Scientist Warning About Climate Change

[sculptor]

resident slayer:

I ain't a vampire:

Honest

 

ok

I have discovered that when attempting to discuss the issues involved in climate science, some people react with what can best be described as psychotic defensive behaviors.

I sincerely hope that this place and people is/are different.

 

that being said:

 

From what I've read on the subject, in the paleoclimate records it seems that rising CO2 has always followed rising temperatures. It is suspected that the CO2 then acted as a feedback mechanism supporting continued warming. The problem is that no-one has adequately addressed 2 problems-----

1) how did warming temperatures cause CO2 rise? (One speculation was that the warming freed up CO2 that had been trapped, but that speculation failed to address the fact that methane did not rise along with CO2, or at-least not at the same rate)

2) when CO2 was still high, the earth began to cool into the next glaciation

 

Ok?

 

IF CO2, which was previously seen as a feedback mechanism  can really become a causal mechanism are we entering a different sort of climate balance?

Another problem is that there does not seem to be much agreement on what, exactly, causes us to enter a period of glaciation, or exit into an inter-glacial like the Holocene.

Ancillary to this is the lack of consensus  as to why the NH glacial cycles(Ice age) began as roughly 41kyr cycles, then switched to roughly 100kyr cycles with greater swings into deeper cold conditions..

 

Personally, I think we are missing much important knowledge as to climate drivers.

We do not yet understand long term solar cycles, and are just beginning to test certain hypotheses of solar behavior that would lead us into solar maxima or minima.

2 promising hypotheses have to do with magnetic changes in the sunspots, or the suns magnetic poles.

Another has to do with gravitational influences of the giant planets.

 

Ice ages(like the one in which we find ourselves) ain't the norm for our planet. The exact timing remains in doubt, but the general consensus is that this spaceship earth spends less than 5% of it's time in an ice-age. One problem left unsettled is exactly what is required to make up an ice age. Did this ice age begin with the NH glaciations? Or did it begin when Antarctica froze over? (is it a 3 million year affair, or a 40 million year affair?)

Beyond that, the earth's climate norm is for a much warmer planet with, most likely, a more equable climate.

 

Which leads me to one of the sticking point with those who fear "global warming" which, I do not. 

It seems that much of the modeling focused on the effects of CO2, ignores the work of Dansgaard and Broeker. Broeker predicted that the cooling trend since 1940 would bottom out around 1970, then head up for about 3 decades. To my mind, his predictions were accurate, and almost entirely solar based, (he was publishing when I took the meteorology series, and began to look at climatology(circa early 70s)................first impressions and all that, and I am most likely biased by reading his work early in the game.  Back then there was still a lively debate about the number of glacial cycles within this ice-age, with the "old guard" still insisting that there had only been 4 periods of glaciation. The old guard fought Emiliani's hypothesis quite viciously at times until more data from the likes of Kukla turned the tide.

imo NCAR's  Dickenson did a great disservice to climate science by dismissing solar influence. NCAR's Eddy worked to dismiss Dickenson.(lively debates followed)

 

Ok, brief background over(for now)

 

What are your thoughts about the likely climate over the next few decades?

The likelihood of us entering a solar minimum?

The solar minimum's likely effect on global and/or regional climates?

The solar minimums effect on cosmic ray flux? and the cosmic rays influence on cloud formation.

[Buffy]

The solar cycle (which I mentioned earlier) is actually a big issue, because many long ago predicted we should be in the downward slope of that cycle by now, but we are over-running the downward forcing of the cycle.

 

Many have pointed out the lag of CO2 in the historical cycles of warming, and there are many causes in addition to solar cycles that can in natural circumstances initiate warming or cooling. But what your argument skips right over is the notion that we're simply skipping a step in the process by pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere directly. NO ONE denies that CO2 reinforced those warming phases, and that cooling could start while CO2 was still high simply points out that there are things that trigger countervailing cooling effects.

 

Sure past warming may have been caused by other inputs, but CO2 has always made it worse, and we just jumped right to that state with an increase in CO2 that is completely unprecedented in its speed in the historical record.

