Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Walter Hinteler wrote:

The article is quite interesting.

But - I'm sure the more scientifically educated persons like BernhardR and Foxfyre will soon point to this fact - it's just the opinion of two scientists got from obeservations at a computer animated climate model.

Walter,
The article above is written for laymen, but if you look at the scientific publication (num 17) and its references, Seager is not alone in stating that oceanic streams play a minor role compared to atmosphere in heat transport.
BTW, computer models are used here to assess EXISTING data, not to make predictions, which is a different beast.

Recently, you also have Wunsch who questions the exact role of thermohaline circulation in heat transport from the tropic to higher lattitude. His credibility, like Seager's is my entire guess, I don't have sufficient climatology background to judge this theory just like the theory of the Gulf Stream's influence on N Europe climate.

Quaternary Research, Volume 65, Issue 2 , March 2006, Pages 191-203 du post
Abrupt climate change: An alternative view
Carl Wunsch

Quote:

Abstract - Hypotheses and inferences concerning the nature of abrupt climate change, exemplified by the Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events, are reviewed. There is little concrete evidence that these events are more than a regional Greenland phenomenon. The partial coherence of ice core δ18O and CH4 is a possible exception. Claims, however, of D-O presence in most remote locations cannot be distinguished from the hypothesis that many regions are just exhibiting temporal variability in climate proxies with approximately similar frequency content. Further suggestions that D-O events in Greenland are generated by shifts in the North Atlantic ocean circulation seem highly implausible, given the weak contribution of the high latitude ocean to the meridional flux of heat. A more likely scenario is that changes in the ocean circulation are a consequence of wind shifts. The disappearance of D-O events in the Holocene coincides with the disappearance also of the Laurentide and Fennoscandian ice sheets. It is thus suggested that D-O events are a consequence of interactions of the windfield with the continental ice sheets and that better understanding of the wind field in the glacial periods is the highest priority. Wind fields are capable of great volatility and very rapid global-scale teleconnections, and they are efficient generators of oceanic circulation changes and (more speculatively) of multiple states relative to great ice sheets. Connection of D-O events to the possibility of modern abrupt climate change rests on a very weak chain of assumptions.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Britain is kept temperate by an ocean current called the North Atlantic Drift.

We are at the same latitudes as Labrador, where the sea freezes.

The current has reduced in volume (or strength), I heard this week, by 25%

If it stops, the effect here will be devastating. Paradoxically, the phenomenon called "global warming" will not have a warming effect everywhere.

For the sources of Englands mile climates you may want to read this.

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/51963?fulltext=true&print=yes#52132

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

But, by 1200AD, a "Little Ice Age" set in and then it is said that England's crops suffered and the THAMES FROZE IN WINTER.

Just a minor update, the Little Ice Age was by 1600 AD and triggered famine throughout Europe, which was one the cause of the French revolution in 1678.

0 Replies

Which presents an exciting prospect....thousands of smelly angry people running with pitchforks and torches towards George Bush.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Which presents an exciting prospect....thousands of smelly angry people running with pitchforks and torches towards George Bush.

It must be known that the little ice age was thought to last 400 years, more precisely, it started from 1400 and ended by 1800. What makes it end by 1800 when no AHG was emitted by men is anyone's guess. Maybe just because that time's Walker B walked away :wink:

0 Replies

fascinating article by Seager, thanks xingu.

I can now sleep soundly, knowing the Rocky Mountains are not going walkabout.

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

blatham wrote:
Which presents an exciting prospect....thousands of smelly angry people running with pitchforks and torches towards George Bush.

It must be known that the little ice age was thought to last 400 years, more precisely, it started from 1400 and ended by 1800. What makes it end by 1800 when no AHG was emitted by men is anyone's guess. Maybe just because that time's Walker B walked away :wink:

Pleasure to have you on board, miniTAX.

0 Replies

MiniTax- Thanks for your comment- Do you have a source? I have read that the little Ice Age is still with us or if not still with us, just ended.

