Scientist Warning About Climate Change

[Yoron]

It's a really good question.

 

It depends, but if you accept a change, and then instead of mulling over everything negative, decide to do the best you can of the situation, then you're using your mind splendidly. But to do it one first need to decide where one stand. If I for example think that it all is a conspiracy by evil 'overlords' :) then I'm choosing one platform to change the world from, if I choose to be what I would call 'realistic' then that will be another platform. But you can do positive things, and change the world to the better from any of them. It also depends on your view on more things than just climate. Over-population for example. We could easily agree on one kid per person for a hundred years. That would do wonders with, about anything you can think of actually, from pollution to climate, to economy, to survivability of all life on this planet.

 

This planet isn't just a planet. It's also the best starship, ever. So we better try to take a little care of it.

=

 

One thing though, refusing to see is never a good platform for anything. Better to see where it's going, and then decide to try to turn it into something better. One more thing. We're all steered by our self interests, but some are just too short sighted. The difference between intelligence and wisdom maybe?

Edited May 14, 2014 by Yoron

[Eclogite]

Why is climate change mostly viewed in the negative?

We have a tough enough job with all the other changes that are a consequence of overpopulation, struggles towards a globalisation environment that does not equate to exploitation, and resolution of long standing, but outdated pseudo-religious rivalries. We don't need changes piled on top of that which have massive economic impact.

[Yoron]

Btw Sculptor. Really enjoyed how you did with the forest, I'm impressed. Now, if we all started to act that way :) We might get something good out of it.  But it's hard. and a lot of people today live in circumstances where ones choices becomes dictated by mere survival. That survival may cut down a forest that otherwise would have nourished the earth, and us. Over population is a serious problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates 

 

1700 we were around 700 millions

 

In 200  years (1900) we had grown from that, to around 1,600,000,000

(one point six billions)

 

"

A tremendous change occurred with the industrial revolution: whereas it had taken all of human history until around 1800 for world population to reach one billion, the second billion was achieved in only 130 years (1930), the third billion in less than 30 years (1959), the fourth billion in 15 years (1974), and the fifth billion in only 13 years (1987).

• During the 20th century alone, the population in the world has grown from 1.65 billion to 6 billion.
• In 1970, there were roughly half as many people in the world as there are now.
• Because of declining growth rates, it will now take over 200 years to double again."

 

From http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

 

Now, I agree to it all, except the presumption stated lastly. Because to me this should be about chaos mathematics and populations. Assuming so there are no certain numbers in 200 years. To believe there is then becomes some sort of idea of people 'choosing', but I don't think we do. You meet someone, you make babies :)  It's also so that the industrial and agricultural revolution brought with it more available food, better farming methods in form of yields (and mono farming), and medicines as antibiotics, penicillin etc. Such things taken together allowed more people to survive their childhood,  grow up and start their own families, ad infinitum, until we reach 'now'..

 

Now we need to decide. It's our generation, and the ones closest to ours, that need to find a solution. It's a cross road of sorts, where a lot of stuff that we though fine has ended us up  Sh* creek, if I may :) Let's hope we find a paddle.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Yoron

[Turtle]

Without recourse to quotes or links just now, I have a couple points.

 

The more educated people are, the fewer children they have. Want to reduce population, then educate more people.

 

On the idea of wanting to see the tundras forested or turned to agriculture, the problem is that those frozen lands are carbon rich and when they thaw they rot and not only does it release CO₂ but methane which is an even more potent greenhouse gas. Not good.

[labelwench]

Well, it's official.

 

The Yukon government has released its latest report on the state of the territory's environment.

The Yukon State of the Environment Report comes out every three years. This latest report says in 2013 the average temperature of the Yukon was 1.6 degrees higher than the average annual temperature of the territory over the last 65 years.

Average winter temperature in Yukon has increased by 5.4 degrees since 1948

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/yukon-environment-report-highlights-warming-temperatures-1.2640707

 

I have resided in this neck of the woods since 1969 and the change in the weather is quite noticeable to persons like myself who spend considerable time out of doors.

[Yoron]

Totally agree with you Turtle. Mono farming is a answer to a higher population, profits and yields, also artificially supported as I think. Better with farming where you plant different crops, letting the earth rest in between. But that's not as profitable as I understands it. With less people we should be able to get back to a better care-taking of the land though. And changing the way we think of short term profits should also help. the whole idea of destroying nature, adapting it to some weird vision of gigantic mono farming belongs better in a SF than it does on Earth.  A lot of what we take for granted should be different if we could get down to some billion of people instead of seven billions.