 

I think your characterizations of the debtates are more that a little self-serving, but I think it's good that you have mentioned them, as I think others reading them will discover that what you characterize as "dismissing" solar inputs is actually a reasoned result of recognizing that we've simply swamped the natural cycles that are in effect.

 

 

Don't get suckered in by the comments -- they can be terribly misleading. Debug only code, :phones:

Buffy

[Eclogite]

I have discovered that when attempting to discuss the issues involved in climate science, some people react with what can best be described as psychotic defensive behaviors.

Of course it is important to distinguish vigorous disagreement from psychotic defensive behaviours. I  have noticed that people who have a passionate interest in a topic often find it difficult to make this distinction.

 

I sincerely hope that this place and people is/are different.

I think if you provide citations to support your arguments and avoid cherry picking of data you will be fine.

 

What are your thoughts about the likely climate over the next few decades?

It will get warmer on average. Extreme weather conditions will become more common. Diversity will be an important word.

 

The likelihood of us entering a solar minimum?

I don't understand your question. We routinely enter a a solar minimum roughly every eleven years. So I think entry into a solar minimum is practically certain.

 

The solar minimum's likely effect on global and/or regional climates?

I suspect you are meaning something akin to the Maunder Minimum, or what Lockwood et al  call a Grand Solar Minimum. If this is what you are referring to it would have been helpful if you had been specific.

 

The solar minimums effect on cosmic ray flux? and the cosmic rays influence on cloud formation

What do you think?

[sculptor]

 

 

1)It will get warmer on average. Extreme weather conditions will become more common. Diversity will be an important word.

 

2)I don't understand your question. We routinely enter a a solar minimum roughly every eleven years. So I think entry into a solar minimum is practically certain.

 

I suspect you are meaning something akin to the Maunder Minimum, or what Lockwood et al  call a Grand Solar Minimum. If this is what you are referring to it would have been helpful if you had been specific.

 

3)What do you think?

 

1) I suspect cooler/colder as it seems that we are entering a minimum-----do we refer to the Wolf, the Maunder, the Spoerer, the Oort and the Dalton all as grand minima?

If so, then yes, I suspect that we are entering a grand minimum----So far cycle 24 seems much like cycle 5 which led us into the Dalton which would have likely been less severe than the maunder without volcanic forcing.

 

2)As re "The solar minimums effect on cosmic ray flux? and the cosmic rays influence on cloud formation":

I suspect that the prevailing opinions are that we will see an increase on cloud formation, though many have argued against that opinion.

The unknown is in how that will effect climate--------from personal observation of Iowa winters, if the clouds are north of me, they increase the warmth from the sun, and hold the heat farther into the night. Cloud cover at night means warmer temps. While cloud cover during the day means colder temps. I suspect that much will depend on the height and latitude of the cloud cover.

And. i ain't really convinced that increased cosmic ray flux will lead to more clouds. If we are indeed headed into a "grand" minimum, then we should have definitive answers to these questions within a solar cycle or 2.

 

..............

which brings up another question:

Do we have a good record of cloud cover during the Maunder and Dalton "grand" minima?

If so, then maybe, we already have an answer to the questions as/re effects of grand minima-cosmic rays-clouds

Edited May 13, 2014 by sculptor

[Eclogite]

If we were not overloading the system with carbon dioxide your expectation of a lowering of temperatures might well be recognised. I'll use Occam's razor and go with the views of practically all the experts in the field. Even in the absence of their stand I would tend towards the AGW position simply because so many of the usual suspects (big business and right wing politicians) are opposed to it. History shows they are typically wrong in matters of this sort.

 

[i do hope you don't see that as a psychotic defensive behaviour. :)]

[sculptor]

The solar cycle (which I mentioned earlier) is actually a big issue, because many long ago predicted we should be in the downward slope of that cycle by now, but we are over-running the downward forcing of the cycle.

 

Many have pointed out the lag of CO2 in the historical cycles of warming, and there are many causes in addition to solar cycles that can in natural circumstances initiate warming or cooling. But what your argument skips right over is the notion that we're simply skipping a step in the process by pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere directly. NO ONE denies that CO2 reinforced those warming phases, and that cooling could start while CO2 was still high simply points out that there are things that trigger countervailing cooling effects.

