Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[Toltec]

LongQ said:

For those who feel the geology is(or should be) a valid and important part of what we know as Climate Science, here is a link that you might appreciate.

The start of the post sets out what the objective of the discussion is intended to be and so is worth reading.

http://euanmearns.com/the-geological-society-of-lo...


The is a rather excellent précis of what geology/climate science seems to be telling us posted by "Javier" here.

http://euanmearns.com/the-geological-society-of-lo...


Note that the comments are being moderated with the intention of keeping comments right on topic.

I read this bit "Palaeoclimatologists think that initial warming driven by changes in the Earth’s orbit and axial tilt" and thought WTF? Then realised they probably just mean normal precession and orbital variation not some unexpected change.

[Gandahar]

Artic and Antarctic sea ice extents low for this time of year again.

Are they a bell weather for climate change though?

If not why are both low? The Arctic been has decreasing for many years, until 2015 Antarctic was increasing, but now a big swing in the Antarctic the other way. More investigation needed. Been a while since both poles were low together, how does that affect global albedo factor effects?

Thoughts?

[PRTVR]

Could it be a different movement of the cold air, we have had record cold temperatures in places like California, friends in Calgary have been reporting heavier than normal snow fall even to the point they have closed schools, a rare occurrence according to a teacher friend, even snow in the Sahara desert
If these places are colder, perhaps the poles are warmer, not that the earth is warming just that the distribution of the heat has changed.
Why ? I blame wind turbines

[Jinx]

Gandahar said:

Artic and Antarctic sea ice extents low for this time of year again.

Are they a bell weather for climate change though?

If not why are both low? The Arctic been has decreasing for many years, until 2015 Antarctic was increasing, but now a big swing in the Antarctic the other way. More investigation needed. Been a while since both poles were low together, how does that affect global albedo factor effects?

Thoughts?

Cyclones compacting sea ice reducing extent and area - also known as weather. Global albedo unaffected (angle of incidence at polar latitudes make open water and ice similar albedo) - global heat loss from oceans during winter is increased with less ice cover (ice cover keeps arctic ocean warmer than without the ice) - negative feedback. 1970's base line set during global temp drop = greater sea ice extent - comparing now with 20th Century maxima = politics pretending to be science.
Antarctic suffers from intense geothermal activity - link with CO2 - none.

[Toltec]

Jinx said:

Cyclones compacting sea ice reducing extent and area - also known as weather. Global albedo unaffected (angle of incidence at polar latitudes make open water and ice similar albedo) - global heat loss from oceans during winter is increased with less ice cover (ice cover keeps arctic ocean warmer than without the ice) - negative feedback. 1970's base line set during global temp drop = greater sea ice extent - comparing now with 20th Century maxima = politics pretending to be science.
Antarctic suffers from intense geothermal activity - link with CO2 - none.

I've been having a look at the negative feedback mechanisms, logically they must be there as previous high CO2 and temperatures have naturally cycled back into low CO2 and ice ages, though not necessarily together. When the ice melts it increases the volume of water available, decreases the temperature and salinity all of which increase the amount of CO2 which can be held in solution. In terms of temperature this may be temporary if heat continues to be absorbed by the oceans. Logically we can also not release more CO2 than was present before the creatures and plant life that became fossil fuels removed it from the atmosphere.

This does not mean the planet cannot become rather uncomfortable for humans and lead to mass extinctions of other species, however natural changes could do that too. It seems to me that the rate of change is more of a problem than the degree of change itself, I think it will be several decades or more before we know if we are seeing a short term change or a sustained change.

[Jinx]

Toltec said:

It seems to me that the rate of change is more of a problem than the degree of change itself, I think it will be several decades or more before we know if we are seeing a short term change or a sustained change.

The rate of global temperature change is no different than previous periods in the early 20th century (before CO2 from anthropogenic sources can be attributed - IPCC AR5) and the diurnal/seasonal temperature and CO2 changes far outstrip the minor global variance - without millions of cadavers lying in the streets or floating in the oceans.
If you want to experience the entire effect of global warming then move 100 miles closer to the equator. In several decades it is quite possible we will find out the solar scientists are correct and TB will make a killing on candle and Damart shares

[Toltec]

Jinx said:

The rate of global temperature change is no different than previous periods in the early 20th century (before CO2 from anthropogenic sources can be attributed - IPCC AR5) and the diurnal/seasonal temperature and CO2 changes far outstrip the minor global variance - without millions of cadavers lying in the streets or floating in the oceans.
If you want to experience the entire effect of global warming then move 100 miles closer to the equator. In several decades it is quite possible we will find out the solar scientists are correct and TB will make a killing on candle and Damart shares

The rise up to about 1940? Yes, interesting that one isn't it? Ignoring the cause, rapid and sustained climate change will be inconvenient for humans if for no other reason than a sea level rise will be a problem for cities built on low lying land at the coast.

We are planning to move about 300 miles north in the next few years.

[Jinx]

Toltec said:

The rise up to about 1940? Yes, interesting that one isn't it? Ignoring the cause, rapid and sustained climate change will be inconvenient for humans if for no other reason than a sea level rise will be a problem for cities built on low lying land at the coast.

