Climate 3.0

[sentient]

In an earlier post (this evening), I mentioned Climate 1.0. Could be I daylighted what has been congealing in my consciousness over the past few years. It goes something like this:

Climate 1.0 - Initial cognition. Glacial till? Remanent lake shorelines of Lake Agassiz? Things have not always been the same. Laurentide Ice Sheet? The vast and stately appreciation of things long ago. But maybe not so long ago?

Climate 2.0 - More pixels. James Hansen predicts the next ice age is imminent! OMG! Aged in soon to be extinct oak pork-barrels, FIRE was shrieked in the theater of premiere human evolution. OMG 2.0?

Climate 3.0 - More pixels, more variables. Multivariate cognition? We did it ourselves this time?

Left unenlightened, this might happen naturally at the next eccentricity maxima. A couple hundred millenia from now.......

[poitsplace]

It is sad. I think I hate it more that alarmists compare entirely dissimilar periods and say "see, high feedbacks now because the earth is now EXACTLY THE SAME (with respect to feedbacks) as it was during the last glacial maximum...when ice extended to within 50degrees of the equator and ice/desert covered most of the northern continents.

[stevenotsteve]

Climate 4.0

Realize that it was all a hoax to extract tax revenue and get really angry at the politicians that have stolen the most. Have the Al gore show trial witnessed by millions and the first public execution since the climate data was widely falsified.

Then witness the reality tv spin off.,, 'Execute the climate liars' which runs for the next five decades.

[sigurdur]

sentient:
Hey......I kinda like the lake bed from Lake Agassiz. I do NOT wish for it to be over run with ice anytime soon again.

This perspective from a person who LOVES global warming.(It keep that Wisconsin Glacier at bay....and please....do NOT complain that it melted. The world will NOT end because it melted)

[sigurdur]

In fact, that ole lakebed is one of the most productive ag areas in the world per hectare. The bad thing is.....that damn glacier took away all of our oil in this neck of the woods. OH well, can't have everything. AT least it left the Bakken out west.

[N9AAT]

I love global warming too. ;D I wish it would continue. ;D Global warming is our friend and makes us happy. ;D ;D ;D

The alternative is pretty depressing when you look at what happened in the opening century or so of the Little Ice Age. Vikings being run home, Anastazi culture collapsing, etc. etc.

My problem is ... I look at proxy evidence of the Holocene Interglacial over the last 6000 years and get the feeling we're IN for it, someday. I seriously hope we have NOT peaked out.

I want a BIG plate of Global Warming. I just don't want the AGW idiots to get any credit.

[byz]

It was 15 degrees C hotter 65 million years ago!

So it's hardly a new climate it's an old one ;D

[sentient]

Dec 1, 2009 18:01:06 GMT N9AAT said:

I love global warming too. ;D I wish it would continue. ;D Global warming is our friend and makes us happy. ;D ;D ;D

The alternative is pretty depressing when you look at what happened in the opening century or so of the Little Ice Age. Vikings being run home, Anastazi culture collapsing, etc. etc.

My problem is ... I look at proxy evidence of the Holocene Interglacial over the last 6000 years and get the feeling we're IN for it, someday. I seriously hope we have NOT peaked out.

I want a BIG plate of Global Warming. I just don't want the AGW idiots to get any credit.

Well you just might get a big plate of Global Warming. It is possible, perhaps even likely:

Abstract

Fourier and nonlinear regression analysis of a 4000+ yr paleoclimate proxy record in western Canada shows strong periodicities of ∼1500 yr and several weaker century- to millenial-scale periodicities. In conjunction with the 23 708 yr Milankovitch periodicity, these produce a model of climate fluctuation through the postglacial consistent with recognized paleoclimatic fluctuations of the past 15 000 yr in the northern mid-latitudes. These results suggest that postglacial climatic anomalies such as the Little Ice Age and the Younger Dryas were at least in part periodic phenomena rather than the result of unique, aperiodic events. Projecting these periodicities into the future suggests that even in the absence of anthropogenic climate forcing, a natural warming trend will continue until ca. a.d. 2400.

Source:

geology.gsapubs.org/content/26/5/471.abstract

Assuming the orbital dynamics and the 1500 (or 1470) year cycle stays typical. That would make the Holocene about 12,000 years long or so. Best guess from memory is this would make the Holocene one of the longer interglacials since the MPT not counting MIS-11.