 

Sure past warming may have been caused by other inputs, but CO2 has always made it worse, and we just jumped right to that state with an increase in CO2 that is completely unprecedented in its speed in the historical record.

 

I think your characterizations of the debtates are more that a little self-serving, but I think it's good that you have mentioned them, as I think others reading them will discover that what you characterize as "dismissing" solar inputs is actually a reasoned result of recognizing that we've simply swamped the natural cycles that are in effect.

 

 

Don't get suckered in by the comments -- they can be terribly misleading. Debug only code, :phones:

Buffy

 

By over-running do you mean not recovering from the 11-22 yr cycle minimum?

 

Your "but CO2 has always made it worse,"  seems to be determining that any warming can only be described as "worse".

This I do not understand. During mis(marine isotope stage) 11 we were much warmer, with a forested arctic and a more equable climate. The biom was much richer and more diverse. How can this be only described as worse?

 

Picture CO2 as a magical blanket for the earth. It lets in solar radiation to warm the planet while resisting allowing that precious heat to escape into space. If we are indeed heading into a grand minimum, do we not want that blanket protecting us from a replication of the worst of the preceding minima?

Have we indeed "swamped the natural cycles"?

Are we really that powerful as a species?

 

Another bias?

I was raised christian. Fortunately, i fell under the tutelage of the Reverend Zinn who was a true "man of god" and a man of science. From his teachings: The thing about inheriting or gaining dominion over the earth meant learning what we could of the earth and biom to better control it for both the biom's and our benefit. And, that is a very heavy responsibility.

If indeed, we as a species have matured enough to control the very climate of the earth that bred, spawned, and nurtured us, then we just may be on the verge of realizing

the capability embodied within that responsibility.

 

as/re self serving-----long ago, when studying anthropology, I was involved in some of the "clovis first" debates, and, many of those also brought out the savage in the debaters to the detriment of the scientists within them. ( I came away from some of those "debates" with the thought that I had just wasted some valuable time arguing with "nut-jobs" who refused to acknowledge field data that conflicted with their biases/prejudices.)

I ain't perfect. I do try to keep it civil. I do try to recognize my own biases and prejudices.

[Eclogite]

 Your "but CO2 has always made it worse,"  seems to be determining that any warming can only be described as "worse".

This I do not understand. During mis(marine isotope stage) 11 we were much warmer, with a forested arctic and a more equable climate. The biom was much richer and more diverse. How can this be only described as worse?.

Ask the Dutch.

[sculptor]

If we were not overloading the system with carbon dioxide your expectation of a lowering of temperatures might well be recognised. I'll use Occam's razor and go with the views of practically all the experts in the field. Even in the absence of their stand I would tend towards the AGW position simply because so many of the usual suspects (big business and right wing politicians) are opposed to it. History shows they are typically wrong in matters of this sort.

 

[i do hope you don't see that as a psychotic defensive behaviour. :)]

 

Where you and I would disagree is with the use of "overloading the system"

I would say that we are indeed loading the atmosphere with CO2 and other greenhouse gases as well as negative feedback particulate matter and gases.

 

You are familiar with the FACE(Free air carbon enrichment) studies, or the nasa satellite data indicating a greening of the earth?

 

The face studies indicated greater growth (sometimes doubling) of primary producers under CO2 enrichment up to 600ppm.

 

A big problem I have with the AGW position is it's dependence on computer models which proved inadequate to encompass the climate evidence derived from the field data collected by the Lake El'gygytgyn research. 

Many of the variables involved in climate change are still poorly understood, so too, the models based on incomplete data.

[sculptor]

Ask the Dutch.

Cool:

Ask my Frisian ancestors who fled their homes and farms again and again and again, returning and rebuilding and replanting only to have to flee again.

Choosing to live on and farm low-lying  land left them ever vagabonds controlled by the fickle seas. If I knew any Doggerland folks, I'm fairly certain that they too would have some negative things to say about rising sea levels.

