Scientist Warning About Climate Change

[sculptor]

sculptor said

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?

 

for the time Julie was referencing, another study in a cave in Tennessee found pollen from C3 plants 

C₃ plants must however be in areas where CO₂ concentration is high, temperature and light intensity are moderate, and ground water is abundant

 

.

which pretty much describes the climate of Tennessee today

so, a much warmer arctic, with little change at 40degrees latitude

= (most likely) an equable climate

 

So Julie mentioned 1/2 of story. Tennessee is another part. 

Equable is used to indicate less temperature variation from the equator to the poles. 

 

To my ecological mindset, this is a good thing.

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

symbiosis within the gestalt

eg: symbiosis---bees and wasps visit the greenhouse. When they're done with the plants, and are buzzing the glass doors, I let them out. They pollinate the plants and eat the spider mites and I am their humble doorman-------------staying humble around wasps and bees is usually a good idea. we have a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship.

My greenhouse plants exhale O and inhale CO2, I exhale CO2 and inhale O. We have a symbiotic relationship.

 As we have mostly left the land, many symbiotic bargains are no longer being honored. eg: the blackberry plants provide nice juicy berries so that we will eat them, then wander off and poop out the seeds with a little fertilizer so that they can colonize new spaces. If the blackberry plant had a vote, it'd most likely vote against toilets.

 

I ain't bright enough to postulate well about the gestalt. I know we're part of it, and I understand some of the interrelations, but lack a holistic gestalten mind-set that would net me any specifics from the whole.

 

........

we just  put the trotline in, with any luck, we dine on catfish for breakfast

[Yoron]

Yes that's a homely take on it. But your world is changing Sculptor, as is mine. And it doesn't care where you put your trotline, it never have. You're quite correct in that we need to become care takers though, to make it through this. But that isn't how we've built our society's, no matter if they are democratic or not. We've built them on our presumptions of infinite assets, individual profits and the idea of 'populating the world'. The Catholic church still sees it as a sin using preventives.

 

Do you think we will change that mindset?

[sculptor]

Yoron:

I do not care to change people's mindsets. I try to do what I think is right. Even with helpers I've hired over the years, I lead, if they want to follow, I'll share my skill-sets. 

After all those years of education, i chose to work with my hands---------I have referred to it as "outsmarting inanimate objects" . I'd rather change a diaper than a mindset.

 

as/re your earlier, I have found in my studies, that many people focus exclusively within their fields of study, and have not the luxury of an objective viewpoint. Scientists are no different from the rest of us, we all have the ability and curse of narrow focus. Sometimes, that means that they are doing really good research within narrow parameters, which may lead to mistakes of assumption of relative magnitude of integrated forcings. (not seeing the forest for the trees)

Case in point, greenhouse gasses are well recognized as feedback forcings, and some go a step farther and assume them to be causal factors. I suspect that that mindset excludes non studied causal factors to the detriment of the accuracy of the conclusions drawn from their studies. (which is, why I mention other potential causal factors)

 

We have so much yet to learn and understand. It seems that no one knows for sure why we enter or exit an ice age, why we have had superinterglacials, why we switched from a roughly 41,000 year glacial cycle at the beginning of this ice age to the current roughly 100,000 year glacial periods common for the last million years.

The lake e team, in reference to the superinterglacials said:

Simulations using state-of-the-art climate models show that the high temperature and precipitation during the super interglacials can't be explained by Earth's orbital parameters or variations in atmospheric greenhouse gases alone, which geologists usually see as driving the glacial/interglacial pattern during ice ages.

That suggests that additional climate feedbacks are at work.

 

 

I suspect that this assumption of unknown "additional climate feedbacks" may interfere with seeing actual causal factors.

 

Not only do we not have the answers, at times it seems that we still need to find the right questions. I view science as advancing by asking better and better questions.

I'm not really sure what you were getting at in post #66.