Quote from Bjron Lomberg-"The Skeptical Environmentalist" P. 263

quote:

"Summing up, there is no doubt that the temperature of the late twentieth century is greater than many previous centuries, but this cannot be taken as a simple indication of overwhelming global warming as we are COMING OUR OF A LITTLE ICE AGE"

AND

Climate theology and its exponents
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
April 3, 2006

"There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically," begins the April 28, 1975, Newsweek article reprinted today on the opposite page. But this wasn't a prediction of global warming. A new Ice Age worried Newsweek and its reporter, Peter Gwynne.
Future scenarios of widespread devastation, famine and starvation loomed because the Earth was getting cooler. "[T]he present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average," Mr. Gwynne wrote. The scientific community was abuzz with fear. Melting the ice caps or diverting Arctic rivers to warm the globe were proposed.
It never amounted to anything. Temperatures began rising again in 1975, reversing the cooling trend that began in 1940. As for the food scarcity which was "destined" to impact "the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North," plus the tropics, the opposite has happened. We've seen an explosion in agricultural productivity to sustain the world's burgeoning population.
We reprint this false alarm not to suggest that the current arguments about global warming are wrong. We don't know them to be right or wrong; there is too much scientific uncertainty clouding the issue. Rather, we simply wish to point out that scientists and the journalists and government agencies who cite them have been wrong on the subject of climate change before, quite recently in fact.
The judgment of the scientific community -- much less the judgment of international political entities or scribblers who cite them as authorities -- should not control this debate. "The science is settled," say the proponents; the consensus exists. But too often the disclaimers and scientific qualifiers get edited out of those press releases. And science is not about consensus in any event. It is about testing hypotheses and building evidence through experimentation.
In 1975, Newsweek's correspondent was convinced that politicians would fail to prevent the coming Ice Age. "The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality," Mr. Gwynne intoned darkly. Thankfully, they did not take the global-cooling bait.
The global-warming enthusiasts who now control this debate may or may not turn out to be this generation's Peter Gwynnes. But clearly they have been far too quick in their rush to judgment. Time and scientific evidence will tell the true story behind climate change. The policy solutions, if any are needed, will follow.

************************************************************

1975- Only 31 years ago!!

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

MiniTax- Thanks for your comment- Do you have a source? I have read that the little Ice Age is still with us or if not still with us, just ended.

BernardR,
You can find a decent description of the LIA here.
What is irrefutable is its existence. But alarmists say it's localized to Europe whereas sceptics say it's global and found in many proxies in many places from New Zealand to China. The debate revolves around the same thing: to know if the current T rise is "unprecedented" or not. But as error bars on past temperatures are much greater than current trend (0.2°C/last decade, 0.6°C/last century), any interpretation is possible, even political ones :wink:

As to the "the cooling world" article of Newsweek April 28 1975, in case no link was given, you can read it here

0 Replies

MiniTAX- I can see you know what you are talking about-

You wrote( in part)

quote
But as error bars on past temperatures are much greater than current trend (0.2°C/last decade, 0.6°C/last century), any interpretation is possible, even political ones.
end of quote

And that is the real bottom line, isn't it?

I have an interesting addition to make to that quote from Bjorn Lomborg's book-"The Skeptical Environmetalist"

quote _. P. 319--CAPS MINE

"When the three IPCC summary For Policymakers were approved, they were also rewritten by government -appointed scientists. From the previous IPCC Report, it was well known that the most important statement woudl be about the human culpability in global warming "the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernable human influence on global climate" Consequentyl, ther was considerable discussionover the formulation in the new report. In April 2000, the text was supposed to read "There has been a discernable human influence on global climate". In the October 2000 draft, it was stated that it was likely that increasing concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gases have contributed substantially to the observed warming over the last 50 years, YET, IN THE OFFICIAL SUMMARY, THE LANGUAGE WAS FURTHER TOUGHENED UP TO SAY THAT 'MOST OF THE OBSERVED WARMING OVER THE LAST 50 YEARS IS LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN DUE TO THE INCREASE IN GREENHOUSE GAS CONCENTRATIONS. When asked about the scientific background for this change by "New Scientist", the SPOKESMAN FOR THE UN ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM, TIM HIGMAN RESPONDED VERY HONESTLY_" THERE WAS NO NEW SCIENCE BUT THE SCIENTISTS WANTED TO PRESENT A CLEAR AND STRONG MESSAGE TO POLICY MAKERS"

end of quote

You said it right, MiniTAX--Any interpretation is possible, even POLITICAL ones--

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

Just a minor update, the Little Ice Age was by 1600 AD and triggered famine throughout Europe, which was one the cause of the French revolution in 1678.