 

That does not negate the problems of climate change though, but I hope it should go a good way to soften the worst impact on us. Less people means less pollution.

==

 

That's what the Internet has the capacity of, to educate us, no matter where we live. If we can keep it democratic that is.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Yoron

[sculptor]

...

On the idea of wanting to see the tundras forested or turned to agriculture, the problem is that those frozen lands are carbon rich and when they thaw they rot and not only does it release CO₂ but methane which is an even more potent greenhouse gas. Not good.

 If I may be so bold:

not good

 

is a judgement call, which is most likely a product of an emotional response fear.

Is fear not an emotional manifestation of ignorance? Do we not fear that which we do not know?

 

Let us examine the role trees play in the CH4 part of the carbon cycle:

While examining previously declared CH4 "hot-spots":

 

Researchers at Lund University and Stockholm University in Sweden discovered that spruces, pines, and firs are exceptionally adept at absorbing methane, a greenhouse gas that’s about 25 times more "harmful" as carbon dioxide. Previous studies speculated that these types of trees actually emitted methane, but this study suggests that trees might be rising to the challenge, actually sucking methane out of the atmosphere in addition to carbon dioxide...

The researchers reached this conclusion after conducting controlled forest and laboratory measurements and analysis of the gases being exchanged by tree branches of pine, spruce and birch trees under a variety of conditions. ”Our results offer a third explanation: that an increasing amount of CH4 has been taken up by vegetation during the last decades as a consequence of increased greenness,” states Sundqvist in the study. In other words, trees are working harder to absorb more methane from the atmosphere.

 

 

Symbiosis has been, is now, and will most likely always be the best lens through which to view our biom. The plants were here first. They may let us think that we're playing the tune, but they are the self constructed fiddle.

 

May i suggest looking into the more equable climates of previous warmer periods within the paleoclimate records?

Edited May 16, 2014 by sculptor

[Eclogite]

Fear is a survival mechanism. I think it is preferable to getting sand up your nose.

[sculptor]

Fear is a survival mechanism. I think it is preferable to getting sand up your nose.

Fear, has always been much like a big neon sign saying "LOOK HERE".

Truth be known, I am a rather timid fellow---in the army, someone said that there were 3 ways of approaching fear of battle.

Those who were afraid before the battle were timid

Those afraid during the battle were cowards

and those who were afraid after the battle were fools

 

being in one category does not preclude being in another category.

 

Fear may indeed be a survival mechanism---(though i would prefer the word "apprehension")

If "fear" keeps us from examining the causal factors of that fear, then fear may become an extinction mechanism.

 

This from the youngest general that the us army has ever had: "Ride to the sound of the guns."

(of course, the damned fool ended up riding to his death)

[sculptor]

I'd like to address the comments made by Buffy, Eclogite, and Yuron concerning the 10-11 year down trend mentioned previously.

In and of itself, the short trend of small change seems meaningless. 

However, when I noticed it, something kept tugging at the edge of my consciousness and stored memories.

I first began studying climate during the time I took the meteorology series at Southern Illinois University circa 1971-72. Picked it up again at Florida Atlantic University, then again at The University of Illinois in Chicago(circa '77-'81)...............so, many of the dusty old memory files are stored in different places, so it took me awhile to understand why I thought this seemingly small and insignificant change in trend might be an indicator of something of more import.

 

Please follow as I try to explain:

 

First a brief history into the evolution of an idea(shoulders of giants...).

 

In the 1850s Rudolf Wolf published his construction of solar activity based on limited materials(no Chinese nor Arab data) going back to 1700. Along with the @11 year cycle, he also found an @83 year cycle between minima and/or between maxima for that time-frame. This latter was all but forgotten until the early part of the last century, when the cycles and Wofl's comments were "rediscovered" by Schmidt, Turner, Clayton, etc...and gained the attention of Wolfgang Gleissberg. Gleissberg dedicated much time and effort, and no small amount of print to expanding and expounding the knowledge. After which, the minimum to minimum had been known as the Gleissberg cycle until quite recently(credit where credit is due), Wolf reentered the picture, and now the cycles are known as Wolf-Gleissberc cycles. 

 

One little problem with setting actual dates for the turning points of the bottoms or tops of Wolf-Gleissberc cycles is that they are based on sunspot numbers which are somewhat subjective in nature. There are at-least 3 different commonly used ways of recognizing sunspots and then counting them. It seems somewhat confusing at times to be looking at the same dates and seeing different numbers.The length of the cycles is not constant - it varies quite considerably (approximately 85 ± 15 years)

Alternately, the Gleissberg cycle is not a cycle in the strict periodic sense but rather a modulation of the cycle envelope with a varying timescale of 60 – 120 years

 

That being said:

The last Wolf-Gleissberg minimum happened sometime around 1910, which is about when we started our recent warming trend(see noaa graph above--post #39).