Edited May 17, 2014 by sculptor

[Turtle]

sculptor said

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

 

for the time Julie was referencing, another study in a cave in Tennessee found pollen from C3 plants

.

which pretty much describes the climate of Tennessee today

so, a much warmer arctic, with little change at 40degrees latitude

= (most likely) an equable climate.

Please use the quote function properly so we can put your references in context. You have your quote in a quote box and mine outside. I also don't understand your having links to definitions such as plants or concentration as these are not terms in question. Thanks.

 

Anyway, a change from tundra to a Tennesee climate is anything but equable; to the contrary it is extreme. It is even more extreme due to the rate at which it is occuring. So too is the rate of ocean acidification extreme and the worldwide recession of glaciers to name just a couple more global warming consequences.

 

So Julie mentioned 1/2 of story. Tennessee is another part.

Equable is used to indicate less temperature variation from the equator to the poles.

I'm going to pause here to watch the video and then finish my response.

[Turtle]

... 

Not only do we not have the answers, at times it seems that we still need to find the right questions. I view science as advancing by asking better and better questions.

I'm not really sure what you were getting at in post #66.

He's getting at in post #66 the fact that you keep questioning the answers we do have and how they have been arrived at. Your offhand dismissals by saying we need to learn more does not invalidate what we have learned. Your saying you have no agenda/bias notwithstanding, your posts imply otherwise.

 

 

[

...bees and wasps visit the greenhouse. When they're done with the plants, and are buzzing the glass doors, I let them out. They pollinate the plants and eat the spider mites and I am their humble doorman. ...

PS Bees don't eat mites, but mites do eat bees. I'm not aware of any wasps that eat mites either. Do you a reference for your assertions? Edited May 17, 2014 by Turtle

[Turtle]

...for the time Julie was referencing, another study in a cave in Tennessee found pollen from C3 plants

 

C3 plants must however be in areas where CO2 concentration is high, temperature and light intensity are moderate, and ground water is abundant

 

which pretty much describes the climate of Tennessee today

so, a much warmer arctic, with little change at 40degrees latitude

= (most likely) an equable climate

Julie (how quaint), that is Dr. Brigham-Grette was talking about many time periods in the video from hundreds of thousands of years back to 3.8 million years. I have no idea which period you are referring to and as you give no link for the Tennessee cave study I have no idea what time period that refers to.

 

 

So Julie mentioned 1/2 of story. Tennessee is another part. 

Equable is used to indicate less temperature variation from the equator to the poles. 

 

To my ecological mindset, this is a good thing.

As I say above, I have no idea what period you refer to and no study from you to read. That alone is enough to put little faith in your 'ecological mindset', whatever that means. In short, the more I read from you the less I trust your judgement.

 

 

...staying humble around wasps and bees is usually a good idea. we have a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship.

My greenhouse plants exhale O and inhale CO2, I exhale CO2 and inhale O. We have a symbiotic relationship.

 As we have mostly left the land, many symbiotic bargains are no longer being honored. eg: the blackberry plants provide nice juicy berries so that we will eat them, then wander off and poop out the seeds with a little fertilizer so that they can colonize new spaces. If the blackberry plant had a vote, it'd most likely vote against toilets.

If you are referring to Himalayan Blackberry that is an invasive species and does more to harm ecosystems than help them. In many states it is classed as a noxious weed. In your state it is on Alert status. >>Himalayan berry @ Tennessee Exotic Pest Plant Council

 

I ain't bright enough to postulate well about the gestalt. I know we're part of it, and I understand some of the interrelations, but lack a holistic gestalten mind-set that would net me any specifics from the whole.

 

we just  put the trotline in, with any luck, we dine on catfish for breakfast.

But your whole argument set implies you are bright enough to draw sensible conclusions. That's quite a disconnect and altogether unconvincing.