We are planning to move about 300 miles north in the next few years.

Sea level rise?

What with the oceans floors dropping, land rising and more estimates and fudges then in the temperature data, all we can say is "yep about a couple of mm steady rate" since the little ice age.

[Toltec]

Jinx said:

Toltec said:

The rise up to about 1940? Yes, interesting that one isn't it? Ignoring the cause, rapid and sustained climate change will be inconvenient for humans if for no other reason than a sea level rise will be a problem for cities built on low lying land at the coast.

We are planning to move about 300 miles north in the next few years.

Sea level rise?

What with the oceans floors dropping, land rising and more estimates and fudges then in the temperature data, all we can say is "yep about a couple of mm steady rate" since the little ice age.

Looks like it will depend on local conditions then, some cities may be affected depending on relative sea level then? Of course that would still happen irrespective of CC

[mondeoman]

Gandahar said:

Artic and Antarctic sea ice extents low for this time of year again.

Are they a bell weather for climate change though?

If not why are both low? The Arctic been has decreasing for many years, until 2015 Antarctic was increasing, but now a big swing in the Antarctic the other way. More investigation needed. Been a while since both poles were low together, how does that affect global albedo factor effects?

Thoughts?

Shamelessly stolen from another site...

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2869646


Detrended correlation analysis of mean monthly sea ice extent with air temperature at an annual time scale in both Polar Oceans shows the expected negative correlation in 14 out of 36 cases studied. The other 22 cases, including the high profile case of September sea ice extent in the Arctic, show no evidence that temperature alone explains sea ice extent. We conclude that other factors such as wind, clouds, solar irradiance, and ocean circulation may be relevant in the study of differences in mean monthly sea ice extent for the same calendar month from year to year.

In other words, correlation isnt correlation at all, just wishful thinking..

[Terminator X]

"How can the planet support a growing human population with increasing energy and resource use without us starting to kill each other in pursuit of said resources?" It's tailing off though and all the experts predict it to slow right down as the world birth rates drop. We are clever now see, less babies needed.

TX.

[Toltec]

Terminator X said:

"How can the planet support a growing human population with increasing energy and resource use without us starting to kill each other in pursuit of said resources?" It's tailing off though and all the experts predict it to slow right down as the world birth rates drop. We are clever now see, less babies needed.

TX.

The prediction is something like 11 billion iirc, which requires a steadily increasing quality of life for the currently poorest section of the population. In turn that will require more power, manufacture of goods, transport and food production. Just a quick search has some people/sites saying the planet can only really supply enough food for 9 to 10 billion, depending if everyone can be persuaded to become vegetarian. To control CO2 output the currently high income population may need to be persuaded to adopt a lower standard of living or at least a less profligate one to balance the increasing output from what were poorer less developed populations. That assumes the current political drive to reduce CO2 continues.

The next century is certainly going to be an interesting time for humanity and the planet as a whole.

[Gandahar]

Jinx said:

Gandahar said:

Artic and Antarctic sea ice extents low for this time of year again.

Are they a bell weather for climate change though?

If not why are both low? The Arctic been has decreasing for many years, until 2015 Antarctic was increasing, but now a big swing in the Antarctic the other way. More investigation needed. Been a while since both poles were low together, how does that affect global albedo factor effects?

Thoughts?

Cyclones compacting sea ice reducing extent and area - also known as weather. Global albedo unaffected (angle of incidence at polar latitudes make open water and ice similar albedo) - global heat loss from oceans during winter is increased with less ice cover (ice cover keeps arctic ocean warmer than without the ice) - negative feedback. 1970's base line set during global temp drop = greater sea ice extent - comparing now with 20th Century maxima = politics pretending to be science.
Antarctic suffers from intense geothermal activity - link with CO2 - none.

"Antarctic suffers from intense geothermal activity"

Really? It was increasing gradually until 2015 and then had a huge decrease in that year. Please show evidence of "intense" geothermal activity since 2015. Or are you just making it up?

"Cyclones compacting sea ice reducing extent and area"

Yes but ....

Wind tends to extend ice extent outwards not inwards in general. In the Arctic the very low summer extent of 2012 was due to a storm splitting up the ice and it melting out. Also, winds in the Arctic can compress and melt ice to reduce extent such as the end of summer when the ice is part melted and diverse and the warm wind is from the south. This was the case in the low of 2007.
Winds are very good at doing lows, such as 2007 and 2012 but they are not very good at making the trend still go down if we ignore those two exceptional summer lows in the Arctic. So in summary cyclones are not a reason for a 30 year decline.


"global heat loss from oceans during winter is increased with less ice cover (ice cover keeps arctic ocean warmer than without the ice)"

so you are admitting less ice cover now in winter in the Arctic? Why?

[Gandahar]

mondeoman said:

Gandahar said:

Artic and Antarctic sea ice extents low for this time of year again.

Are they a bell weather for climate change though?

If not why are both low? The Arctic been has decreasing for many years, until 2015 Antarctic was increasing, but now a big swing in the Antarctic the other way. More investigation needed. Been a while since both poles were low together, how does that affect global albedo factor effects?