 

Even if we get back to warming again, it may well take 40,000 years to melt the grounded ice of greenland and antarctica.

If that happens, and sapiens-sapiens have the brains god gave chickens, we'll allow the low areas to convert to tidal swamps, which are some of the richest bioms on the planet.

 

I'm conflicted:

The anthropologist/archaeologist in me would like to see a return of the glaciers, so we could dig the continental shelves and find out more about our ancestors.

The ecologist in me would like to see the shores of the arctic ocean forested and green.

Edited May 13, 2014 by sculptor

[Buffy]

By over-running do you mean not recovering from the 11-22 yr cycle minimum?

 

No, I am referring to the longer term cycles that have to do with both sunspot *long term* variation over time as well as cyclical coincidence variation due to asynchrony of orbital eccentricity and polar orientation that affects solar inputs. Eclogite mentioned the Maunder Minimum:

 

Source: Wikipedia

 

You'll note the tail end of the graph shows sunspot activity in decline and that along with other effects is used to propose we should *already* be in a downward trend in temperatures, which is clearly not the case.

 

 

Your "but CO2 has always made it worse,"  seems to be determining that any warming can only be described as "worse".

This I do not understand. During mis(marine isotope stage) 11 we were much warmer, with a forested arctic and a more equable climate. The biom was much richer and more diverse. How can this be only described as worse?

 

"Worse" is of course a relative phrase. "Worse" in the sense that for the existing animals the environment changed and many of them became extinct.

 

The issue more than anything is that what CO2 is is a source of feedback that does make it worse compared to the present.

 

Mother Nature cares not who wins or loses, only that everyone follow the rules of the game.

 

If you live in Minnesota, it might actually be better. If you live in Miami you've got problems. As I said on Twitter the other day, "Just started shopping for property in Gainesville, FL, future site of the Marco Rubio State Beach...."

 

Let's say that statement was not just misleading, but quite disingenuous. I'm sure you're actually smarter than that.

 

Picture CO2 as a magical blanket for the earth. It lets in solar radiation to warm the planet while resisting allowing that precious heat to escape into space. If we are indeed heading into a grand minimum, do we not want that blanket protecting us from a replication of the worst of the preceding minima?

Have we indeed "swamped the natural cycles"?

Are we really that powerful as a species?

 

The data sure indicates that! The rise in absolute magnitude of the increase in CO2 we have experienced in the last century or so is NOT unusual, nor is it at the highest point ever. What is different is the *speed* at which the rise has occurred AND the fact that it is NOT preceded by other triggering effects is the proof behind the argument that the change is man made, so yes, we are that powerful as a species.

 

If you're going to argue that we might want to work to avoid a minima, you're going to have to get into the study of how low will it go and how much do we *BACK OFF* on our pumping CO2 into the atmosphere in order to maintain a equilibria. You'll get no argument from me on that, I *agree*! 

 

Another bias?

I was raised christian. Fortunately, i fell under the tutelage of the Reverend Zinn who was a true "man of god" and a man of science. From his teachings: The thing about inheriting or gaining dominion over the earth meant learning what we could of the earth and biom to better control it for both the biom's and our benefit. And, that is a very heavy responsibility.

If indeed, we as a species have matured enough to control the very climate of the earth that bred, spawned, and nurtured us, then we just may be on the verge of realizing

the capability embodied within that responsibility.

 

:thumbs_up  Cool! Stewardship is an important responsibility that we--because we are so powerful--must engage in. I personally don't require a faith in order to believe or appreciate that (although oddly enough, being a Pagan, I should), but those that do are just fine in my book.

 

 

as/re self serving-----long ago, when studying anthropology, I was involved in some of the "clovis first" debates, and, many of those also brought out the savage in the debaters to the detriment of the scientists within them. ( I came away from some of those "debates" with the thought that I had just wasted some valuable time arguing with "nut-jobs" who refused to acknowledge field data that conflicted with their biases/prejudices.)

I ain't perfect. I do try to keep it civil. I do try to recognize my own biases and prejudices.

 

Keep trying dude! Although you've slipped above already, I won't hold that against you.