[sculptor]

yes, wasps do eat spider mites

one of the reasons i tolerate the occasional sting

 

the bees are the primary pollinators, and the most common in the greenhouse are the large native bumble bees who nest in the ground. 

outside, there are several local varieties of smaller native bees, but they rarely venture into the greenhouse

 

as/re #66, I do not dismiss the knowledge-----great stuff really, but as quoted from the lake e people, the current models focusing on green house gasses and orbital cycles cannot explain the super interglacials---------which tells me that we need better models before reaching conclusions----- 'so if conclusions are drawn from climate models that cannot accurately encompass climate field data, the models are obviously flawed(incomplete), and their conclusions suspect.

You call them answers, i call them conclusions.

And,  perhaps most importantly, I suspect that too many people expect "answers" from science. Looking back over the history of science, we will find that most "answers" were just wrong. Good starts for further inquiry, but not the ultimate and usually not even the penultimate. Just another step on the road.

One of my degrees is in anthropology/archaeology, and I will swear that many of the "answers" of 30-40 years ago have been replaced by new paradigms.

Klaus Schmit's gobekli tepe was such a paradigm shifter for anthropology.

The lake e findings were such a paradigm shifter for paleoclimatology, and by extension for climatology. 

 

The scariest thing about "scientific answers" is that they stifle the real nitty gritty of science which is always the next questions. 

So, always question the "answers" they are just steps. If we know that A leads to B and B leads to C, do we assume that C is the answer, or do we look for the next step to D and beyond?

Edited May 17, 2014 by sculptor

[sculptor]

Do not doubt my "conclusions"

I have no conclusions

I have no answers

(I once wrote a 17 page paper laying out an hypothesis, supporting it with other studies, and systematically dismissing one null-hypothesis after another, then in the last paragraph, mentioning an unexamined null---------the prof told me that I had "completely sold him on the hypothesis then dashed his hopes in the conclusion"-----I told him that, from me,  there were no conclusions, just a series of questions and refinements and ever evolving indications of directionality with no end in sight)

 

What I do have is one hell of an eclectic education, and an inquiring and critical mind and an ability to recognize pattern and the disruption of pattern.

 

Ok?

 

Any thoughts on wolf-gleissberg?

Any thoughts on the (most likely) missing components of current climate models?

Any thoughts on the works of Emeliani or Eddy?

[Turtle]

Do not doubt my

"conclusions"

I have no conclusions

I have no answers

(I once wrote a 17 page paper laying out an hypothesis, supporting it with other studies, and systematically dismissing one null-hypothesis after another, then in the last paragraph, mentioning an unexamined null---------the prof told me that I had "completely sold him on the hypothesis then dashed his hopes in the conclusion"-----I told him that, from me,  there were no conclusions, just a series of questions and refinements and ever evolving indications of directionality with no end in sight)

 

What I do have is one hell of an eclectic education, and an inquiring and critical mind and an ability to recognize pattern and the disruption of pattern.

 

Ok?

 

Any thoughts on wolf-gleissberg?

Any thoughts on the (most likely) missing components of current climate models?

Any thoughts on the works of Emeliani or Eddy?

 

Regardless of your opinion of yourself and your past glories, nothing you have presented here gives me any pause to question the current climate change or that humans have made a significant contribution to an accelerated warming trend. Moreover, the more you say the less I trust your critical thinking ability and knowledge.

[sculptor]

Have you looked at the long term solar cycles?

 

Would you like me to provide some links?

 

Do you understand that we have most likely just exited a grand solar maximum?

From the climate records it becomes obvious that solar maxima are coincidental with higher temperatures on earth, and that solar minima are coincidental with lower temperatures on earth.

It seems silly to assume that lower temperatures here on earth are causal to solar minima, or that higher temperatures here on earth are causal to solar maxima----------so until/unless we find some other causal mechanism, the model wherein the sun drives climate extremes here on earth seems the most likely.

 

If it comes to it, remember what I posted for Yoron: I do not care to change people's mindsets.

