|
Post by graywolf on Sept 5, 2015 16:55:37 GMT
How fast does CO2 normally get into the atmosphere compared to our recent additions Siggy? Does that speed of introduction matter at all ?
My concerns revolve around such timings? We know , after the dust settles ( i.e. enough time has elapsed for all impacts to manifest?) but not as things are ongoing? Here the past might have no lessons for us? We need look for times when GHG forcings increased at a similar rate to today's rises and see how global temps reacted ( and how 'universally'?) back then?
Take a stream. You have a billion gallons of water to add to it. The first time you introduce a slow steady flow 'till the tank is empty. What impacts would you expect to the stream ( its banks , base and the life in/around it?). Next Dump the whole tank in the stream ,all at once......
The results of both 'events' would show us what happens when you add that water to the stream but the two results , though both 'fact', will differ vastly?
I do not think that things just act like you've pushed the fast forward button on the V.T. ? Change the rate of introduction ( temp rise or GHG rises) and you surely alter the results?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 6, 2015 0:17:43 GMT
Yes and no Graywolf.
There are ice core results from Antarctica that indicate potential levels of CO2. There are also a myriad of papers using plant stoma to measure CO2. There is a wide different in presented results. Antarctica is always way lower, in some cases 1,000's of ppmv different. Which is to be expected, being Antarctica is an isolated area.
The other area that one has to examine is the actual forcing that CO2 does exert on long term climate. The glaring thing that most ardent believers want to ignore, is that temps have fallen rapidly while CO2 has also risen rapidly. In paleo times of long term high CO2, 2-5,000 ppmv, vegitation ran rampant. Even today, with the slight rise in CO2, vegetation is taking off, already altering fringes of deserts in the world.
I have read 10's of papers trying to explain how CO2 radiation actually can warm water. I have called 7 authors of said papers to go through their methodology. Guess what, their methodology stunk. The penetrating power of CO2 is not conducive to raising water temps. On the other hand, UV most certainly IS.
There are hints that clouds have reduced themselves 4-5% in the past 60 years. IF that is the case, I am surprised the oceans are NOT a lot warmer than present. UV is a VERY high energy light band. Compared to CO2 band, UV is over 70% more potent, using CORRECT percentage formulas. (You can NEVER have 101% of anything. IF you come to that answer, you did NOT do proper math!!)
I love to read papers, and I am not afraid of calling the author to discuss said papers. I called the author of a paper on the Eemian sea levels. In his paper, he indicated a period of less than 200 years, +- 100 years, that sea levels rose 9 meters. He figured this is when most of Greenlands Ice Sheet melted off. There was a later period where sea levels rose quickly as well. He figured this was when the WP of Antarctica melted off. I asked him about his certainty in resolution, hence the +-100 years. Ocean core resolution is what he was relying on for that, and low and behold, that is pretty accurate.
So, am I worried about a reduction in Arctic Ice? YES, but only because EACH of the times in the Holocene that Arctic Ice has been reduced to winter ice, it cooled FAST worldwide. There was a paper last year from the Univ of Wisconsin that talked about "step changes" in climate. One heck of a paper. Looking back, it is easy to see the step changes even within the Holocene.