 

 

Americans look upon water as an inexhaustible resource. It’s not, if you’re mining it. Arizona is mining groundwater, :phones:

Buffy

[Turtle]

... 

Even if we get back to warming again, it may well take 40,000 years to melt the grounded ice of greenland and antarctica. ...

Grounded ice is already melting in Antarctica. See this thread: >> West Antarctic Glacier Loss Appears Unstoppable

Edited May 13, 2014 by Turtle

[sculptor]

 

This from NOAA

The folks there seem to think that we've been cooling for the past 11 years.

If indeed, we are heading into a grand minimum, I expect the cooling to accelerate.

 

I suspect that we are living in a grand experiment over which we have only vestigial/nominal control. 

 

 

Buffy, as per your posted chart you may note that we started the modern maximum almost 2 decades before we started the warming trend circa 1970.

I gotta re-read Broeker.

It seems that temperature lags solar forcing by a decade or 2. So on the upside, then so too on the downside?

 

If you're going to argue that we might want to work to avoid a minima,

 

 

Way beyond our power. Rephrased: we might work to avoid the extreme damage to the climate of a minimum------yes!

 

as/re faith:(a bit about me) I doubt that i ever was, am now, or ever could be a man of faith. I inculcated the teachings and concepts.  Like i posted, i was lucky to have had the reverend Zinn. He was a hard act to follow. I was once thrown out of a church by a southern baptist army chaplain who puffed hisself all up, got red in the face, and with spittle flying out of his mouth bellowed at me "OUT OF MY CHURCH YOU SACRILEGIOUS SON OF A *****"    Learning from him, and others like him I began to differentiate between those who really had faith, and those who only pretended to have faith. The pretenders were quick to anger(or as phrased earlier: Some people react with what can best be described as psychotic defensive behaviors).  Maybe peg my philosophy as early TAOist sprinkled with a bit of existentialism as a spice?

(I might be a pagan, but i ain't sure what that means)

 

Water-- the over(?) pumping of the ogallala aquifer concerns me. Too much of a corporate mentality? To hell with the future, we need to irrigate today? I suspect that within my lifetime, we will grow to regret, what i consider to be, the misuse and abuse of pieces of our environment. So to with pesticides "what kills one of god's creatures ain't good for any of them"  (us included, we share dna with our distant cousin celery.)

 

 

[sculptor]

Grounded ice is already melting in Antarctica. See this thread: >> West Antarctic Glacier Loss Appears Unstoppable

 

Turtle, (to the best of my knowledge) The west antarctic ice sheet, for the most part, ain't grounded. Without the ice, much of west antarctica would be ocean, with 2 large islands and a few smaller ones.

It seems that parts of the indian and the southern pacific ocean have been warming, and that some of that warmth has increased snowfall over antarctica(increasing east antarctic ice volume), while some of it has penetrated the circumpolar current and is undermining the floating ice, and some of the ice that is "grounded" on the sea floor. 

This (overlarge?) map from wiki---only the green and yellow parts are bedrock above sea level. All the rest of the ice sheet is over ocean bottom.

 

By grounded ice, I meant that which was above where the waves could get under it.-----It seems that as the ice melts the area looses gravity, and the sea levels therefore lower in that region(and rise elsewhere). Add in isostatic rebound, and the land may rise up while the surrounding ocean falls. Ergo take the current topographical representation with a grain of salt.

 

Edited May 13, 2014 by sculptor

[Turtle]

Turtle, (to the best of my knowledge) The west antarctic ice sheet, for the most part, ain't grounded. ...

Then you need to improve your knowledge. Did you bother to do any reading on the new finding?

 

West Antarctic Glacier Loss Appears Unstoppable

...Just as a grounded boat can float again on shallow water if it is made lighter, a glacier can float over an area where it used to be grounded if it becomes lighter, which it does by melting or by the thinning effects of the glacier stretching out. The Antarctic glaciers studied by Rignot's group have thinned so much they are now floating above places where they used to sit solidly on land, which means their grounding lines are retreating inland. ...