 

If you want to learn, a good overview would be:

 

"A History of Solar Activity over Millennia"

by

Ilya G. Usoskin

 

Therein, you will find an introduction to the solar scientists and their studies.

Edited May 17, 2014 by sculptor

[Eclogite]

sculptor, I really wish you would avoid the appearance of talking down to people.

 

Yes, I suspect several of us are aware of a correlation between solar activity and temperatures. We know this. We get it. OK?

 

But we are also aware of the influence of variations in the orbital and spin characteristics of the planet that combine in the Milankovitch cycles to create fluctuations in climate. And we are aware that carbon dioxide must, by theoretical calculation and by observation, impact on global climate. And we understand that these factors and others combine together to produce the final outcome. We recognise that some of these could produce a warming trend at the same time that some produce a cooling trend.

 

However, individuals, teams, groups and organisations who have been studying these matters for decades have concluded, with an overwhelming degree of agreement, that on balance the Earth is warming and that the cause of this is the rapid injection of carbon, sequestered for hundreds of millions of years, into the atmosphere by human activity. For someone who has taken such positive steps to reduce their carbon footprint that is a decidedly odd and illogical position to adopt.

[CraigD]

(credentials/background/disclaimer: In the brief idyll before I descended into IT, I was a serious enough astronomer to intern in it, and have my own copy of the keys to my college’s observatory, then ca. 1990 when a job led me live next door to NASA Goddard, and I found myself with a peer-ish neighbor who was a genuine solar physics scientist there, so I’ve a long, fond, inexpert acquaintance with the field)

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.

I’ve not heard of this last hypothesis – that the giant planet have an significant effect on the Sun – and I found nothing on the first few page of a google search of “effect of giant planets on sun” and ‘"gravitational influences of the giant planets" sun’. It’s intriguing, but, pardon the pun, strikes me as far-fetched. Do you have links or references for it, Sculptor?

 

Why is climate change mostly viewed in the negative?

I think it – I prefer the older term “global warming” to the arguably more descriptive, newer “climate change” – is mostly viewed in the negative because its viewed by human beings in a self-interested mode, and the strong scientific consensus is that it is likely to dramatically change the abundance of water, which is both essential and dangerous to humans. People many places fear that their water supplies will dwindle below what’s necessary to sustain them, while people on coasts fear flooding.

 

Ecological change is not viewed as negative from all perspectives.

 

Biologically, what’s bad for everyday human living can be good for biodiversity.

 

Sea level and ice changes make previously ice-locked arctic coasts accessible by boat – I find it dramatic that the Northwest passage, which was enticing, yet, until 1906, impenetrable, and then took 3 years, much risk, and admitted only a small (21 m) boat (Amundsen’s Goja), has since 2009 been made somewhat routinely by even fiberglass boats, and in 2013, by the 225 m bulk carrier Nordic Orion (saving 1800 km/US$80000 compared to a Panama Canal route).

 

Most people, though, are much less interested in biodiversity or sailing the Northwest passage than in having ample fresh water and not being flooded.

[Turtle]

Have you looked at the long term solar cycles?

 

Would you like me to provide some links?

 

Do you understand that we have most likely just exited a grand solar maximum?

From the climate records it becomes obvious that ... snip

Proof by Handwaving

 

The proof by handwaving, in seven simple steps:

1. Assure your command of the flow of the presentation. ...

2. At your chalkboard, or reasonable analogue, write the starting state of the problem. ...

3. Wave your non-writing hand around vacuously as you declare any constants or variables. ...

4. Attempt to impart as little information as possible; eschew elucidation; admit nothing. ...

5. Cycle through these steps two or three times. ...

6. Right before the crucial leap of logic that will enlighten the audience with your brilliant solution or results, stop dictating your own writing to the board. ...

7. Now, clearly state the solution, you may wish to preface it with "therefore", or if you prefer, epilogue with "que-ee-dee". Then walk to a seat with deliberation. Take no questions.