As I keep saying. Another 2.0C or more of warming doesn't bother me in the least. But a 3.0C or greater cooling? That WOULD result in world wide pestilence on a Biblical Scale.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 6, 2015 4:33:04 GMT
How fast does CO2 normally get into the atmosphere compared to our recent additions Siggy? Does that speed of introduction matter at all ? My concerns revolve around such timings? We know , after the dust settles ( i.e. enough time has elapsed for all impacts to manifest?) but not as things are ongoing? Here the past might have no lessons for us? We need look for times when GHG forcings increased at a similar rate to today's rises and see how global temps reacted ( and how 'universally'?) back then? Take a stream. You have a billion gallons of water to add to it. The first time you introduce a slow steady flow 'till the tank is empty. What impacts would you expect to the stream ( its banks , base and the life in/around it?). Next Dump the whole tank in the stream ,all at once...... The results of both 'events' would show us what happens when you add that water to the stream but the two results , though both 'fact', will differ vastly? I do not think that things just act like you've pushed the fast forward button on the V.T. ? Change the rate of introduction ( temp rise or GHG rises) and you surely alter the results? Well generally what has happened is CO2 has been introduced into the atmosphere at more than 10 times the rate of the first half of the century and there was no significant difference in warming. Its a situation that computer models (which overly focus on CO2) have been unable to replicate. We have several problems that need sorting out before we can understand our atmosphere and how climate changes. First we need a standardized measure over time. We completely lack that as surface records have been modified repeatedly and old methodologies have been abandoned. Doing things one way is a much better approach to observing small trends in climate change. Our temperature records are not accurate and are commonly believed that they may be in error by as much as 2 degrees Celsius. That error is the primary argument for using anomalies as opposed to actual temperature. But if anomalies are going to be correct you need a longterm standardized approach to observation. What we have instead is a lot of people working on corrections to the temperature records (including the satellite records) for the purpose of getting more accurate measurements and old methods are no longer continued. Of course thats about how things tend to work when you are disorganized in your approach with a lot of unrelated people doing the work. What gets adopted is what is popular, not necessarily what is correct. The science community and certain political interests would like us to adopt a method of acting on the most popular science. However to do so would sacrifice our freedoms without first establishing an important need to do so. Shaky models are used in fishery management and they that is regarded as necessary because of our knowledge of the hugely negative effects of excessive effort on fish stocks where entire fisheries go economically extinct and families depending upon them are greatly harmed. There you need to move cautiously but decisively and be ready to change your mind quickly when new information comes available. Doing so provides a learning experience and while it harms families that depend upon the fisheries it has been demonstrated to limit the degree of damage that comes from the lack of management. Somebody with little to worry about may invent fears about great harm from human caused climate change but it would be a good idea to first figure out if more CO2 will be better than less CO2 before actually doing anything. People are always more receptive to change when you show them a reason why as opposed to just making stuff up or focusing exclusively on the fact that change is going have a variety of effects and trying to cherry pick the more negative ones.
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Sept 7, 2015 3:33:56 GMT
How fast does CO2 normally get into the atmosphere compared to our recent additions Siggy? Does that speed of introduction matter at all ? My concerns revolve around such timings? We know , after the dust settles ( i.e. enough time has elapsed for all impacts to manifest?) but not as things are ongoing? Here the past might have no lessons for us? We need look for times when GHG forcings increased at a similar rate to today's rises and see how global temps reacted ( and how 'universally'?) back then? Take a stream. You have a billion gallons of water to add to it. The first time you introduce a slow steady flow 'till the tank is empty. What impacts would you expect to the stream ( its banks , base and the life in/around it?). Next Dump the whole tank in the stream ,all at once...... The results of both 'events' would show us what happens when you add that water to the stream but the two results , though both 'fact', will differ vastly? I do not think that things just act like you've pushed the fast forward button on the V.T. ? Change the rate of introduction ( temp rise or GHG rises) and you surely alter the results? Graywolf, I understand your need to see CO2 as the root of all evil. However, if true... www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT4%2050yr%20AnnualTrendSinceDecember1899.gifDid CO2 go down from the early 1950s to the mid-1980s? How does one explain the two parallel warming periods from 1915 to 1950 and the 1980s to the early 21st century?
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 7, 2015 4:21:46 GMT
So, am I worried about a reduction in Arctic Ice? YES, but only because EACH of the times in the Holocene that Arctic Ice has been reduced to winter ice, it cooled FAST worldwide. There was a paper last year from the Univ of Wisconsin that talked about "step changes" in climate. One heck of a paper. Looking back, it is easy to see the step changes even within the Holocene. If you recall the source, i'd love to read that one. Sounds a little like the downward temperature steps between El Ninos that Joe Bastardi's been talking about on his weekly forecast.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 7, 2015 4:24:42 GMT
Won't be quick but I will try and find it.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Sept 7, 2015 4:58:37 GMT
We what can be said is that the noise if that is what you want to call is bigger than the purported trend.
I don't think that we can argue that there is a change in the climate over the last 50 years but to stick it on CO2 is probably silly. UHI is where I see a massive impact and land use changes.
But the biggest impact is memory fade and cherry picked memory selection.
I lived in a town which has a miserable climate and it has not changed much but can clearly remember the endless summers as a child. Memory and science are quite distinct. Or were they?
