Topic: Climate Emergency is already here. How much worse it gets is still up to us (?)

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Climate change isnt' a new thing. It's a myth that the climate has ever done anything but change.

Change is it's normal state. It was its normal state 100,000,000 years before we turned up and it'll be it's normal state 100,000,000 years after we've vanished.

[bleedsred1978]

Climate change isnt' a new thing. It's a myth that the climate has ever done anything but change.

Change is it's normal state. It was its normal state 100,000,000 years before we turned up and it'll be it's normal state 100,000,000 years after we've vanished.

Reminded me of this from George Carlin.

“We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I’m tired of this shit. I’m tired of f-ing Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!

We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”

Plastic… asshole.”

[Bioluminescence]

Climate change isnt' a new thing. It's a myth that the climate has ever done anything but change.

Change is it's normal state. It was its normal state 100,000,000 years before we turned up and it'll be it's normal state 100,000,000 years after we've vanished.

You and I have already had this debate. Not only are we not saying that climate change  has never happened before, such a position also does not address what is causing current warming. If we know what is causing the change, and we can do something to minimise the impacts, shouldn't we try to act?

[scatman]

Maybe if they were allowed to develop properly they could afford to have a big family. Don't think the US or UK or any other European countries stop you from having a bit family.

The west imo are trying to say how and when the rest of the world develops and are doing so under the guise of “preserving biodiversity” and “sustainability”.

We burnt and plundered to get where we are and yet we have the cheek to try and stop the rest of the developing world the chance to get up to speed because its affecting our cushy lifestyles.

It fucking stinks to high heaven mate.

Mate, I don't want to get into this on here, but in the UK some people are allowed to have big families not because they work hard to able to support them, no it's because the rat race work hard to support them.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

You and I have already had this debate. Not only are we not saying that climate change  has never happened before, such a position also does not address what is causing current warming. If we know what is causing the change, and we can do something to minimise the impacts, shouldn't we try to act?

That's the problem though.

Who is "We". When 'we' say 'we' then the only way that it'll ever possibly matter is if 'we' includes everyone. But it never has done and never will do. It's easy for 'us' to say to other countries that haven't got what 'we' have and want what 'we' have that they can't have it and dictate to them what 'they' should do. But 'they' won't put up with that any more than someone telling 'us' what to do.

IF it's happening then it'll happen. There'll be no stopping it. And afterwards things might be different or they might not. But whatever does happen will happen eventually anyway. And then it'll change again. And again. Until the sun expands past the orbit of the Earth in a few billion years.

Change is what made us. Change is what'll get rid of us and change will be what will bring along the next step in the chain. And the next one.. and the next one.. Might as well just stop and smile and enjoy the ride

[Bioluminescence]

That's the problem though.

Who is "We". When 'we' say 'we' then the only way that it'll ever possibly matter is if 'we' includes everyone. But it never has done and never will do. It's easy for 'us' to say to other countries that haven't got what 'we' have and want what 'we' have that they can't have it and dictate to them what 'they' should do. But 'they' won't put up with that any more than someone telling 'us' what to do.

IF it's happening then it'll happen. There'll be no stopping it. And afterwards things might be different or they might not. But whatever does happen will happen eventually anyway. And then it'll change again. And again. Until the sun expands past the orbit of the Earth in a few billion years.

Change is what made us. Change is what'll get rid of us and change will be what will bring along the next step in the chain. And the next one.. and the next one.. Might as well just stop and smile and enjoy the ride

If you read one of my previous comments, you'll see that I think we have no right telling others what they can or can't do. Industrialised nations are predominantly responsible for the problems we're seeing, and they should bear the costs of any action to minimise the impact of change. This could include the transfer of resources and technologies to industrialising nations so that they follow a different path of development.

Change may well happen in the future and we won't be able to do anything. This doesn't mean we should do nothing now though, as things can be done to ensure change is kept to a minimum. It's within our power now, and that should be all that matters.

I have to say though, without wanting to sound melodramatic, that I can't just smile and enjoy the ride when I know the poorest, most vulnerable people will in all likelihood  pay the highest price for the mess we've created. It's just wrong, especially when we could help and keep change to a minimum.

Maybe one day you and I will agree on one thing on this subject, eh?

[bleedsred1978]

Mate, I don't want to get into this on here, but in the UK some people are allowed to have big families not because they work hard to able to support them, no it's because the rat race work hard to support them.

Who ya telling mate, i'm from Ireland hahaha...there all over the shop here too.

As much as that is a disgrace though its a different universe compared to not having clean water and electricity.