As I tried to intimate on another thread here, our eccentricity being at a minimum, as it was during MIS-11, doubling or tripling CO2 could very well buy us the "blanket" to "skip a precessional beat" as MIS-11 seems to have done. The evidence for this has not been lost or discarded, it has not been manipulated ad nauseum with computer programs, and it remains unadulterated from the tacking on of data sets more friendly to ones preferred positions (no Climate Hockey).

The work of Sole et al provide what might very well be the decisive insight (now in the public domain):

webs2002.uab.es/jellebot/documents/articles/Phis.Lett.A_2007.pdf

According to what the curves show, the relaxing mechanism is not always the same and hence three different cooling schedules, from fast cooling (A), medium speed (B) and slow cooling (C) can be
derived.There are different works that relate the CO2 air concentration
with temperature changes, supposing that CO2 may [12]
or may not drive this temperature increase [20]. In this work
ice-core CO2 time evolution in the period going from 20 to
60 kyr BP [15] has been qualitatively compared to our temperature
cycles, according to the class they belong to. It can be
observed in Fig. 6 that class A cycles are completely unrelated
to changes in CO2 concentration. We have observed some correlation between B and C cycles and CO2 concentration, but of
the opposite sign to the one expected: maxima in atmospheric
CO2 concentration tend to correspond to the middle part or the
end the cooling period. The role of CO2 in the oscillation phenomena
seems to be more related to extend the duration of the
cooling phase than to trigger warming. This could explain why
cycles no coincident in time with maxima of CO2 (A cycles)
rapidly decay back to the cold state.

The evidences discussed above could justify why A cycles
decay faster, but they do not explain the differences in decay
between B and C cycles, however, as CO2 maxima seem to
correlate equally well with both types of cycles. What could
explain such a difference is astronomical cycles [19], which are
known to affect to total budget of solar radiation received by
the Earth [14]. The relative abundance of class B (7 cycles) and
class C (2 cycles) suggest that the anomalously long cooling
phases for class B and class C cycles could be coupled with
an appropriate astronomical cycle. The existence of only two
C cycles separated away about 40,000 years suggest that C cycles
are coupled with the tilt cycle [24], while B cycles could
have an important coupling with the precession cycle (although
a periodic repetition of B cycles is less clear in the data). But
in no instance the warming phase seems to be perturbed by the
astronomical cycle.

Keeping all that in mind, and integrating the best known interglacial other than the Holocene, the Eemian, or MIS-5(a-e) which preceded it, we see that there were a minimum of 3 sea-level highstands documented from several localities around the globe, with their corresponding thermal peaks or Eemian Climate Optima. If perchance the Medieval Warm period was just such an optimum in the Holocene, and the Little Ice Age which succeeded it was a minima, and we have only been coming out of that minima for the past 150 or so years, then we may be about 10% or so of our way towards what might be the next Holocene optima, should one be in our future on the 1500/1470 year cycle.

Which is what makes this now thoroughly compromised, quintessentially human pretzel-logic non-debate so satisfyingly scrumptious!

Murphy, in one his more prescient moments pretty much nailed this one:

When, in the course of any endeavor, one faces a choice between an obvious right way and an obvious wrong way, it is usually wiser to choose the obvious wrong way first, thereby eliminating subsequent revision.

Which is precisely where we find the new (but always with us) deniers.......

[oloflind]

N9LLX:
I agree that global warming is more a benefit than a catastrophy. The real catastrophy is global cooling under ice time conditions which will for sure arrive in future - the question is not IF but WHEN (maybe during the very next centuries!) Thinking about the AGW alarmists, another interesting aspect is: Who has got the right or competence to tell us what the optimum climate for the planet Earth should be, i e that the change seen during the 1900s is wrong? Cooler or warmer than now? Who would like to have the cold climate conditions of the years 1700s and 1800s back again with crops failing due to cold growing seasons? Historically we can notice that warm periods have been beneficial and prosperous for mankind but cold periods have been connected to distress and starvation, and that for sure still holds true. It is quite possible that mankind should be grateful for the minor, maybe not measurable, contribution from the AGW!

[sentient]

I started this thread just hours before first becoming aware of ClimateGate. Meaning that Climate 3.0 just got updated and downgraded to Climate 4.0. Is there a way to change the title of the thread?