 

Conclusion:

Anecdotal evidence seems to support the theory that the proof by handwaving is most successful when the presenter possesses, or is believed to possess, or is paid to pretend to possess, expert knowledge of the topic. This power disparity between the presenter and the audience may hold the means by which to rate the effectiveness of any given attempt at proof by handwaving.

 

The proof by handwaving differs from discursive handwaving in that it is a distraction, a little act of magic, used disingenuously by the unprepared or charlatan. Facility in the employ of the proof by handwaving is not acheived through the practice of waving hands or tai chi push hands.

Edited May 17, 2014 by Turtle

[Buffy]

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. 

 

That's exactly what I've been saying since my first post in this thread. And quite frankly in dozens of other threads on this site.

 

What you absolutely refused to address any any of your responses is the relative strengths of these effects compared to our pumping massive quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere in amounts that are unprecedented.

 

The ONLY justification for your argument is to provide proof that the relative strength of these cycles will overwhelm our pumping of CO2 into the environment.

 

What is interesting is that the data you've provided is absolutely fabulous, albeit not 100% conclusive, data backing up my argument: it's the cycles that have been completely overwhelmed by the increase in CO2.

 

I thank you for presenting an extended overview of all these cycles, but if you read through them, what do they ALL say? "We should be in a cooling trend and depending on which cycle you pick, it should have started a long time ago."

 

The time period you cherry picked in the graph was a fabulous data point because unlike every other decline in the past century, it doesn't decline, it only goes flat.

 

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

 

Actually we have plenty of instrumentation in place to understand it, although with science, more data points are always better. 

 

But when there's a tornado a half-mile away, you don't really need a high-powered telescope to "be sure it's a tornado."

 

The real problem is people running around saying "ignore all of the science, there's nothing to worry about, and we shouldn't do anything."

 

 

Sorry to shout, but all of your posts that ignore the bolded issues above might lead observers to think there is a rational, two-sided debate about this topic, and there really isn't. Are solar/planetary cycles an interesting issue? Sure, but absolutely none of this hasn't already been thought through clearly--and without irrational fear--and worked into many of the models that continue to show that tornado is headed straight for us.

 

 

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you, :phones:

Buffy 

[sculptor]

I’ve not heard of this last hypothesis – that the giant planet have an significant effect on the Sun – and I found nothing on the first few page of a google search of “effect of giant planets on sun” and ‘"gravitational influences of the giant planets" sun’. It’s intriguing, but, pardon the pun, strikes me as far-fetched. Do you have links or references for it, Sculptor?

 

Hi CraigD

far fetched--- far out fersure

I have too many tabs open on this old computer to do a thorough search. I found that little tidbit while reading what's new in discussions of the wolf-gleissberg cycles. I think it was a link from  a discussion as to the pattern being based on using jovian years as mentioned here in post #61.

I cannot remember the path I took in finding that little tidbit, but the astrophysics blogosphere has many inputs on the subject. If memory serves this is an old supposition dating back before the early 80s. one of the early prognostications would have been from  Schwentek and Elling circa early 80s

I'll try and remember the path I took, but here's a researchgate link to an article by wilson.et.al.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/252842547_Does_a_Spin-Orbit_Coupling_Between_the_Sun_and_the_Jovian_Planets_Govern_the_Solar_Cycle

I think that timo also weighed in on the subject

 

Please share your thoughts as to the validity of the hypothesis

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

as re droughts and floods

Nothing I've found in researching paleoclimates during warmer periods, like mis11 and 31 support those prognostications. For mis 11, there was a dig in Tenessee which showed virtually no change from present. The general rule seems to be that colder= dryer, warmer= wetter.

Sometimes, it seems that when people do not have faith in their research or product, they fall back on using fear as a sales tool.

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

may I borrow your brain to opine on the recent solar maximum

Do you think that the much higher than normal solar activity starting circa 1940 could accurately be described as a grand solar maximum?

For minima, we have long and short cycle delineation as in...long sporer minima and short maunder minima, is the same applied to maxima?