We must allow the undeveloped world develop before we try and restrict them under some supposed green agenda is my point.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

If you read one of my previous comments, you'll see that I think we have no right telling others what they can or can't do. Industrialised nations are predominantly responsible for the problems we're seeing, and they should bear the costs of any action to minimise the impact of change. This could include the transfer of resources and technologies to industrialising nations so that they follow a different path of development.

Change may well happen in the future and we won't be able to do anything. This doesn't mean we should do nothing now though, as things can be done to ensure change is kept to a minimum. It's within our power now, and that should be all that matters.

I have to say though, without wanting to sound melodramatic, that I can't just smile and enjoy the ride when I know the poorest, most vulnerable people will in all likelihood  pay the highest price for the mess we've created. It's just wrong, especially when we could help and keep change to a minimum.

Maybe one day you and I will agree on one thing on this subject, eh?

Maybe

Sadly though whatever happens in this world it always seems to be the poor and vunerable that always get the shitty end of the stick

And to be fair I've always advocated cleaner energy, recycling and all the other methods.

And that's despite any climate change that may or may not be happening. We should use cleaner energy, look after the planet, recycle and be responsible anyway. Not even because there's something forcing us to do it. We should be responsible anyway.

[lfcderek]

You don't explicitly admit the point of the post – that the graph you showed was NOT a prediction  - but a hindcast to make the graph agree with what actually happened. A little tweak here, a fudge there – it's euphemistically called 'tuning' I think – and hey presto, the model 'predicts' what happened in the past.

I've got a clever little computer model that can predict past derby winners.

2009 Sea the Stars
2010 Workforce
2011 Pour Moi
2012 Camelot

(Actually I have to admit I had to tweak the Workforce prediction a bit. The model put too much emphasis on his failure in the Dante Stakes at York.)

Sadly, it doesn't seem to work as well for future predictions.

No Bio

This is what Hansen predicted.





A predicted rise by 2012 of ~ 1°C

When we have actually experienced ~ 0.3°C.


This later graph you put up





is already showing a marked divergence. I see it's from AR4 which was published in 2007. Seems strange to use a 7 year old run – or was the run done in 2007 and 2000-2007 was also a  hindcast (Tweak, fiddle, fiddle, Tweak)?

By the Bye, at about the same time, he predicted a sea-level rise of 10 feet within 30-40 years. A bit more than 20 have gone by and what's the actual rise?

~ 3 inches!

Major natural forcings are missing from these models. I don't know what they are – a (very) likely candidate would be cloud forcing/feedbacks. If Svenmark's GCR cloud seeding is the mechanism we'll know in 3-4 years time when global temps will remain flat or even decrease whilst CO₂ levels follow their continuing rise.

[lfcderek]

Maybe

Sadly though whatever happens in this world it always seems to be the poor and vunerable that always get the shitty end of the stick

And to be fair I've always advocated cleaner energy, recycling and all the other methods.

And that's despite any climate change that may or may not be happening. We should use cleaner energy, look after the planet, recycle and be responsible anyway. Not even because there's something forcing us to do it. We should be responsible anyway.

You're being far too sensible there Andy. Cut it out.

[lfcderek]

Oh, I see what you're doing here Derek - impossible expectations of proof and certainty. Not when it comes to the work of so-called sceptics of course - I see you have nothing to say about the work of Lindzen, Easterbrook and others, which is far less accurate than Hansen's 1988 projections.

Why should I give a f**k about Lindzen's predictions? Countries around the globe aren't spending 100s of billions on the basis of his predictions. Didn't he do a paper a couple of years ago that was roundly attacked by Roy Spencer, another sceptical scientist?

[BFM]

Just to be clear, there is no debate among serious climate scientiststs (that are not sponsored by BP, Shell, etc.) that the man-made contribution to climate change is a very real and serious threat. There isn't even a debate that we are already fucked. The debate is about how fucked we are and when the fucking will begin (will it be us, our children, or their children - those are the choices). Even the oil companies accept this now!

Yes there are slower oscilllations that are part of a natural cycle of climate fluctuations over long periods of time, but the impact of human activities, and the release of CO2 into the atmosphere far exceeds anything previously recorded, and in a much more dramatic timescale. If the shape of normal climate oscillation is a tit, the man-made contribution is like a long nipple (except that it hasn't started to come back down towards the tit yet).

[Bioluminescence]

You don't explicitly admit the point of the post – that the graph you showed was NOT a prediction  - but a hindcast to make the graph agree with what actually happened. A little tweak here, a fudge there – it's euphemistically called 'tuning' I think – and hey presto, the model 'predicts' what happened in the past.

