Notices
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: climate warming

  1. #1 climate warming 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    14
    Significant warming, or just more variation?

    Significant warming, or just more variation from long term climate trends? Might present warming be just similar to Medieval Warming of 900-1280; a variation from underlying long term Holocene warming? Likewise the subsequent Little Ice Age cooling from 1300-1850 could seemingly be considered as just a variation from long term trend of Holocene. Solar insolation graph of minimums and maximums may be of interest.

    Heaven and Earth by Ian Plimer, 2009. 500 p. 2300 references.
    [/url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    No. The current trend cannot be adequately explained via natural processes. If it were a natural trend, it would have a natural and measurable driver. There aren't any. The only input to the system which accurately accounts for the changes are the human outputs.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...iative_forcing


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    have a look at the polar ice cover as of 5th of november 2009 compared with 2 years ago
    despite not having had any visibly hot weather in the last 2 years, the ice cover is now lower than what is now considered the peak year for global temperatures, especially in the Barends Sea area
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Here's a review of Plimer's book. Don't waste your money on it.

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009...ng_from_ia.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    No. The current trend cannot be adequately explained via natural processes. If it were a natural trend, it would have a natural and measurable driver. There aren't any. The only input to the system which accurately accounts for the changes are the human outputs.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...iative_forcing
    The Holocene (for ~ 12000 yrs) generalized warming, has no know cause; so it would seem. Is the Holocene just another typical inter-glacial warming? Industrialization has been for only ~ 100+ yrs. How is the pre-industrial CO2 measured; or is it just 'regressional analysis' ? Were carbon sinks considered, such as cold ocean waters, and also terrestrial and oceanic photosynthesis?

    Postscript:
    Also it is 20,000 yrs since LGM (last glacial maximum), which is ~ same as Milankovitch precessional cycle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles. Might we be ~3 ^o C degrees away from ice accumulation (over ~100 yrs?), and 1000 yrs from ice sheet accumulation in high latitudes?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Here's a review of Plimer's book. Don't waste your money on it.

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009...ng_from_ia.php
    Reviews reflect essentially upon the reviewer, not on the references.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    reviews can shed light on whether or not there is sound science behind a scientific claim.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by zanardm
    Reviews reflect essentially upon the reviewer, not on the references.
    This might be true if one reads the review uncritically and lacking any prior knowledge of the subject. I don't, and I presume you don't either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    No. The current trend cannot be adequately explained via natural processes. If it were a natural trend, it would have a natural and measurable driver. There aren't any. The only input to the system which accurately accounts for the changes are the human outputs.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...iative_forcing
    Not true, changes can be easily explained and have. people just don't listen, wanting to believe man can make such a serious change.

    The solar intensity has increased from about 1900 to 1950 by a significant amount. Temperature changes lag for various reasons. Now what likely happened, besides ESNO, is we were polluting the atmosphere, causing an annatural abedo. In the 70's we started implementing clean air standards that reduced the man made albedo, and we started warming to where the radiation balance would have had us years earlier.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    have a look at the polar ice cover as of 5th of november 2009 compared with 2 years ago
    despite not having had any visibly hot weather in the last 2 years, the ice cover is now lower than what is now considered the peak year for global temperatures, especially in the Barends Sea area
    I would suggest that the primary driver of the norther sea ice dissapearing is caused by man, but not by global warming. Have you ever styudied the effect of soot on ice? It dramatically changes the albedo of ice and snow, and melts it very rapidly. Asia has been building more and more coal powered plants, and the winds carry the soot over the norther cap.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    i'm sure that soot wouldn't have much of an effect on the polar ice at this time of the year, as the sun is far too weak to have much influence on ice cover, soot or no soot

    hence my conclusion that at this time of the year ocean temperatures are far more important, which would indicate a warming trend despite a number of cool atmospheric temperatures
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by zanardm
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    No. The current trend cannot be adequately explained via natural processes. If it were a natural trend, it would have a natural and measurable driver. There aren't any. The only input to the system which accurately accounts for the changes are the human outputs.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...iative_forcing
    The Holocene (for ~ 12000 yrs) generalized warming, has no know cause; so it would seem. Is the Holocene just another typical inter-glacial warming? Industrialization has been for only ~ 100+ yrs. How is the pre-industrial CO2 measured; or is it just 'regressional analysis' ? Were carbon sinks considered, such as cold ocean waters, and also terrestrial and oceanic photosynthesis?
    I am all but certain it has to do with the decrease in eccentricity of the earths orbit. As we become more circular, the average annual heat from the sun increased. We are in the approximate 400,000 year cycle that will place us in the lowest eccentricity in about 26,000 years. Last time this occured was about 370,000 years ago.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    i'm sure that soot wouldn't have much of an effect on the polar ice at this time of the year, as the sun is far too weak to have much influence on ice cover, soot or no soot

    hence my conclusion that at this time of the year ocean temperatures are far more important, which would indicate a warming trend despite a number of cool atmospheric temperatures
    With a weak starting point for buildup after the summer, isn't that to be expected?

    There are other factors of course, but soot is definately a problem.