Edited May 18, 2014 by sculptor

[sculptor]

That's exactly what I've been saying since my first post in this thread. And quite frankly in dozens of other threads on this site.

 

What you absolutely refused to address any any of your responses is the relative strengths of these effects compared to our pumping massive quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere in amounts that are unprecedented.

 

The real problem is people running around saying "ignore all of the science, there's nothing to worry about, and we shouldn't do anything."

 

 

as/re relative strengths:

There's the rub.

There is currently a great schism in the scientific community between the solar scientists, and those focusing on the anthropocene.

It seems as though the anthropocene guys are ignoring the astrophysicists, and some of the solar scientists are beginning to refer to the anthropocene guys as though they were mentally ill, or have chosen ignorance as a way of life. Some solar scientists are completely dismissing the AGW claims.

 

These guys really need to get over their personal problems and combine their research so that we actually can have some semblance of a consensus as to the relative forcings of man vs the sun.

 

In the meantime. we amateurs are left with our own biases to lead us to our own guestimates.

 

The CO2 levels ain't "unprecedented". Many times in the past we have had much higher global average temperatures and much higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2.

 

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

as/re :ignore all of the science,"

Some folks just don't love the research. Some pretend to understand the science. Some have personal agendas. Some just want to seem important.

Some "scientists" seem to think that hyperbole is a valid communication device. I suspect that these brazen fools do more harm to the science than even the most ardent luddite could.  

 

Personally, I worry often about rampant willful ignorance, and the oft voiced desire for someone to do something about something that is not understood or well thought out.

Kind of like how teenagers drive.

 

meanwhile, I have Tchaikovsky's 6th on----a tad heavy on the strings for my tastes, but i really do like it.

[Buffy]

There is currently a great schism in the scientific community between the solar scientists, and those focusing on the anthropocene.

It seems as though the anthropocene guys are ignoring the astrophysicists, and some of the solar scientists are beginning to refer to the anthropocene guys as though they were mentally ill, or have chosen ignorance as a way of life. Some solar scientists are completely dismissing the AGW claims.

 

I haven't seen any AGW denying solar scientists, in fact the models have in most cases incorporated not only short, but long solar cycles as well.

 

Care to provide any examples of this "schism?"

 

 

The CO2 levels ain't "unprecedented". Many times in the past we have had much higher global average temperatures and much higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2.

 

You're not listening: I said the LEVELS are not unprecedented. The thing that is unprecedented is the RATE OF INCREASE. That means that the historical record as a guide kind of goes out the window for any assumption that natural forcing will have a historically similar effect to past cycles.

 

 

Personally, I worry often about rampant willful ignorance, and the oft voiced desire for someone to do something about something that is not understood or well thought out.

 

Well the rampant ignorance is mostly on the side of DO NOTHING. There is certainly a desire by many--although a minority because absolutely it could be dangerous--to engage in full bore geo-engineering, but even that is a tempered and "let's figure out what we're doing and experiment a bit first" not a mindless "ACK LET'S SEED ALL THE CLOUDS EVERYWHERE!" or "WE HAVE TO PUMP PARTICULATES IN THE AIR!!! WHO CARES IF THEY'RE CANCER FORMING! JUST DO ANYTHING NOW!"

 

Now maybe you're seeing some of that and you're welcome to present examples here, but dear, there are loonies on both ends of the spectrum, but the Right side of the U-shaped curve is much much bigger than the left.

 

Fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the scientific community is following the Hippocratic Oath: First Do No Harm, which in this case means stop pumping so much CO2 in the air as quickly as possible. 

 

The data right now indicates that even if you do believe that the RELATIVE contribution of solar input is pretty powerful, we're STILL pumping way way too much in to do the Geo-Engineering to avoid that impending ice age.

 

So, uh, Geo-Engineering to avoid the ice age...who's suggesting radical stuff now? 

 

 

When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative, :phones:

Buffy