (in an area where the maps show there should be thick ice) somewhere, doing 13 knots," he said.

"And I just panicked, I thought 'Oh My God, Stephane the captain is not on the bridge and the first officer has gone crazy, he's driving this thing way too fast through the sea ice'. So I go up on the bridge and talk to the guys and they say "There is no ice here'."

The ship sailed for hundreds of miles, first to the north and then eastwards, "trying to find multiyear sea ice that would even slow us down". All they found was so-called rotten ice a thin layer covering small chunks of multiyear ice.

Eventually the ship found a 10-mile floe of "nice typical traditional Beaufort Sea pack ice" close to the Canadian Arctic archipelago. As they were about to attach the ship to the floe Barber looked out and saw a crack open up right in front of him. "I went 'Wow, that's kind of weird'." Even weirder, he and a colleague then saw the ice move up and down as a swell hit it.

"And as we watched, literally, without any exaggeration, the entire multi-year floe broke up in five minutes," he said. Barber blames waves which started off the north coast of Siberia and then rolled across the Arctic Ocean, pushed along by a low pressure system and unencumbered by rotten ice.

No wonder he says that "I've never seen anything like this in my 30 years of working in the high Arctic".

===============================================================================

So the Canadian Ice service maps are not to be relied upon????

With ice levels dropping away to 07' levels you have to wonder just how bad things are up there.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[PersianPaladin]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125686509223717691.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

[noggin]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/earth-environment/article6896152.ece

Dr. Vicky Pope (and others) again calling for caution.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's all getting quite heated now, isn't it? No pun intended.

The gloves will be off before long!

[noggin]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6894473.ece

....and another call in the media to cut the hysteria.

Fingers crossed.

Cut the hysterical catastrophising and then everyone work together to make the world a cleaner place. How hard can it be? There is plenty of brain-power around and the money used for hysterical purposes would be better put towards finding a solution to the problem.

...and is there really a total of 20,000 people going to Copenhagen for the convention? If so, that is a wicked piece of hypocrisy, unless they are all using some sort of clean energy to get there.

I live a cleaner life, myself, than these all-around-the-world-flying, gas-guzzling-vehicle-driving, multi-home-owning, self-serving-politicians that are attending.

I thought things like video conferencing were supposed to cut "business" travel?

...and I am not even going to get started on so-called "celebrities" who fly all around the world telling us how we are ruining the planet............

That's it from me for now. I have to go to the supermarket. I will be walking. I will not be putting my fruit and vegetables into little plastic bags. I will be choosing British produce. I will be taking my sturdy and elderly shopping bags with me. In fact, I will do it as I have been doing it for years.

Have a nice weekend, everyone and don't forget....it's the X-Factor tonight.

Jedward to win.