I've got a clever little computer model that can predict past derby winners.

2009 Sea the Stars
2010 Workforce
2011 Pour Moi
2012 Camelot

(Actually I have to admit I had to tweak the Workforce prediction a bit. The model put too much emphasis on his failure in the Dante Stakes at York.)

Sadly, it doesn't seem to work as well for future predictions.

No Bio

This is what Hansen predicted.





A predicted rise by 2012 of ~ 1°C

When we have actually experienced ~ 0.3°C.


This later graph you put up





is already showing a marked divergence. I see it's from AR4 which was published in 2007. Seems strange to use a 7 year old run – or was the run done in 2007 and 2000-2007 was also a  hindcast (Tweak, fiddle, fiddle, Tweak)?

By the Bye, at about the same time, he predicted a sea-level rise of 10 feet within 30-40 years. A bit more than 20 have gone by and what's the actual rise?

~ 3 inches!

Major natural forcings are missing from these models. I don't know what they are – a (very) likely candidate would be cloud forcing/feedbacks. If Svenmark's GCR cloud seeding is the mechanism we'll know in 3-4 years time when global temps will remain flat or even decrease whilst CO₂ levels follow their continuing rise.

Oh I see now - scientists improving their models is some sort of fraudulent manipulation, not an improvement on our understanding of the climate system. Silly me.

I'll have to repeat what I've already said to you - Hansen was looking at the impact of rising greenhouse gas levels mainly, therefore you can't compare it to actual temperatures since these include natural factors that Hansen ignored. If you adjust observations to take into account the impact of ENSO, the sun and volcanic activity, the trends are very similar - they differ only by about 0.04ºC per decade. Your graph is pointless because it's comparing apples with oranges.

The IPCC graph is not showing a divergence, it's showing variability. Everybody knows that a deep solar minimum and one of the strongest La Niña on record have had a cooling effect on global temperatures in the past few years. These are difficult to model because they are unpredictable. You're cherry picking a short period of time and extrapolating to make a statement which is simply incorrect.

Svensmark's cosmic rays! The evidence for a major impact of GCRs on current global temperatures simply doesn't exist. There's no correlation between cosmic rays and temperatures - the trend in cosmic rays is the opposite to what you'd expect if they were causing warming. The correlation between cosmic rays and low clouds broke down in the 1990s.

Yes, models can be improved and they will continue being improved. It doesn't mean that what scientists know is wrong.

Why should I give a f**k about Lindzen's predictions? Countries around the globe aren't spending 100s of billions on the basis of his predictions. Didn't he do a paper a couple of years ago that was roundly attacked by Roy Spencer, another sceptical scientist?

Care to give a reference to your figure on global spending? What Lindzen shows should matter to you as he also thinks climate sensitivity is low, but his projections are well off the mark.

[TepidT2O]

Of course it does, the energy used in the manufacture comes from power plants in China, therefore it's the Chinese who you need to persuade to use power plants you approve of. Nobody is forcing the Chinese to industrialize, so if they want the benefits of manufacturing they also have to accept the responsiblity (and the costs) of the emissions. Naturally, they don't want to.  You seem to want to put all the blame on the consumer?

Nobodies forcing the west to get stuff manufactured in china either.

It's cheap in china for good reason.

1. No one gives a fuck about the environment
2. No one gives a fuck about how the workers are treated or how much they are paid.


On both counts this is ridiculous.

We're consuming the product, we wouldn't accept it in our own country.
By shipping the problem to a different country it doesn't stop it being our problem.

[BFM]

Nobodies forcing the west to get stuff manufactured in china either.

It's cheap in china for good reason.

1. No one gives a fuck about the environment
2. No one gives a fuck about how the workers are treated or how much they are paid.


On both counts this is ridiculous.

We're consuming the product, we wouldn't accept it in our own country.
By shipping the problem to a different country it doesn't stop it being our problem.

It's actually even worse than that, because in many cases, the plants are owned by foreign multinationals.

[TepidT2O]

It's actually even worse than that, because in many cases, the plants are owned by foreign multinationals.

Oh of course.....

It's the human rights issues too.

We have great human rights, fair employment, health and safety at work...
But because the give us cheaper stuff were prepared to go "oh well" when we ship stuff out to china.
It's disgusting.

[lfcderek]

Thank you Bio. You've made a great post if favour of my main point!

The IPCC graph is not showing a divergence, it's showing variability. Everybody knows that a deep solar minimum and one of the strongest La Niña on record have had a cooling effect on global temperatures in the past few years.

The current models can't account for the current (14 years and counting) flat-lining of global temperatures without recourse to another natural forcing – namely the sun.





In the forcings, that all of the climate models use, shown above, total solar irradiance is a small driver. Around 0.12 w/M²) compared to 1.66 w/M² for CO₂.

Natural variation of total solar irradiance is very small – 1-2 % at most.

I am suggesting that the Magnetic activity of the sun is a prime climate forcing.

High sunspot number → less Galactic Cosmic Rays → fewer clouds → higher temps

and vice versa of course

Svensmark's cosmic rays! The evidence for a major impact of GCRs on current global temperatures simply doesn't exist.

Prof Kirkby at CERN makes the case for an 'exquisite'  correlation better than I


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/WNph-bX5iWo&amp;feature=player_detailpage" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/WNph-bX5iWo&amp;feature=player_detailpage</a>

There's no correlation between cosmic rays and temperatures - the trend in cosmic rays is the opposite to what you'd expect if they were causing warming. The correlation between cosmic rays and low clouds broke down in the 1990s.

Annual Sunspot Number



Falling sunspot numbers in the 90's (with the suspected multi year lag) would lead flat/falling temps in the 00's.

[Bioluminescence]

Thank you Bio. You've made a great post if favour of my main point!

The current models can't account for the current (14 years and counting) flat-lining of global temperatures without recourse to another natural forcing – namely the sun.


In the forcings, that all of the climate models use, shown above, total solar irradiance is a small driver. Around 0.12 w/M²) compared to 1.66 w/M² for CO₂.

Natural variation of total solar irradiance is very small – 1-2 % at most.

I am suggesting that the Magnetic activity of the sun is a prime climate forcing.

High sunspot number → less Galactic Cosmic Rays → fewer clouds → higher temps

and vice versa of course

Prof Kirkby at CERN makes the case for an 'exquisite'  correlation better than I

Annual Sunspot Number


Falling sunspot numbers in the 90's (with the suspected multi year lag) would lead flat/falling temps in the 00's.

Except that the temperatures are not flatlining - the Earth is still accumulating heat. And nice cherry pick again - 14 years of data is not long enough generally to get statistically significant changes because on such short timescales natural variability can have a considerable impact. As it has - this graph shows that the rate of warming caused by rising greenhouse gas levels has carried on unabated if you remove the influence of natural factors:



What you're doing, by focusing on short timescales, is looking at things the deniers' way rather than the scientific way:



Very interesting that you mention Kirkby since he claimed after the CERN research was made public:

At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step

I also said that GCRs cannot explain current warming, not that there was no relation between temperatures and GCRs. Looking at GCRs shows no significant trend since the 1950s.



Looking at more recent data, we see that GCRs have reached record levels, yet the Earth hasn't cooled as you'd expect if GCRs were the main driver of recent climate change. Instead, the past decade in the warmest on record in all datasets (surface stations and satellites).

Your claim about models is misguided. Models do show periods of flatlining but as I've already explained to you, the behaviour of the sun and ENSO is difficult to predict so it's not surprising they don't appear at the right time in model runs. Hansen's projections show periods of slower warming, for example. This highlights the need to look at long enough timescales since anything based on less than about 30 years will show considerable variability.

[jonjosuso]

Anyone who seriously doubts anthropogenic climate change, in 2012, really needs to open their eyes.

The science has been there since 1995. Ben Santer, the man who commissioned the work for the IPCC, has since that day been attacked and villified by corporations and right wing think-tanks to try and ruin his reputation. These are the same groups who have funded anti-science, funded sceptics and intentionally created doubt over global warming in the public's mind, when there is none for the scientists. It sounds like a conspiracy, I get that but the sad reality is it has happened and there is proof if anyone bothered to read it.

My worry is that the denial machine has succeeded beyong its wildest dreams. I think they intended to create doubt long enouhg for the corporations to use all the oil or move to renewables. But when the real effects of climate change come to the fore, I can see people still denying it while the sea rises up to their ankles. Natural variation, solar output will probably all be blamed as we will contintually deny the chance it could possibly be our fault.

It's not this generation I pity, it's the children being born now and soon to be born, their chance at a full, complete life drops with every tonne of CO2 we emit. Sad days indeed.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Anyone who seriously doubts anthropogenic climate change, in 2012, really needs to open their eyes.

The science has been there since 1995. Ben Santer, the man who commissioned the work for the IPCC, has since that day been attacked and villified by corporations and right wing think-tanks to try and ruin his reputation. These are the same groups who have funded anti-science, funded sceptics and intentionally created doubt over global warming in the public's mind, when there is none for the scientists. It sounds like a conspiracy, I get that but the sad reality is it has happened and there is proof if anyone bothered to read it.

My worry is that the denial machine has succeeded beyong its wildest dreams. I think they intended to create doubt long enouhg for the corporations to use all the oil or move to renewables. But when the real effects of climate change come to the fore, I can see people still denying it while the sea rises up to their ankles. Natural variation, solar output will probably all be blamed as we will contintually deny the chance it could possibly be our fault.

It's not this generation I pity, it's the children being born now and soon to be born, their chance at a full, complete life drops with every tonne of CO2 we emit. Sad days indeed.

How do you work that out?

Even if 'Global Warming' wasn't 'happening' then sooner or later given the exponential population rise of the human race then resources are going to run out anyway.

[jonjosuso]

How do you work that out?

Even if 'Global Warming' wasn't 'happening' then sooner or later given the exponential population rise of the human race then resources are going to run out anyway.

Yeah, population rise is a serious threat, massive, of course.

By 2050 we're looking at 9,500,000 people, up from 7,000,000 today. Infinite consumption on a finite planet etc.

Regardless, you could have 9,500,000 competing for resources, or the same amount of people going for less resources, as crops fail through droughts and floods, both of which are exacerbated by a rise in temperature. There will be less land for those people to live on, with up to 150million refugees as first the small island states, then southern India and China all go under water. Should the ice sheet melt (we have, a generous estimate, of 300 years before that happens) most major cities will be effected.

Therefore, every tonne of CO2 will lead to tougher challenges in an already challenging overpopulated world. Just because we have one problem doesn't mean another one is therefore redundant and should be ignored. In fact, quite the opposite seems to be true.

[lfcderek]

Anyone who seriously doubts anthropogenic climate change, in 2012, really needs to open their eyes.

Do you not read other people's posts? Sceptics agree (what's there to disagree with) that anthropogenic CO₂ increases the earth's temperature - by about 1 ºC for a doubling.

What I, and other sceptics, disagree with is that the temperature rise will be 3-4 ºC for a doubling since this figure comes from large positive feedbacks in the computer models.

 

Except that the temperatures are not flatlining

That's flat. To say that 14 years isn't long enough is a valid position to argue from, but are you really denying that it's flat.

I also said that GCRs cannot explain current warming, not that there was no relation between temperatures and GCRs.

We're making progress. Slow progress, but progress.

Kirkby pointed out that there have been many warm and cold periods throughout the Holocene which are quantitatively similar (indeed larger) than the Current Warm Period. Specifically mentioning the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.

These 'other' periods could not have been caused by human's CO₂ emissions since they only started post the second world war.

So

Forcings (set A)  ----->  Current Warm Period

Forcings (set B) ------>  Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age etc.


If MWP and LIA are of commensurate size with the CWP

then

Forcings (set A)  must be commensurate with Forcings (set B)

Since (set B) does not contain CO₂ forcing it must have a natural forcing (GCR or something else) which is missing from the computer models tracked by the IPCC.

Hence the computer models are incomplete and will overstate the effect of CO₂.
   

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Yeah, population rise is a serious threat, massive, of course.

By 2050 we're looking at 9,500,000 people, up from 7,000,000 today. Infinite consumption on a finite planet etc.

Regardless, you could have 9,500,000 competing for resources, or the same amount of people going for less resources, as crops fail through droughts and floods, both of which are exacerbated by a rise in temperature. There will be less land for those people to live on, with up to 150million refugees as first the small island states, then southern India and China all go under water. Should the ice sheet melt (we have, a generous estimate, of 300 years before that happens) most major cities will be effected.

Therefore, every tonne of CO2 will lead to tougher challenges in an already challenging overpopulated world. Just because we have one problem doesn't mean another one is therefore redundant and should be ignored. In fact, quite the opposite seems to be true.

And yet the human race thrives on challenge. Perhaps the Earth being wrecked would lead to greater technological advances. Perhaps colonies could be established on other moons or worlds in the Solar system or beyond.

[RojoLeón]

And yet the human race thrives on challenge. Perhaps the Earth being wrecked would lead to greater technological advances. Perhaps colonies could be established on other moons or worlds in the Solar system or beyond.

  Epic trolling, Andy

I can try this for a lark also:

Death is the ultimate challenge. Perhaps when a person dies, they get a new improved lease of life.

Planetary destruction is just what we need to kick on, right? As for the extra-terrestrial colonies,  Touche, Andy. Very good trolling.

[RojoLeón]

Copernicus' predictions using 12th century modeling techniques are demonstrably inaccurate using current measurements.

Therefore Astronomy is bunk

'fixed this for you here, Deggsie.' 
   

[RojoLeón]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/arctic-ice-melting-to-a-record-low-scientists-warn-8070049.html

Arctic ice melting to a record low, scientists warn

Global warming and a huge storm are blamed for the fastest decrease in sea coverage ever seen

http://www.scribd.com/doc/103511716/Arctic-Melt#fullscreen

The area of the Arctic Ocean covered by floating sea ice is likely to hit a record low next week, with the melting due to continue well into September, according to researchers monitoring the region by satellite.

Arctic sea ice partially melts each summer and reforms again in the winter, but over the past 35 years of satellite readings the summer retreat has been getting significantly greater, with a record summer minimum recorded in September 2007.

However, scientists at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado, said that this summer's melt season in the Arctic has been so rapid and extensive that 2012 will almost certainly see sea ice coverage reach a new low.

"A new daily record... would be likely by the end of August… Chances are it will cross the previous record while we're still in sea ice retreat," Ted Scambos, a sea-ice specialist at the centre told Reuters. "What you're seeing is more open ocean than you're seeing ice… It just simply doesn't look like what a polar scientist expects the Arctic to look like. It's wide open and the [ice] cap is very small."

The Arctic has seen some of the greatest increases in average temperatures over recent decades due to global warming, resulting in a significant retreat of the sea ice both in terms of surface area and ice thickness, scientists say. "Everything about this points in the same direction – we've made the Earth warmer," Dr Scambos said.

Computer models initially suggested that the Arctic could be completely ice free in summer by the end of the 21st century, but more recent studies suggest that ice-free summers could occur as early as 2035, and possibly even within the next 10 years.

The satellite data analysed by NSIDC looks only at surface area coverage, rather than ice thickness, and the scientists judge that an area is "ice free" when the coverage of the sea surface falls below 15 per cent.

However, other satellite studies using data from the European Cryosat-2, which is able to measure sea ice thickness, have found that the loss of sea ice volume in the Arctic may be 50 per cent greater than previously suspected.

By mid-August, the surface area of sea ice had dipped below that for 2007 and was already among the four lowest for the time of year since satellite records began in the late 1970s.

The sea ice melted particularly rapidly between 4 August and 8 August, which coincided with an intense storm over the central Arctic Ocean. Strong winds associated with the storm could have helped to break up the ice, although scientists could not say whether this had prompted this month's rapid loss of ice.

Dr Scambos said that the speed of melting in recent weeks has been one of the fastest on record for this time of the year. "I doubt there's been another year that had as rapid an early August retreat," he said.

The retreat of the sea ice has led to the possible opening of both sea routes around the Arctic – the Northwest Passage of Canada and the Northern Sea Route across northern Russia.

[Bioluminescence]

Do you not read other people's posts? Sceptics agree (what's there to disagree with) that anthropogenic CO₂ increases the earth's temperature - by about 1 ºC for a doubling.

What I, and other sceptics, disagree with is that the temperature rise will be 3-4 ºC for a doubling since this figure comes from large positive feedbacks in the computer models.

That's flat. To say that 14 years isn't long enough is a valid position to argue from, but are you really denying that it's flat.

We're making progress. Slow progress, but progress.

Kirkby pointed out that there have been many warm and cold periods throughout the Holocene which are quantitatively similar (indeed larger) than the Current Warm Period. Specifically mentioning the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.

These 'other' periods could not have been caused by human's CO₂ emissions since they only started post the second world war.

So

Forcings (set A)  ----->  Current Warm Period

Forcings (set B) ------>  Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age etc.


If MWP and LIA are of commensurate size with the CWP

then

Forcings (set A)  must be commensurate with Forcings (set B)

Since (set B) does not contain CO₂ forcing it must have a natural forcing (GCR or something else) which is missing from the computer models tracked by the IPCC.

Hence the computer models are incomplete and will overstate the effect of CO₂.

You can disagree about climate sensitivity, but the best estimate is about 3ºC. Those who claim that climate sensitivity is low have failed to make their case scientifically. The same sensitivity is found in observations and paleoclimate analyses, and without a sensitivity of about 3ºC, there is no way to explain past climate change.

No, temperatures aren't really flatlining if you look at all the heat sinks:



Your points about the MWP and LIA make no sense to me. Those periods are not comparable to the current situation since they did not experience simultaneous warming or cooling at a global level. We know what caused the MWP - higher than average solar radiation, little volcanic activity and changes in ocean circulation. The LIA, on the other hand, was most likely caused by low solar activity (the Maunder Minimum) and increased volcanic activity. Solar activity, volcanic activity and  other parameters are included in models - the IPCC clearly shows that only by included anthropogenic and natural factors can you track recent changes in temperature.



So your conclusion that models will overstate the effect of CO2 is incorrect.

[redbyrdz]

So are we gonna tell the poor of Africa they cant have light in their huts because they cant burn the coal they have?

Do you think they are or should be concerned about long term climate change when they have no electricity today?

It's ok for the west, we have already sorted ourselves out. Bit fucking rich to deny them the basics like because our summers are a bit wetter.

Do you think climate change will only affect us? It will be a lot worse for those countries that have to deal with difficult climate already - those that suffer frequent droughts, or are dependent on very few agricultural products. Some poor countries might even disappear completely under raising sea levels.

What I don't get is why people believe that countries that are still not that technology-intensive have to reproduce the 'western' way of consuming energy, starting with burning fossile fuels.  They don't have to repeat out mistakes, they can move directly to sustainable energy production and proper filter technology to keep the impact to the climate down. This is why developing and applying modern sustainable forms of energy production and recycling of resources is really important for us Europeans - to have better technologies available for the rest of the world, where the majority of the population lives.

[lfcderek]

Quote from: lfcderek on Today at 08:16:37 PM

    Copernicus' predictions using 12th century modeling techniques are demonstrably inaccurate using current measurements.

    Therefore Copernican Astronomy is bunk

    'fixed this for you here, Deggsie.' 
       

Re-fixed it. 

And you're exaggerating yet again (as is the want of Global Warmers!) - it's early 16th century logic.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Epic trolling, Andy

I can try this for a lark also:
Planetary destruction is just what we need to kick on, right? As for the extra-terrestrial colonies,  Touche, Andy. Very good trolling.

Not trolling at all. Whatever happens there is going to be an unsurmountable disaster.

Either we are going to have massive overpopulation issues and lack of resources. Or there will be a disaster to prevent overpopulation.  Or there will be other things happening. It going to happen. Just a matter of when and what exactly.

There is no other possible outcome.

Colonising other planets or moons might sound like Science Fiction but Japan and Russia have firm plans in place for a moon base around 2030. The new presidential candidate of the US has promised a moon base by 2020. Sounds like pure science fiction? Imagine going back 300 years and showing them the world of today. Everything in it technology wise is science fiction compared to back then.

We haven't got any choice. The Earth is a finite place. The human race will either continue to accelerate at ridiculous levels or the human race will decline. It is unlikely to stay static. If it is to survive and thrive then it must expand into somewhere. The oceans are one possibility. Off world is another. Won't be easy. Might even be impossible. But we've seen time and again human progress comes in time of stress and disaster.

[RojoLeón]

Re-fixed it. 

And you're exaggerating yet again (as is the want of Global Warmers!) - it's early 16th century logic.

 can't let the Denier Dinosaurs steal all the exaggeration and misinformation thunder 

[bleedsred1978]

Do you think climate change will only affect us? It will be a lot worse for those countries that have to deal with difficult climate already - those that suffer frequent droughts, or are dependent on very few agricultural products. Some poor countries might even disappear completely under raising sea levels.

What I don't get is why people believe that countries that are still not that technology-intensive have to reproduce the 'western' way of consuming energy, starting with burning fossile fuels.  They don't have to repeat out mistakes, they can move directly to sustainable energy production and proper filter technology to keep the impact to the climate down. This is why developing and applying modern sustainable forms of energy production and recycling of resources is really important for us Europeans - to have better technologies available for the rest of the world, where the majority of the population lives.

So our corporations can go in and sell them the latest green tech as opposed to them just doing the cheap thing and burning coal they already have mountains of?

Modern sustainable energy? They have no roads, no water, no electricity.

[redbyrdz]

So our corporations can go in and sell them the latest green tech as opposed to them just doing the cheap thing and burning coal they already have mountains of?

Modern sustainable energy? They have no roads, no water, no electricity.

Yes, because sustainable technology uses less resources. There is quite frankly not enough left of fossil fuels to power the rest of the world to our levels. And you need more roads for a coal plant than for a wind farm. And more water to cool a nuclear power plant. The point is obviously to produce electricity.

But I'd hope we'd go for training and teaching instead of just flogging them the technology.