Overread this:

the 'Little Ice Age' has been indeed after 1600 (until - as some say, even 1800), but about revolution in 1678 are you talking? (I know that the Franco-Dutch war ended in 1678, but a revolution?)

0 Replies

Interesting article

Quote:

Glaciers 'shrinking for 100 years'
From correspondents in Copenhagen, Denmark
August 22, 2006
GREENLAND'S glaciers have been shrinking for the past century, according to a Danish study published today, suggesting that the ice melt is not a recent phenomenon caused by global warming.

Danish researchers from Aarhus University studied glaciers on Disko island, in western Greenland in the Atlantic, from the end of the 19th century until the present day.

"This study, which covers 247 of 350 glaciers on Disko, is the most comprehensive ever conducted on the movements of Greenland's glaciers," glaciologist Jacob Clement Yde, who carried out the study with Niels Tvis Knudsen, said.

Using maps from the 19th century and current satellite observations, the scientists were able to conclude that "70 per cent of the glaciers have been shrinking regularly since the end of the 1880s at a rate of around eight metres per year," Mr Yde said.

"We studied 95 per cent of the area covered by glaciers in Disko and everything indicates that our results are also valid for the glaciers along the coasts of the rest of Greenland," he said.

The biggest reduction was observed between 1964 and 1985.

"A three-to-four degree increase of the temperature on Greenland from 1920 to 1930............

full story at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20211652-1702,00.html

btw did we ever figure out why the polar icecaps on Mars are shrinking, too?

0 Replies

Furthermore, MiniTAX, as you are probably aware, it has been estimated that in the past one million years, there has occurred a series of eight glacial/interglacial cycles, DRIVEN BY CHANGES IN THE EARTH'S ORBIT AROUND THE SUN"and the latest era, the Holocene began only 10,000 years ago. It is estimated that during the early part of the Holocene, the temperature was much warmer than it is today---WITHOUT COAL DRIVEN POWER PLANTS!!!

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Overread this:

the 'Little Ice Age' has been indeed after 1600 (until - as some say, even 1800), but about revolution in 1678 are you talking? (I know that the Franco-Dutch war ended in 1678, but a revolution?)

Oh jeez, I meant 1789 french revolution Embarrassed

Thank you for the overwrite.

0 Replies

Milankovitch cycles

BernardR wrote:

Furthermore, MiniTAX, as you are probably aware, it has been estimated that in the past one million years, there has occurred a series of eight glacial/interglacial cycles, DRIVEN BY CHANGES IN THE EARTH'S ORBIT AROUND THE SUN"

Yes, these are called Milankovitch cycles. You have a link in Wikipedia here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Besides, I'm sure you know that more than 80% of all times in theses cycles, the Earth is in glaciation. As shown on the graph, the holocene's (present) warm period we are in is exceptionnaly long, maybe because of (thanks to ?) GHGs ?
As to GHGs, in cretacious when dinosaurs thrived, concentrations were above 1000 ppm or more than 2x current levels. I'm told those big boys were a little more dumber in adaptation than us :wink:
P.S. As far as I know, the Antarctic Ice lastest bores enable measuments back to about 700.000 years BP.

0 Replies

IPCC

BernardR wrote:

TIM HIGMAN RESPONDED VERY HONESTLY_" THERE WAS NO NEW SCIENCE BUT THE SCIENTISTS WANTED TO PRESENT A CLEAR AND STRONG MESSAGE TO POLICY MAKERS"

I think the board who writes the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is made not only of scientists but also of UN officials. So to know what scientists say and not only the summary of their summary, the summary of IPCC's Working Group 1 should be read instead of the SPM.

And for sure, the controversy lies not only on the science but also on the way to make the public know the results of the science :

Here are some excerpts of two prominent IPCC lead authors :
Dr. Stephen Schneider, now at Stanford University in 1989 in Discover magazine:
"... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. "

James Hansen, 2003 in the Journal Natural Science
"Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climatescenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions."

Note that Dr Hansen declaration is after the 2001 IPCC third assessment report. So we should wait for the 2007 4th assessment report to see the changes in how the science is told.

0 Replies

Minitax, thank you for the very interesting and informative posts. We need well thought out reasoned posts here.