Edited May 13, 2014 by Turtle

[sculptor]

Then you need to improve your knowledge. Did you bother to do any reading on the new finding?

 

West Antarctic Glacier Loss Appears Unstoppable

 Is knowledge improvement optional? From my perspective, it seems an ongoing thing, much like the flow of a river. I do not know if we all need to improve our knowledge, but it seems though, unless we actively oppose it, it will happen of it's own.

 

Fortunately, i fell off of a scaffold yestermorn and have given myself a few days off from scaffolds and power tools, so I have time to sit here and read(improve my knowledge).

 

OK as to your linked:

First, They are communicating their findings for the ice over the Amundsen sea:

 

The Amundsen sea represents a very small part of West Antarctica. To extrapolate from that to all of west antarctica is a rather bold step.

Which was certainly not taken in the linked article, but was implied by the headline.

 

Also they themselves say:

 

 Three major lines of evidence point to the glaciers' eventual demise: the changes in their flow speeds, how much of each glacier floats on seawater, and the slope of the terrain they are flowing over and its depth below sea level. In a paper in April, Rignot's research group discussed the steadily increasing flow speeds of these glaciers over the past 40 years. This new study examines the other two lines of evidence.

The glaciers flow out from land to the ocean, with their leading edges afloat on the seawater. The point on a glacier where it first loses contact with land is called the grounding line. Nearly all glacier melt occurs on the underside of the glacier beyond the grounding line, on the section floating on seawater.

 

 

 

 

 

If you will reference the above topo map, you will note a ridge along the seaward side of the amundsen sea. This grounding point has not been adequately breached to induce a rapid(as in less than a few centuries) destruction of the sea floor grounded ice inland of those ridges.

 

Seriously "four feet in a few centuries" who could know what weather will alter that trend in the intervening centuries?

[Buffy]

This from NOAA

The folks there seem to think that we've been cooling for the past 11 years.

 

 

Oh my! Well there's your problem dear.

 

Look at the left axis: it's showing a consistent anomaly to the plus side of the spectrum. That's "anomaly" as in "hotter than we expected". The fact that there's an almost insignificant downward trend that's within any margin of error is insignificant. The thing you have to realize is that each of those bars stands on top of all the preceding ones for the prior years, which is why our temperatures are going through the roof.

 

I'm afraid you're going to have to spend a little bit more time studying your graphs before you present them as evidence, because the graph here argues the opposite of what you're saying.

 

 

Buffy, as per your posted chart you may note that we started the modern maximum almost 2 decades before we started the warming trend circa 1970.

I gotta re-read Broeker.

It seems that temperature lags solar forcing by a decade or 2. So on the upside, then so too on the downside?

 

And that's basically my point: That 1970's maximum--take your pick on a lag plus or minus 10 years--says we should be cooling, not getting hotter. That we're getting hotter very consistently (and the graph you posted above shows that very clearly, so thank you for sharing), means that we have indeed swamped what should be a downward trend.

 

 

(I might be a pagan, but i ain't sure what that means)

 

I believe in Santa and the Pesach Bunny. Kinda Pagan. Compatible with science to boot.

 

Water-- the over(?) pumping of the ogallala aquifer concerns me. Too much of a corporate mentality? To hell with the future, we need to irrigate today? I suspect that within my lifetime, we will grow to regret, what i consider to be, the misuse and abuse of pieces of our environment. So to with pesticides "what kills one of god's creatures ain't good for any of them"  (us included, we share dna with our distant cousin celery.)

 

Yes, you should look up the source of that quote ( :phones: is what's called Buffy's Asterisk, which means someone other than Buffy said it and you should find the source for further edification), the guy whose book it came from is really smart and entertaining.

 

 

With their four-dimensional minds, and in their interdisciplinary ultra verbal way, geologists can wiggle out of almost anything, :phones:

Buffy

[sculptor]

afterthought:

According to the lake el'gygytgyn people, supported by cores near the Siple station and the taylor dome:

The West Antarctic ice sheet completely melted during mis11, so maybe the isostatic depression there ain't as deep as in east Antarctica? 

Edited May 13, 2014 by sculptor