Thoughts?

Shamelessly stolen from another site...

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2869646


Detrended correlation analysis of mean monthly sea ice extent with air temperature at an annual time scale in both Polar Oceans shows the expected negative correlation in 14 out of 36 cases studied. The other 22 cases, including the high profile case of September sea ice extent in the Arctic, show no evidence that temperature alone explains sea ice extent. We conclude that other factors such as wind, clouds, solar irradiance, and ocean circulation may be relevant in the study of differences in mean monthly sea ice extent for the same calendar month from year to year.

In other words, correlation isnt correlation at all, just wishful thinking..

They said

"We conclude that other factors such as wind, clouds, solar irradiance, and ocean circulation may be relevant in the study of differences in mean monthly sea ice extent for the same calendar month from year to year."

You don't say, wow ! Are they saying, as we say one here

"that's called weather"




Hence why long term stats are needed.

I mentioned above why the two historic low sea ice extent in the Arctic of 2007 and 2012 need to be assessed in context. 2007 summer had an unusually large number of sunny days and warm southerly winds which pushed and melted the ice northwards. 2012 had a huge storm that split the ice up just at max effect point and that melted out also.

We need to forget such weather stuff and concentrate on why the big changes over decade plus.

And the Arctic is decreasing, even without the two low outliers I mentioned above.

[Jinx]

Gandahar said:

"Antarctic suffers from intense geothermal activity"

Really? It was increasing gradually until 2015 and then had a huge decrease in that year. Please show evidence of "intense" geothermal activity since 2015. Or are you just making it up?

Geothermal activity is not a constant and changes - the only way to measure the change is to see the effects. You have seen the effects (air temp is not to blame so CO2 is not to blame - not that the levels of CO2 are particularly high where there is no green life) so it is a reasonable explanation given the known geology .

Gandahar said:

"Cyclones compacting sea ice reducing extent and area"

Yes but ....

Wind tends to extend ice extent outwards not inwards in general. In the Arctic the very low summer extent of 2012 was due to a storm splitting up the ice and it melting out. Also, winds in the Arctic can compress and melt ice to reduce extent such as the end of summer when the ice is part melted and diverse and the warm wind is from the south. This was the case in the low of 2007.
Winds are very good at doing lows, such as 2007 and 2012 but they are not very good at making the trend still go down if we ignore those two exceptional summer lows in the Arctic. So in summary cyclones are not a reason for a 30 year decline.


"global heat loss from oceans during winter is increased with less ice cover (ice cover keeps arctic ocean warmer than without the ice)"

so you are admitting less ice cover now in winter in the Arctic? Why?

Extent as has been estimated (these are not true measurements) appears to be lower than in other years - the weather patterns are different than in recent past years (hence the beast from the east) as such to expect the "in general" during a "not usual" is rather daft is it not?
As to admitting less ice cover - yes there appears to be less ice extent according to the estimates - nothing to fear as this has a negative feedback process.
30 year decline - as measured from the high due to the global cooling in the latter part of the 60s/70s (probably being erased in the next global temperature revision) - is nothing to fear - polar bears are at a high population wise (much to the annoyance of seals) and doesn't have any real drawbacks.
Chicken little-ing over the ice cap because adjusted temperature trend data isn't scaring anyone anymore is not science - and is trying to find a horror story from just chaotic measurement data. If the trend was going the other way I would start to worry (as this is something real to fear and not just for Al Gore's sanity) .

[Gandahar]

"Geothermal activity is not a constant and changes - the only way to measure the change is to see the effects."

Good point, in the Antarctic currently volcanoes are adding this as a minimum

0

and as a maximum

0

Using an average I worked out that the total effect of the low sea ice extent from volcanoes as

0 plus of minus another 0.

Now that is maths and science in action !

[Gandahar]

Global sea ice extent, and thats with all the red hot volcanoes spouting liquid magma down there.

Edited by Gandahar on Saturday 10th March 22:14

[Globs]

Jinx said:

the weather patterns are different than in recent past years (hence the beast from the east)

What was unusual about the 'beast from the east'?
Didn't have the same in 2010?
I also remember the same back in the 1980s.

Mind you, they didn't give them stupid names then so that was a lot better.

[Jinx]

Globs said:

Jinx said:

the weather patterns are different than in recent past years (hence the beast from the east)

What was unusual about the 'beast from the east'?
Didn't have the same in 2010?
I also remember the same back in the 1980s.

Mind you, they didn't give them stupid names then so that was a lot better.

That was my point - only recent past years (5 of them) . The press has a very short memory for weather they also do stupid things like comparing a days maximum temperature with the monthly average - as if a monthly average tells you anything about a single day.

[Toltec]

Globs said:

What was unusual about the 'beast from the east'?
Didn't have the same in 2010?
I also remember the same back in the 1980s.

Mind you, they didn't give them stupid names then so that was a lot better.

1990-91 lasted longer too, this was barely a week, I think people are just getting less tolerant of anything interrupting their normal routines and expect someone to fix it quickly.