|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 10, 2012 1:08:18 GMT
Interesting read here. Seems that there have been rapid climate shifts in the past. The reasons for those shifts are not known. Being they are not known, could it be that we are in a shift at this time? www.pnas.org/content/99/25/16117.abstract
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Dec 10, 2012 2:38:25 GMT
Wow! Hard question to answer. The midpoint guess would suggest we might have a couple hundred more years to go from the patterns given (last event 1,140 before present so 160 more years to 1,200 years). But the shortest interval was only 1,160 years so 20 years is not much of a margin.
Lets hope not. Warming truly is our friend.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 10, 2012 11:53:30 GMT
What is not defined fully is the word 'abrupt'. Abrupt to a geologist is not the same as abrupt to a meteorologist. From other papers though it appears that drops into cold regimes can happen in a decade. Meanwhile, despite no evidence of runaway global warming, our politicians are gleefully creating 'carbon' taxes and 'green' taxes to 'help prevent climate change' They don't appear to have grasped the point that climate change is bi-directional. And under the precautionary principle that they keep spouting - they should also be getting ready for a regime shift to cold. But I do see some governments preparing for a cold climate shift, for example China is purchasing crop lands in Africa in significant amounts.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Dec 10, 2012 14:36:02 GMT
With all the bias and hidden agenda concerning climate change I think that one tell tale sign will be food production. In the past disruptions in the summer growing season can be used as a basis to mark climate shifts and I think it will be a good marker today as well.
Look out for multiyear production declines in crops in the NH as a precurser. Crop prices may be the first canary in the coal mine as higher prices will almost certainly lead to more crops being planted which may actually mask any declines in production for a while.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 10, 2012 14:57:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 10, 2012 15:00:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Dec 10, 2012 19:02:41 GMT
What is not defined fully is the word 'abrupt'. Abrupt to a geologist is not the same as abrupt to a meteorologist. From other papers though it appears that drops into cold regimes can happen in a decade. Meanwhile, despite no evidence of runaway global warming, our politicians are gleefully creating 'carbon' taxes and 'green' taxes to 'help prevent climate change' They don't appear to have grasped the point that climate change is bi-directional. And under the precautionary principle that they keep spouting - they should also be getting ready for a regime shift to cold. But I do see some governments preparing for a cold climate shift, for example China is purchasing crop lands in Africa in significant amounts. To me it´s a joke that the ´solution´ for many enviromental problems affecting health and ´fair play´in bussiness... many of them created by markets-greed underlying principles could rely on the creation of a literally brand new Market of the Air, mean CO2... I would be very happy if new industry settles in Spain if all they produce as waste is CO2... And artificial markets and bubbles isn´t what global economy needs... Hunger, extreme poverty, outreageous regimes, war... that is what should worry all of us. About China: if Obama convinces Chinese that -for instance- due to overall ´farting´production -which is 10 times green-house effect higher than Co2- Chinese should either reduce their intake of rice or enlarge their middle-class and start spending money domestically, letting their currency increase their value etc... if by any mean they do so... well we all would be much better off... And well founded middle classes are the base for Democracy. That´s why degradation of European and American middle classes is something we should worry about quite a lot...
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Dec 10, 2012 19:07:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Dec 10, 2012 19:35:17 GMT
What is not defined fully is the word 'abrupt'. Abrupt to a geologist is not the same as abrupt to a meteorologist. From other papers though it appears that drops into cold regimes can happen in a decade.
I think in the Palio world 10 years is the resolution and only in the best cores so what may be a 1 year change in the climate world can only be plotted as a less than 10 year change.