    The ocean temperature is very important. I forget, doesn't the ocean have an albedo of about 0.08? It absorbs most the sunlight it recieves, and is about 70% of the earth. The albedo of clean snow/ice is more than 80% (0.80) and dirty snow under 40% (0.40). As the ice recedes more in the summer, the ocean collects even more heat. Now the ocean currents become a big factor, and doesn't the change of salinity from the extra melt make a notable change?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by wild cobra
    The solar intensity has increased from about 1900 to 1950 by a significant amount.
    In the first place, not enough, and no it didn't.

    In the second - you claimed that was all reflected, by changes in the "albedo", not stored. So how did this effect "lag"?

    In the third - the temp increase started long before that time, and has continued through it - there is no visible effect. Neither is there a visible large enough effect from the larger fluctuations in solar radiation within the smaller trend pattern if any.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    iceaura,

    I've already countered Wild Cobra's claim about solar activity being the prominent driver in the recent warming trend. Like most denialists, he doesn't seem to care that the data flatly refutes his assertions, so he just keeps repeating himself as if repetition alone will add validity to his point. On top of that, contrary to his comment above, temperature change in the 20th century actually precedes solar activity, it does NOT lag it... so there's always that.

    I really don't feel like re-typing it all, especially since he's already ignored it once, so please click the link to my post below for supporting information:

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=212900#212900
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    iceaura,

    I've already countered Wild Cobra's claim about solar activity being the prominent driver in the recent warming trend. Like most denialists, he doesn't seem to care that the data flatly refutes his assertions, so he just keeps repeating himself as if repetition alone will add validity to his point. On top of that, contrary to his comment above, temperature change in the 20th century actually precedes solar activity, it does NOT lag it... so there's always that.

    I really don't feel like re-typing it all, especially since he's already ignored it once, so please click the link to my post below for supporting information:

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=212900#212900
    And I disagree that you countered my claims, but I am also tired of repeating the same thing.

    Please just do me one favor. Apply the temperature difference to a scale of 0 to 288 kelvin, with a 0.2% variance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    I don't care what scale you use... Solar activity cannot account for the changes in climate we've been experiencing. That's really all there is to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by zanardm
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    No. The current trend cannot be adequately explained via natural processes. If it were a natural trend, it would have a natural and measurable driver. There aren't any. The only input to the system which accurately accounts for the changes are the human outputs.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...iative_forcing
    The Holocene (for ~ 12000 yrs) generalized warming, has no know cause; so it would seem. Is the Holocene just another typical inter-glacial warming? Industrialization has been for only ~ 100+ yrs. How is the pre-industrial CO2 measured; or is it just 'regressional analysis' ? Were carbon sinks considered, such as cold ocean waters, and also terrestrial and oceanic photosynthesis?
    I am all but certain it has to do with the decrease in eccentricity of the earths orbit. As we become more circular, the average annual heat from the sun increased. We are in the approximate 400,000 year cycle that will place us in the lowest eccentricity in about 26,000 years. Last time this occured was about 370,000 years ago.

    Postscript: Also it is 20,000 yrs since LGM (last glacial maximum), which is ~ same as Milankovitch precessional cycle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles. Are we ~3 C degrees away from ice accumulation (over ~100 yrs?), and 1000 yrs from ice sheet accumulation in high latitudes?[/url]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I am all but certain it has to do with the decrease in eccentricity of the earths orbit. As we become more circular, the average annual heat from the sun increased. We are in the approximate 400,000 year cycle that will place us in the lowest eccentricity in about 26,000 years. Last time this occured was about 370,000 years ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by Postscript
    Also it is 20,000 yrs since LGM (last glacial maximum), which is ~ same as Milankovitch precessional cycle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles. Are we ~3 C degrees away from ice accumulation (over ~100 yrs?), and 1000 yrs from ice sheet accumulation in high latitudes?
    I see the Milankovitch in a different light. Everyone cites the precession. Precession only makes notable difference when eccentricity is significant. As eccentricity approaches zero, so does the effect of precession.

    They use 65N degrees insolation as a reason to show northern to southern climate extreme changes. This is because right now, we have mild winters in the norther hemisphere because the earth is closer to the sun in the winter than in the summer. When the precession changes so the norther hemisphere is closer in the northern summer, the winters get more severe. Now the higher the eccentricity, the greater this summer/winter shift. This is why the 400,000 year cycle is more dramatic. Again, zero eccentricity would mean zero effect from precession.

    There is no one thing that triggers an ice age. There just cant be. It is a combination of events. One obviously appears to be high eccentricity. The Milankovitch is a theory that attempts to explain climate change without acknowledging how much eccentricity has a role. Understanding Kepler's laws helps the understanding. As we all understand, the accuracy of ice core data diminishes with depth. I would also content the temperature proxies and calculated eccentricity, obliquity, and precession are not aligned correctly time-wise on the graphs we have at our disposal.

    I would suggest because we will not see eccentricity rising for several thousand years, baring abnormal celestial events, we wont have another ice age for at least 40,000 years. I just cannot believe in a ice age at current solar strengths and such low eccentricity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •