British Parliament heard devastating testimony overturning the global warming hoax

salinity has more of an effect on what can live in the ocean than on climate as such. Albedo as far as I know is mostly relevant in areas like the poles, where increased temps cause more floating sea ice to melt, which results in more open ocean water, which has a higher albedo than ice, which means more ice melts faster--positive feedback. Well, that and warmer water in general increases colder water localized from ice melt, which can stall out the Gulf Streeam, due to the rapid melting, which is the major reason Europ is as warm ast it is, which has apparently been the cause of the Medieval Cold Period ("Little Ice Age" seems to be used for at least two climatic events probably mostly in Europe, well maybe three, since it's also been applied to, and I think most usually for the Maunder Minimum, when solar activity reached a low point, from around 1600 to about 1750 and also caused cold weather in Europe). Different disciplines are coming up with radically different dates and names for when it was somewhat cooler or somewhat warmer, but in general they're fluctuation of a degree or a degree and some fraction from the general climatic optimum we've been in for the last five thousand years or more.

And it's pretty clear that what's going on now is that we're producing tons of CO2 (statistics on fossil fuel production), which is what is increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (changing isotope ratios of CO2 in the atmosphere), much of which is going into the ocean which is a carbon sink(basic chemistry), which is becoming more acidic (again, chemistry, and a series of research papers in ocean acidification), which affects ocean life (the above Science paper), which is very likely going to affect our food stocks and the hundreds of millions of people who get most of their protein from sea life.

0 Replies

Once again, provide links to show your science--and they must be specific to oceanic effects or on how the ocean is affected. I put up, and i'm now content to shut up, and await your dazzling evidence.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

This is one place where I'm getting it:

http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/6058/carbondioxidekz6.jpg

What does that graph tell you with regard to climate temperatures?

1 Reply

It tells me that CO2 and temperatures seem to be pretty closely correlated. It tells me that temps in previous interglacials and CO2 levels were pretty similar to what we've had in this one, it shows that the last interglacial lasted significantly longer than kprevious ones (tho that might be an artifact of older, more compressed ice) which implies that the current predictions that the next ingerglacial is still at least 10000 years off are quite likely to be correct, not that either of us are likiely be around to tell whether they're correct or not. It shows that the temp rise during an interglacial is not a long slow one as I think you're saying, but rather a very fast one, way quicker than 10,000 years, and then a relatively stable climate period. And it shows that present CO2 is WAY higher than it ever got to naturally, and since increased CO2 seems to correlate well with increased temperature, we'd better watch out. What does it tell you?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5.html

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/black_body_radiation.html

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

It tells me you don't have enough of a sample to make conclusions based only on the graph.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

It tells me first and foremost that there is a very strong natural cycle occurring with brief spikes in temperature, and that we've been on the upslope of the warming trend for the most recent spike for over 10k years. None of that has anything to do with humans.

It tells me that we may be at the peak of the latest rise already, and we could possibly be on the downward side already. Our lives are too short to measure that or not.

It tells me that CO2 is currently at a much different level in relation to warming than it ever has been before, and that is almost certainly due to human activity (because of the suddenness of the change). That much I grant you. However, it does not tell any of us whether CO2 is a leading factor or a following factor in climate warming.

Also, I would point out that the left vertical axis of the graph is temperature (in degrees), and the right vertical axis is concentration (parts per million). So even though the graph overlays the trend lines, they are not coincident in relative value. The two axis measurements are not even remotely related in that fashion. Therefor it's misleading to assume that the relationship between the CO2 spike is relational to the temperature trent.

What I wish I could see is a graph like that which just shows CO2 in relation to the total concentration. In other words, I would like to see the bottom of the graph for CO2. That would at least give some indication of how impressive that CO2 spike really is. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find such a graph.

That graph also tell me something else. Unlike the bottom temp ranges which seem to plateau for a while and fluctuate, the top peaks are sharp and absolute. This strongly implies that there is a "switching point" somewhere in the global environment which results in very rapid cooling. The atmosphere can only get so warm before something dramatic changes and the planet begins to cool. I believe that "switch" is the thermohaline cycle in the oceans (just my opinion). I have posted links to the data which supports this in the other global warming threads (several years ago).

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

It tells me you don't have enough of a sample to make conclusions based only on the graph.

That's not the only source of data that supports that graph. Are you doubting the data itself, or the graph, or do you just doubt that the cycle will repeat itself?

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

However, it does not tell any of us whether CO2 is a leading factor or a following factor in climate warming.

It also doesn't tell you that it MUST be one or the other.

Quote:

This strongly implies that there is a "switching point" somewhere in the global environment which results in very rapid cooling.

I can't tell, is the switch 1,000 years or 10,000 years? The graph isn't that accurate.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
However, it does not tell any of us whether CO2 is a leading factor or a following factor in climate warming.

It also doesn't tell you that it MUST be one or the other.

That's correct. I agree with that, and I've made that point before (even thought I don't expect you to remember it because it was on another thread a long time ago).

0 Replies

ros, look at the timeline and the slope of the rise. It's very rapid, on the order of a thousand years of two. Look at what happens once it hits broadly current temps, it dithers around there for awhile (last two cycles).
Again, the orbital dynamics guys say the next cooloff is at least 10K years away. It's generally accepted that it's Milankovitch cycles, and there are several that seem to have to co-occur, that determine when things begin to cool down. That's determined by changes in the solar irradiance the earth receives.

In the aftermath of ice ages, solar irradiance increases (not changes in the sun's output, but changes in what we get of it) kick off the temp rises and then CO2 follows and is a positive feedback. But that's not what's going on now. What's going on now does not have an analogue in the glacial cycles. We're producing the CO2, and that makes it a driver. Not everything has to parallel or replicate some previous natural cycle. We're the wild card in the deck this time around. And in fact that graph does show the bottom of the CO2 cycle. You'll see most of the literature, and the graph, will talk about CO2 fluctuating between about 180ppm and 300ppm from depth of ice age to interglacial, and the temps pretty much correlating with those (considering the lag times).

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
This strongly implies that there is a "switching point" somewhere in the global environment which results in very rapid cooling.

I can't tell, is the switch 1,000 years or 10,000 years? The graph isn't that accurate.

I can't tell either. As you note, the graph isn't that accurate. It could be peaked right now, or it could be 5000 years out. I'm not certain of course, but I don't think it's as far out as 10k years (just my opinion).

It's also my opinion that the "switch" is not thrown solely by absolute temperature, which is why we see variations in the peaks from the past. I suspect that there is a confluence of environmental conditions which bring us closer and closer to the precipice as the temps increase. But I still think a combination of factors has to ultimately come together for the switch to be thrown. Again, just an opinion, I can't support that.

1 Reply

Actually, looking at the graph, 3of the five cycles show interglacials that look to be around 15,ooo or 20,000 years long, one other one is of somewhat indeterminate length, and it's only one cycle that looks to have a sharp rise then a sharp fall.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

For your first link, i see no headings which refer either to oceanic effects or an affect on the oceans. For your second link, the concluding paragraph of the synthesis section shows exactly what my Woods Hole OI links show (if you bothered to read any of them):

Quote:

While there are many robust findings regarding the changed ocean state, key uncertainties still remain. Limitations in ocean sampling (particularly in the SH) mean that decadal variations in global heat content, regional salinity patterns, and rates of global sea level rise can only be evaluated with moderate confidence. Furthermore, there is low confidence in the evidence for trends in the MOC and the global ocean freshwater budget. Finally, the global average sea level rise for the last 50 years is likely to be larger than can be explained by thermal expansion and loss of land ice due to increased melting, and thus for this period it is not possible to satisfactorily quantify the known processes causing sea level rise. [emphases added, of coure]

You'll need to explain to me the significance of your third link, unless you just assumed that i'm stupid about albedo and needed some basic science abou it. If so, thanks a lot, buddy.

Setanta wrote:

It's a question whether or not the oceanic effect is more important than the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and climatologists cannot answer that question with assurance.

That was my statement. I believe that both the Woods Hole articles i linked, as well as the links you provided support the claim that climatologists cannot answer that question with assurance.

Now, i acknowledge that i scanned the material in your links, rather than reading them line for line, because, as i suspect is the case with you, my time budget is restricted. But i suspect the same is the case for you with the link i provided. Read the Woods Hole articles--there are both serious questions about the oceanic effect and the affect on oceans, as well as iron-clad statements such as you have made about the ocean being affected by CO2 heating. Which, once again, makes my point that there is not consensus.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

I don't disagree with much of what you wrote in that post. But it still doesn't address my basic challenge to the global warming argument. We still don't know the RELATIVE contribution of human activity to WARMING (not to CO2). Any inference that CO2 is a driving factor, or that it drives temps in lock-step are purely speculative at this point (for exactly the reason you stated: we have a wildcard event here).

But even the discussion of relative contributions to warming are somewhat academic compared to the larger message the ice core cycles are sending us; the warmer we get, no matter what the cause, the sooner we hit a peak and hit the "switch".

To play devils advocate against the Warming debate I could even suggest that we need to accelerate our CO2 production to try desperately to overwhelm the global switching mechanism and to prevent us from heading back into another glaciation. I don't think we have a chance in hell of achieving that because the environmental switch is probably overwhelmingly powerful (on a human scale), but the argument could none the less be made.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

I was referring to HOW LONG it takes for the switch to occur. Does it occur over 1,000 years or over 10,000 years.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

The temperature of the ocean is affected by the temperature of the air since the ocean loses heat to the air.

When the air is warmer what happens to the ocean's ability to radiate heat? Now.. Why is the air warmer?

We are back to 150 year old science when it comes to CO2.

1 Reply

@parados,

From the Woods Hole research rubric:

Quote:

Most of the studies and debates on potential climate change have focused on the ongoing buildup of industrial greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and a gradual increase in global temperatures. But recent and rapidly advancing evidence demonstrates that Earth's climate repeatedly has shifted dramatically and in time spans as short as a decade. And abrupt climate change may be more likely in the future.

From the first article linked under that rubric:

Quote:

One of the “pumps” that helps drive the ocean’s global circulation suddenly switched on again last winter for the first time this decade. The finding surprised scientists who had been wondering if global warming was inhibiting the pump and did not foresee any indications that it would turn back on.

I think that i have good reason to point out that this is not the settled science that you and MJ are making it to be, and i particularly think that the change can be very, very rapid, not thousands of years or even a thousand years, but within centuries, and possibly as the Woods Hole page suggests, even within decades.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

I was referring to HOW LONG it takes for the switch to occur. Does it occur over 1,000 years or over 10,000 years.

Oh, I see. If you want my opinion, I think it happens very rapidly, within a few hundred years. I think that because it's driven by ocean salinity, and water is a much more dense fluid than atmosphere, so its primary chemistry is altered with much more delineated effect.

What we should be watching are the deep ocean currents. When those shut down, the switch has been thrown (IMO).

2 Replies

@Setanta,

And also from the Woods Hole research rubric

Quote:

In 2005, the ice cap covering the Arctic Ocean shrank to its smallest size since researchers began keeping records a century ago. In the past five years, scientists reported that many Greenland glaciers are sliding faster to the sea and melting at their edges. Climate simulations indicate that the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will accelerate melting.

What? Melting because of atmosphere warming affects the oceans? Say it ain't so.

2 Replies

British Parliament heard devastating testimony overturning the global warming hoax

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know