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Sept 7, 2015 8:56:50 GMT
How fast does CO2 normally get into the atmosphere compared to our recent additions Siggy? Does that speed of introduction matter at all ? My concerns revolve around such timings? We know , after the dust settles ( i.e. enough time has elapsed for all impacts to manifest?) but not as things are ongoing? Here the past might have no lessons for us? We need look for times when GHG forcings increased at a similar rate to today's rises and see how global temps reacted ( and how 'universally'?) back then? Take a stream. You have a billion gallons of water to add to it. The first time you introduce a slow steady flow 'till the tank is empty. What impacts would you expect to the stream ( its banks , base and the life in/around it?). Next Dump the whole tank in the stream ,all at once...... The results of both 'events' would show us what happens when you add that water to the stream but the two results , though both 'fact', will differ vastly? I do not think that things just act like you've pushed the fast forward button on the V.T. ? Change the rate of introduction ( temp rise or GHG rises) and you surely alter the results? Graywolf, I understand your need to see CO2 as the root of all evil. However, if true... www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT4%2050yr%20AnnualTrendSinceDecember1899.gifDid CO2 go down from the early 1950s to the mid-1980s? How does one explain the two parallel warming periods from 1915 to 1950 and the 1980s to the early 21st century? Now I do not recall anyone trying to push for CO2 being the only driver in global temps? We have just seen a period of slowdown in atmospheric temp rate of change again since the dizzy heights of the 98' super Nino. Two things impact atmospheric temp change and they are 'natural forcings' and the evil twin of CO2 , 'particulate/Sulphate pollution. Your graphic shows the impact of our ( western europe/USA) dirty dimming at a time when naturals also pushed to slow atmospheric temp gains. you can see the impacts that 'clean air' initiatives then had on those temps but also what then occurred as 'naturals' flipped positive? We are still amid the Asian Dimming period ( TV's in Beijing city centre showing images of the sun above the smog!!!!) but the huge death toll from impacts of ground level pollution is causing a rapid increase in 'cleaner' emissions to stave off this massacre of those worse impacted by the smogs. With naturals appearing to flip positive over the last two years and this ongoing 'cleanup' ( sulphates can take up to 7 years to 'wash out' of the atmosphere but the small bit of 'particulate wash out every downpour) in China I wonder if we are due another 'uptick' in warming with the GHG's offset by 'dimming' now able to show impact? As an aside it will be interesting to see what occurs in the Pacific downwind of China as more and more sunlight is allowed through the smog blanket at a time when the IPO flips positive allowing warmed water to stay at the surface instead of being taken down into deeper levels of the ocean ? Do we see a huge warm pool set up off the U.S.?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 7, 2015 18:46:01 GMT
So, am I worried about a reduction in Arctic Ice? YES, but only because EACH of the times in the Holocene that Arctic Ice has been reduced to winter ice, it cooled FAST worldwide. There was a paper last year from the Univ of Wisconsin that talked about "step changes" in climate. One heck of a paper. Looking back, it is easy to see the step changes even within the Holocene. If you recall the source, i'd love to read that one. Sounds a little like the downward temperature steps between El Ninos that Joe Bastardi's been talking about on his weekly forecast. It may be this one: " The Arctic Iris Effect, Dansgaard-Oeschger Events, and Climate Model Shortcomings. Lesson from Climate Past – part 1."
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 7, 2015 19:07:20 GMT
Nautonnier: That is a good read, but not the one from Wisconsin. The main thrust of the paper was the step type change in climate. That climate would be the same for short periods, then step up or down temperature wise. A cause of this wasn't established, but looking at the temperature record with newer shorter term resolutions, the steps were obvious.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 7, 2015 19:10:18 GMT
Graywolf: Note the temperature fluctuations during each of the past interglacials. As good as the resolution can be.
There has NEVER in ANY record been what could be called a static climate for the last million years.
A lot of this hype that this is different is just that, hype. NO one knows.
Since temps have been "recorded" there have been dramatic shifts in the Arctic. I don't care who you want to blame, that is the reality.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 9, 2015 0:48:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Sept 9, 2015 6:08:57 GMT
Better hope they don't get stuck trying to escape.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 9, 2015 7:29:31 GMT
Better hope they don't get stuck trying to escape. As you can see here they are heading South and still close to the pole and have only thin ice to pass thru and any thick ice that is out there can very easily be avoided. icefloe.net/Aloftcon_Photos/index.php?album=2015
|
|
|
Post by phydeaux2363 on Sept 9, 2015 15:14:10 GMT
Does anyone know if a study has been done on whether ice breaking in the Arctic contributes in a significant way to melting in the summer? Walt Meir, no denier he, has pooh poohed the idea, saying the increase in albedo (from the open water wake) would be minimal. But what about breaking up the ice? Especially in June and early July, wouldn't that cause more melt because smaller, broken pieces will melt faster than larger, stable ones when exposed to direct sunlight and the warmer open water? Anyone know how many icebreakers are plying the Arctic in the summer? Does it matter?
|
|