One thing that I have noted is that in many pro global warming websites and the like, the giant leap assumption is made that the climb in CO2 is totally due to man-produced CO2. Even given the recognition that less than 5% of all CO2 produced is man-caused, the reasoning goes that the natural CO2 is recycled back to the earth through natural cycles via the ocean and vegetation, leaving the man-caused to continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Well, one thing missing in this assumption is the fact that history has shown fluctuations and cycles / buildups in atmospheric CO2, which of course was not man-caused, and was also quite natural, so how can we assume the current climb in atmospheric CO2 is totally mancaused? I happen to think there is something else going on here, or a combination of factors going on, and even given the continued production of man-caused CO2, a natural reflex of factors will at some point reverse the trend.

0 Replies

Quote:

Alliance targets greenhouse gases
Chicago Climate Exchange partners with group in India

Associated Press
Published August 23, 2006

NEW DELHI -- A nonprofit group in India has partnered with the Chicago Climate Exchange to help South Asian countries reduce greenhouse gases while selling so-called "carbon credits" to polluting companies in the U.S.

The Energy and Resources Institute, or TERI, said Tuesday that it has entered into an agreement with the exchange to facilitate greenhouse gas reduction projects in India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan and the Maldive Islands.

The projects together will offset 1.5 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions over 18 months.

Emission reduction initiatives might include switching to solar energy supplies, tapping alternative fuel sources such as biofuel and planting trees that soak up carbon dioxide, said TERI official Vivek Kumar.

The Chicago Climate Exchange offers a marketplace for companies in the U.S. that want to voluntarily cap their carbon emissions.

The system is similar to the Kyoto protocol that allows countries to buy and sell the right to pollute. Richer countries unable to meet stringent emission reduction targets can buy carbon credits from developing countries that aren't bound by the same emission limits.

Kumar said TERI will work with aid groups, agricultural organizations and companies with operations in rural areas to identify projects that can be recommended for trading on the exchange. Once the projects are registered on the exchange, member companies can buy what are called "verified emission rights." Each right represents a ton of carbon dioxide.

Europe has already enforced a mandatory carbon emissions trading program following the Kyoto deal, and several Indian companies have sold carbon credits worth millions of dollars to Western firms under the European trading program.

But in the U.S., which has not signed the Kyoto agreement, the Chicago Climate Exchange was set up for voluntary action by American companies, including DuPont Co., International Business Machines Corp. and Schaumburg-based Motorola Inc.

Although the federal government is unlikely to make limits on carbon emissions mandatory, U.S. executives anticipate a cap-and-trade program at the state level within the next decade.

The move by the U.S. companies is part of a long-term strategy to get a foothold in emissions-trading schemes, so that if U.S. regulations become mandatory in the future, they will be able to lower emissions levels.

Source

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Interesting article

Quote:
Glaciers 'shrinking for 100 years'
From correspondents in Copenhagen, Denmark
August 22, 2006
GREENLAND'S glaciers have been shrinking for the past century, according to a Danish study published today, suggesting that the ice melt is not a recent phenomenon caused by global warming.

Danish researchers from Aarhus University studied glaciers on Disko island, in western Greenland in the Atlantic, from the end of the 19th century until the present day.

"This study, which covers 247 of 350 glaciers on Disko, is the most comprehensive ever conducted on the movements of Greenland's glaciers," glaciologist Jacob Clement Yde, who carried out the study with Niels Tvis Knudsen, said.

Using maps from the 19th century and current satellite observations, the scientists were able to conclude that "70 per cent of the glaciers have been shrinking regularly since the end of the 1880s at a rate of around eight metres per year," Mr Yde said.

"We studied 95 per cent of the area covered by glaciers in Disko and everything indicates that our results are also valid for the glaciers along the coasts of the rest of Greenland," he said.

The biggest reduction was observed between 1964 and 1985.

"A three-to-four degree increase of the temperature on Greenland from 1920 to 1930............

full story at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20211652-1702,00.html

btw did we ever figure out why the polar icecaps on Mars are shrinking, too?

Perhaps this needs to be balanced with the story that sea ice is increasing in Antarctica:

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html

I don't have the article at hand now, but also some have suggested the possibility that Greenland ice decreasing may be due at least in part to precipitation as much as it is to temperature.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know