Foram mixing and deposition thickness and episodic markers are some of the constraints here. Ironic as it may seem it is the oil industry that has honed this science.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Dec 10, 2012 21:34:49 GMT
What is not defined fully is the word 'abrupt'. Abrupt to a geologist is not the same as abrupt to a meteorologist. From other papers though it appears that drops into cold regimes can happen in a decade. I think in the Palio world 10 years is the resolution and only in the best cores so what may be a 1 year change in the climate world can only be plotted as a less than 10 year change. Foram mixing and deposition thickness and episodic markers are some of the constraints here. Ironic as it may seem it is the oil industry that has honed this science. A good point Nonentropic. Climate is really spread out over a 30-year cycle (for me it's 36 years) and these regimes are global warming and global cooling. We really don't see 'abrupt' climate changes on Earth unless there are anomalous events that impact the world's climate, i.e., multiple volcanic eruptions, asteroid strikes, etc. Otherwise, it is the condition of the Sun that makes all the difference. And for the past 32 years we've been in solar-forced global warming with about four years to go; so we are on the down-trending of that with global cooling on the horizon. What is much more likely are transitional climate trending between global warming to global cooling and we've been in this transition since the 2000s with anomalous signs of cooler climate events like Superstorm Sandy for instance - a fusion of a warm storm mixed with cold low pressure fronts to great a hybrid superstorm. Those kinds of storms are signs of a transitional climate in play along with the resulting transitional weather states that indicate increasing shifts from one climate regime to another.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 10, 2012 22:47:31 GMT
Yes graywolf, life for all of us would be so much better without "fossil fuels", wouldn't it? Finally the bark gets peeled off the tree from graywolf. If you believe the crap in that video, you are a useful idiot. If you believe the crap in that video, then stop being a hypocrite and stop all activities and processes in everyday life that relies on "fossil fuels". That would include all food, transportation, electricity, heat for your home and medical care for you and your family; basically what most consider average life in the 20th+ century; all provided by people that "hate" you. If you believe that crap in the video, you are a complete and utter moron that deserves to live under the conditions promoted by such lunacy. Go ahead graywolf, resort to a "fossil fuel free" life and see how long you last. Steve Goddard has some good advice for people that loathe "fossil fuels": You are the reason that coal death trains exist. If everyone would simply agree to starving and freezing to death in the dark, there would be no reason for coal death trains.
James Hansen’s grandchildren would no doubt lead a much happier and safer life without fossil fuels. Who wants to eat and stay warm anyway?
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Dec 11, 2012 7:43:10 GMT
I think that a serious documentary on how -for example- do big oil companies have been behaving in Nigerian river delta would estress what really matters in that point... Big Companies -in general- whenever allowed, don´t care much about well-being and health of native people, commit enviromental crimes and do so supporting all sort of crooked corrupted and bloody regimes... and all these clown-politicians and African military would be the real ´beneficiary´of CO2 emissions rights market. Funny? Sad
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Dec 11, 2012 15:11:58 GMT
nautonnier, Thanks for the link. I am going to bookmark it and monitor it closely the next few years. Hopefully that 25% spike a few months ago does not become a common occurance over the next few years.
I'm not sure the the worldwide economy can handle that kind of instability over long periods.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Dec 12, 2012 13:11:09 GMT
Mag's , you're funny.
As Karlox points out it is the organisations that are being prodded not the end product.
We all know the issues associated with the end product but the conduct of the compaies exploiting the resource? Is that behaviour the thing that runs the cars, fuels the economy, lights the hospitals?
You stand alone if you think that you would just shrug and say "that's the price for living this way" if your grandkids developed illness by being forced to live on Brownfield sites stuffed full of toxic wastes. As Karlox highlights West Africa springs to mind.
And if the execs of such comp's will visibly pollute and contaminate our wild places what of their 'invisible pollution'?
You would also be dismayed at the compensation doled out to the folk of my area killed by Asbestosis. The last of them are going now, they were the babes of the parents who worked the mills and whose only crimes were to hug their parents as they returned from those mills covered in a days worth of dust.
This was the price of the gas masks, the school insulation, the industrial needs. Why should they be compensated eh?
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Dec 12, 2012 13:39:13 GMT
I work in the oil business and I am much more worried about the smaller independent operators than I am the big companies. Big companies can be negligent as well but they tend to have safe operating procedures. I have seen many more unsafe practices by the smaller companies trying to save a dollar than I have Big Oil. I think it is only a matter of time before a major aquifer somewhere is polluted during the fracking process due to negligence.
|
|