The top has variously said to have happened in 1997. 1998, or 2005.Even the 1997 number at 87 years would have stretched beyond the Wolf average of 83 years. Gleissberg, however offered a range that runs from 70 years to 100 years and is normally referred to in Jovian years, as it is thought that the cycles are governed by Jupiter's torque on tidal bulges of the sun(see Ian Wilson's tidal torque theory).

 

Either way, if their observations and hypotheses hold true, we were due for a turn down in solar activity. And that is exactly what we are seeing(so far). Every time 

we've seen a dip in solar activity into a minimum, we have also seen a dip in global temperatures.  Professor Cliff Ollier of the School of Earth and Environmental 

Studies, the University of Western Australia, recently presented a paper in Poznan, Poland,  in which he described the sun as the major control of climate, but not 

through greenhouse gases.”There is a very good correlation of sunspots and climate. Solar cycles provide a basis for prediction. Solar Cycle 24 has started and we can expect serious cooling". 

 

So, with that knowledge in hand, we look at the recent change in trend, which seems insignificant on it's own, but in light of Wolf-Gleissberg seems to hold the potential for more radical change. The trick is always in sensing the difference between real change and background noise. 

 

Ok: If we accept the likelihood that Wolf-Gleissberg et. al. were onto something, then we should expect the most likely conclusion would be global cooling for the next few decades. We also had a Wolf-Gleissberg / solar minimum around 1900 which had much less impact than the named Maunder or Dalton minima(aside from some failed crops in the late 1880's)Which would equate to less reliability for any prognostications as to a bottom of the most likely coming minimum. Do we expect a small drop in temperatures, or something a tad more violent like the winter of 1709 during which the harbor at Venice froze over? and tens(hundreds?) of thousands died of malnutrition and cold.If the Suess-deVries cycle holds true, we just may see that again soon. Landscheidt anyone?

 

alternately: Superinterglacials(a superinterglacial lasts over twice as long as a "normal" interglacial and is usually much warmer)

We have the seeming 400,000 year alignment of the orbital(milankovitch) cycles which coincides with that which was during the last superinterglacial mis11. It was much warmer then, with a forested arctic, and mostly melted greenland and collapsed westantarctic ice sheets. So, maybe the 400k pattern means something? Curiously : That pattern seems interrupted. It holds true between mis31 and mis49(both superinterglacials) and again for 55 to mis 77(2 more superinterglacials).

The alignments give hope for an extended holocene interglacial, but the gaps remain unexplained with current knowledge.

 

Ok so, on the one hand, we have most likely cooling as/re solar output.

On the other hand we have the possibility warming of being in a superinterglacial, And anthropogenic atmospheric forcing.

 

The next few years should really be interesting.

Has the science adequate instrumentation in place to understand what we will be experiencing?

Edited May 16, 2014 by sculptor

[sculptor]

as/re superinterglacials:

If you've not yet seen it, I'd like to recommend viewing Julie Brigham-Grette's presentation before the nsf for an introduction to super-inter-glacials.

When first I saw this, Julie became my current favorite "fifty foot tall woman". She is a giant, stand on her shoulders and see farther. (and, she is darned cute too)

here's a link:

[Turtle]

If I may be so bold:

is a judgement call, which is most likely a product of an emotional response fear.

Is fear not an emotional manifestation of ignorance? Do we not fear that which we do not know?

There is a considerable difference between fear and reasoned concern. What is driving your judgement call?

 

Let us examine the role trees play in the CH4 part of the carbon cycle:

While examining previously declared CH4 "hot-spots":

I'll read it.

Edit: The study you link to is pay-to-view and only an abstract is available. Your link to methane has articles supporting my assertion. Even if these cited trees do have a net methane uptake it seems unlikely to me the trees can grow as fast and as many to offset the methane release. Keep in mind the major concern of global warming is not the amount of warming but the rate at which it is increasing. That is what is unprecedented.

 

Symbiosis has been, is now, and will most likely always be the best lens through which to view our biom. The plants were here first. They may let us think that we're playing the tune, but they are the self constructed fiddle.

What symbiosis are you talking about? If you mean it in a general sense as in everything on this rock is interacting, then I think you have misapplied the term.

 

May i suggest looking into the more equable climates of previous warmer periods within the paleoclimate records?

Go ahead.