[lfcderek]

Bio,

I could have sworn I saw a request from someone for the source of the above and where their data comes from. I've been thinking of having a crack at extracting some data from the Argo site and it might provide a starting point for analysis.

Thanks

[Quantum]

I asked last night but on reflection decided it wasn't that relevant a point to the general discussion (so deleted the post) or to the point that Bio was making. I'm hoping to puzzle this one myself when I get a chance. I do often think that the Science is too complicated to reach an informed conclusion without the necessary specialism and even specialists would have to be experts on so many different fields to reach a truly informed conclusion.

[Bioluminescence]

Bio,

I could have sworn I saw a request from someone for the source of the above and where their data comes from. I've been thinking of having a crack at extracting some data from the Argo site and it might provide a starting point for analysis.

Thanks

The graph is based on two papers - this one and this one. If you don't have access to them, let me know - I should be able to get them for you

I asked last night but on reflection decided it wasn't that relevant a point to the general discussion (so deleted the post) or to the point that Bio was making. I'm hoping to puzzle this one myself when I get a chance. I do often think that the Science is too complicated to reach an informed conclusion without the necessary specialism and even specialists would have to be experts on so many different fields to reach a truly informed conclusion.

Aye, like all fields, it's highly specialised. I'm only a bioscience graduate so there are plenty of gaps in my knowledge. On top of being a complex topic, it's confusing when so much contradictory is available online and in the media - how do you know who is reliable and who isn't? Ideally you go straight to the source, but that isn't always possible as the papers are not always available freely or people don't have  a science degree, which I think is a basic requirement to make sense of scientific papers - could be wrong on this one of course. New Scientist and Scientific American might be a good place to start maybe? I don't know.

Figures can be mindboggling too and difficult to grasp but maybe that's just me. A paper which is in press states:

The global linear trend of OHC2000 is 0.43x1022 J yr-1 for 1955-2010 which corresponds to a total increase in heat content of 24.0±1.9x1022 J

What exactly does this mean? I can tell it's a lot, I still find it hard to grasp. According to the authors:

We have estimated an increase of 24x1022 J representing a volume mean warming of 0.09°C of the 0-2000m layer of the World Ocean.  If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36°C (65°F)

That makes more sense to me, because I now realise how much heat has gone into the oceans in the past decades. I'd heard it described (not in the scientific literature obviously) as like two Little Boy atomic bombs detonating every second in the past 50 years or so. It really is an incredible amount of heat.

[lfcderek]

Bio,

I could have sworn I saw a request from someone for the source of the above and where their data comes from. I've been thinking of having a crack at extracting some data from the Argo site and it might provide a starting point for analysis.

Thanks

The graph is based on two papers - this one and this one. If you don't have access to them, let me know - I should be able to get them for you

Bio,
Thanks for the info. Following side links on OHC showed up one vitriolic argument after another. Lack of quality (and thus accepted) data --> ever decreasing circles. Argo is certainly a fine resource - pity it only became fully operational in 2003. 

[Bioluminescence]

Bio,
Thanks for the info. Following side links on OHC showed up one vitriolic argument after another. Lack of quality (and thus accepted) data --> ever decreasing circles. Argo is certainly a fine resource - pity it only became fully operational in 2003. 

I guess it's why to evaluate climate science it's best not to focus on one little piece of the jigsaw. It's also best to stay away from blogs because unless you are an expert, you have no way of evaluating what is being said, however scientific it may look.

With respect to OHC, scientific research mainly tells us that less heat is going into the top levels and more heat is going into the next lower levels - several papers show similar figures. This is consistent with the energy imbalance found at the top of the atmosphere. And a recent paper, using model simulations, found that during 'hiatus periods', i.e. periods such as the recent decade where surface temperatures seem to flatline, more heat is going into deeper waters rather than the top 300 metres.

This doesn't mean there aren't uncertainties, but it shows that multiple lines of evidence, from different disciplines, point in the same direction. Which makes those findings more likely to be correct.

[BFM]

A nice summary of why nitpicking over mathematical models is missing the point. Suzuki's car crash metaphor is particularly pertinent. Just one more time for the hard of hearing: there is no debate (and there hasn't been one for the last 10 years).

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/qvCm7rixdZk?version=3&amp;" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/qvCm7rixdZk?version=3&amp;</a>

[lfcderek]

A nice summary of why nitpicking over mathematical models is missing the point. Suzuki's car crash metaphor is particularly pertinent. Just one more time for the hard of hearing: there is no debate (and there hasn't been one for the last 10 years).

The New Age of Enlightenment is here.

Jesus wept.