 

While looking for some references on carbon stored in tundra I had in mind plant material. Because yes, the arctic has not always been cold. Well, I haven't found those references yet but I did find something I hadn't heard of that is equally of concern.

 

Thawing tundra threat to frozen carbon

 

The melting of Arctic ice frozen for many thousands or even millions of years is speeding up, a potential route for carbon frozen deep below ground level to seep into the atmosphere.

The return of the spring sun melts domes and lakes of frozen water called thermokarsts – karst is a word usually linked to limestone country, but it has been pressed into service as a label for the hard surfaces caused by ice.

 

Within this ice is dissolved organic carbon. Once the ice melts, microbes get to work releasing carbon dioxide into the air. The soil thaws, the surface collapses, lakes form, water flows, land surfaces erode which in turn releases more carbon dioxide to create more warming, to make the tundra even more vulnerable to spring thaw, and of course to accelerated warming.

 

This is not a scare story. It is happening now, according to Rose Cory of the University of North Carolina and colleagues who report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

...

This has of course been going on at the fringe of the Arctic permafrost for at least 10,000 years. The hazard is not in the process itself, but in its potential acceleration: nobody knows how much carbon is stored in the Arctic tundra as a greenhouse gas source, and nobody can guess what proportion of this will be released as the world warms. Thermokarsts are also found on a smaller scale in the Himalayas and the Swiss Alps.

 

But, as the soils warm, and the microbes get a chance to draw breath and get to work, say the authors, “the ultimate fate of deep, frozen soil carbon will be affected by coupled photobiological processing, by the available light field in streams that receive thermokarst drainage, and eventually by the landscape configuration of lakes and streams.”

Edited May 16, 2014 by Turtle

[sculptor]

There is a considerable difference between fear and reasoned concern. What is driving your judgement call?

 

What symbiosis are you talking about? If you mean it in a general sense as in everything on this rock is interacting, then I think you have misapplied the term.

 

 

Go ahead.

 

While looking for some references on carbon stored in tundra I had in mind plant material. Because yes, the arctic has not always been cold. Well, I haven't found those references yet but I did find something I hadn't heard of that is equally of concern.

 

Thawing tundra threat to frozen carbon

 

point by point

Judgement call................hmm another posted a query as to my "position"

I really don't have one. I may voice one from time to time as a conversational tool, but nothing is anchored in stone, or anchored at all really, kind of like being hooked by a snag in a river, I'll pause awhile and examine the snag before drifting along on my quest for knowledge to quench my insatiable curiosity.

(about me) I am just a very curious fellow, I always have been. When i was in highschool and got driving privileges, I ditched school to go to the museum(I got caught doing this once at the museum of science and industry when i walked around a corner and right into the chest of one of my teachers---------busted) I spent the better part of 13 years sucking what knowledge I could out of the professors at 5 different universities. I once described my quest as, "finding a likely professor, knocking him down, pulling out my knowledge sucking straw, and sucking his little brain dry before moving on to my next victim". 

 

Mostly i post to get feedback.  

One thing I miss about the universities, was that I never hesitated to interrupt a professor to clarify a point of knowledge----delightfully, none of them ever seemed to mind.

So, hello professor, you are the proxy today

.......

 

By symbiosis, I tend to want to focus on the minutia of our relationships to each living entity as an individual species.

With large groupings, like plants, it's simple. The primary producers want more CO2 and we want food and oxygen and energy, homes, tools, and toys, etc.

If we keep feeding them more and more CO2, we should probably start looking at other nutrients they might need, especially if we can get the CO2 up over 600ppm.

We are one small part of a shared co-evolutionary biom that has been changing for millions and millions of years, and found many comfortable balances through adaptation to constant change. Species rise to prominence or dominance altering the balance. action = reaction and every living thing finds or alters a niche. 

We're the smart ones. We're the ones who should understand our myriad symbiotic relationships with each and every individual.

Curiously, I'm rather convinced that our "primitive" hunter gatherer ancestors had a much more intuitive understanding of that which I would intellectualize.

.........

 

as/re equable climate. Curiously, not all scientists who recognize evidence of this in their special study niche phrase it as such. for example:

 

The data coming from Lake El'gygytgyn strongly suggest that the Arctic climate is highly sensitive to small changes in forcing, warming much faster than the rest of the world in the phenomenon known as Arctic Amplification. In recent years, Arctic Amplification has emerged as a strong modern-day climate signal. 

 

 

...........

as/re permafrost CH4

It'll be a bit of a race as the temperatures rise and the permafrost melts, the trees are marching north and some of the stalwarts  in the leading ranks are the aformentioned CH4 eaters.

Balance has to remain a suppositional guess until we have better data as/re the leading edge of the treeline. (and, that is also supposition) 

Edited May 16, 2014 by sculptor

[Turtle]

point by point

Judgement call................hmm another posted a query as to my "position"

I really don't have one. I may voice one from time to time as a conversational tool, but nothing is anchored in stone, or anchored at all really, kind of like being hooked by a snag in a river, I'll pause awhile and examine the snag before drifting along on my quest for knowledge to quench my insatiable curiosity.

Given the context of this thread and the anti-science thrust of global warming deniers, I'm sure you can understand the qeries.

 

By symbiosis, I tend to want to focus on the minutia of our relationships to each living entity as an individual species.

With large groupings, like plants, it's simple. The primary producers want more CO2 and we want food and oxygen and energy, homes, tools, and toys, etc.

If we keep feeding them more and more CO2, we should probably start looking at other nutrients they might need, especially if we can get the CO2 up over 600ppm.

We are one small part of a shared co-evolutionary biom that has been changing for millions and millions of years, and found many comfortable balances through adaptation to constant change. Species rise to prominence or dominance altering the balance. action = reaction and every living thing finds or alters a niche.

We're the smart ones. We're the ones who should understand our myriad symbiotic relationships with each and every individual.

Curiously, I'm rather convinced that our "primitive" hunter gatherer ancestors had a much more intuitive understanding of that which I would intellectualize.

Symbiosis is rather more restrictive in its definition than you portray. I think gestalt is a more fitting term.

 

symbiosis

1. Biology A close, prolonged association between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.

 

2. A relationship of mutual benefit or dependence. ...

gestalt

 

 

A physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts.

.........

 

as/re equable climate. Curiously, not all scientists who recognize evidence of this in their special study niche phrase it as such. for example:

Equable meaning free from extremes, I don't understand the argument you are making here. Can you clarify?

...........

as/re permafrost CH4

It'll be a bit of a race as the temperatures rise and the permafrost melts, the trees are marching north and some of the stalwarts in the leading ranks are the aformentioned CH4 eaters.

Balance has to remain a suppositional guess until we have better data as/re the leading edge of the treeline. (and, that is also supposition)

There's more to consider than temp here. Thinking that trees will grow abundantly in previously frozen climes presumes adequate and chemically suitable water, soil nutrients, lack of pests, and a host of other favorable factors. So yes, highly speculative. All indications are that we are on the way to finding out.

Edited May 17, 2014 by Turtle

[Yoron]

I'm sorry Sculptor. It's just not working as a answer. I'm not going to get into a war about it but I have looked into it. Either you accept people that have made it their while studying up to their thirties in their various professions. Or you don't? You might say it's a question of trust, either you assume that all those papers produced by over 90 % of the scientific community is biased, bogus, and at worst lies. Or you think of them as sons and daughters of ordinary people, choosing a profession without immediate benefits, and believe in their integrity. Because the first argument is implied if you want get to it becoming a reason of our suns cycles.

 

And turtle is correct, wish he wasn't maybe? Although I don't find mono farming a answer to anything, except greed. It's a result of the overpopulation we have as I see it, and profits. Methane, that is buried in the tundra, will in its end transform into CO2. Methane in its pure form is a problem for decades, CO2 is a problem for millenniums. And I can promise you nobody will argue against this.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Yoron

[Yoron]

You see, what we have comes from some presumptions :) And I'm not talking about any 'white mans burden' here btw :)

 

the first, maybe most important. is the idea of a world of never ending infinite riches and resources, the second come from where we are now in which we somehow either assume that we can 'Terra form Earth' into some 'paradise' more fitting never ending profits and some never ending increase of material wealth. The other goes the other way in where we presume that we somehow, with nano technique, applied, once again, in a Jules Vernian world wide manner also somehow will solve this.

 

None of them will work.

 

It's in a way a matter of our beliefs, that's also why I'm impressed by you. You did something good for us all, planting those trees.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Yoron

[Yoron]

You can see the problem better if you use statistics, and assume that Earth has had a lot of statistics to lean on evolving :) The Gaia syndrome if you like, but you don't necessarily need to assume a linear 'conscious' evolving for it. Just assume trial and error.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life

 

Can you see how many dead ends that have been tested, before humans evolved, and constantly are tested. We are a presumptuous species, and we look at ourselves and get impressed, never questioning why we choose one way before another. Well we're now meeting a dead end of evolution. Presuming we continue to quarrel about those relatively few peoples integrity  (compared to seven billions humans on this planet) that tries to report on our mistakes.

 

Earth doesn't care, she has a lot of time left.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Yoron