Notices
Results 1 to 84 of 84
Like Tree4Likes
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By skeptic
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox

Thread: It doesn't need to be as bad as Venus to be unthinkable

  1. #1 It doesn't need to be as bad as Venus to be unthinkable 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    There's been a flurry of "Oh shit" comments in the climate world following the release of this paper. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v.../ngeo1573.html

    Of course the full text is behind a paywall so we need others to give us the details. First cab off the rank was Permafrost Projections « ClimateSight . Kate had the advantage of seeing the paper in draft form, but she still says,

    This paper went in my mental “oh shit” folder, because it made me realize that we are starting to lose control over the climate system. No matter what path we follow .....
    Then Tamino got in on the act with Oh Shit | Open Mind and a lot of good comments are in there along with his usual clear presentation of stats and graphs. There's also an explanation of the graphics from the paper itself at Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback .

    One of the most startling comments is not about this topic itself, it's that other "Oh shit" topic, ocean acidification ....

    In a book published this year about the oceans, Mitchell tells the story of Colorado-based marine ecologist Joanie Kleypas, who, when she realized the implications of ocean acidification, ran to the bathroom at the scientific conference she was attending and threw up.
    When scientists are so frightened that they throw up, the rest of us should start taking notice.


    WorldCitizenUSA likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    when she realized the implications of ocean acidification, ran to the bathroom at the scientific conference she was attending and threw up.
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    When scientists are so frightened that they throw up, the rest of us should start taking notice.
    That certainly doesn't sound good, have we any indication of a worse case senario?


    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I attended a Oyster Festival yesterday -- it's as you can expect lots of oyster foods, good music, craft displays even a Miss Oyster with parade--but anyhow there were several oyster coops. Oystering is big business in the Pacific Northwest with commercial companies taking up many of the harbors and in some places with miles of natural oyster shell reefs at low tide (great for a yummy raw snack during the winter months). I spent about an hour talking to some of the representatives and they're pretty honest about their concerns for the future. Wallipa Bay, nearest to the Pacific is already in trouble because of water acidity--the natural beds are almost entirely dead now and the few commercial oyster companies that still operate there are only able to do so because of hatcheries that spawn the largest oysters, and raise the larva until they are about half an inch long where they can be planted. The inner seas such as Hood canal and Puget sound are starting to experience the same problem and preparing to transition to similar hatchery scheme over the next 5-10 years. The natural beds, unable to reproduce, will probably die off -- taking what ever depends on them in the process.

    At some point even the adult oysters can't grow--but that is still under research.

    What kind of society continues to ignore the scientist?
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Hmmm

    A scientist threw up.

    Good to see we are reserving our judgment calls for solid scientific data instead of emotion driven hysteria.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Maybe she was pregnant.

    Seriously though, these signs are going to become more and more common, obviously. The thing is, when are people going to start to take these things seriously? People live in their own little worlds and screw everybody who tries to mess with it. They will probably blame the governments for doing nothing once the truth starts to dawn on them.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Good to see we are reserving our judgment calls for solid scientific data instead of emotion driven hysteria.
    It was the solid scientific data that made her throw up.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    adelady

    You are a smart woman. I have seen enough of your writings to know that. You know, as I do, that there are many things that make someone throw up. It could have been Campylobacter infected chicken at the conference dinner.

    As science people, we respond to solid data. Not stories of people throwing up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    You know, as I do, that there are many things that make someone throw up. It could have been Campylobacter infected chicken at the conference dinner.
    So if someone says they are shocked by the data, we should consider the possibility that they were shocked by someone bursting a balloon behind their head?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    We know what made her throw up because she told others at the conference about it. It's become a famous story in those circles mainly because she's not afraid to be identified.

    (Unlike the climatologists who've told people that they've bought property in comparatively "safe refuge" locations but insisted that their names not be mentioned. Climatologists have learned to be afraid of being seen as 'alarmist'. So the stories quickly become irrelevant rumours - nobody even tries to guess who they might be.)
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Adelady

    One reason i chose the name 'skeptic' is because I do not necessarily believe what I am told, just because it is what I am told. Famous stories are not necessarily true. I find it far more reasonable to believe a scientist threw up because of bad food (or a dozen other possible organic reasons) than because of bad facts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I don't, particularly if she said so herself. Scientist aren't unemotional machines--emotion is often the driving force behind the strong interest in their fields--sometimes bordering on obsession.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    10
    We are not taking the potential life-threatening nature of global climate change seriously. If we were we'd have a carbon tax and zero subsidies for oil companies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    The issue makes a lot of sense. If you live in an area where local pollution has caused acid rain, you put lime in your field before you try to grow anything.

    If your whole planet's water supply is starting to become acidic, because your whole planet is becoming polluted..... well you'll probably need quite a lot of lime.

    That's if I can operate off the assumption that the global problem resembles the local version.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    24
    Some very interesting and kind of scary links, the comments just jump the gun with regards the scary aspect, especially with how thin the Arctic is now.

    Naive Predictions of 2013 Sea Ice - Arctic Sea Ice
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    An interesting item in the latest New Scientist is a prediction of minimal solar activity in the next few years, and possibly decades. The reference suggested something similar to that which happened during the Little Ice Age.

    This will not stop global warming, of course, but it will slow the degree of warming. If true, and there is a damn good chance it is true, the warming for quite a while will be a lot less than some climatologists predict.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    The good news is that ...social engineering... on environmental issues is proceeding nicely. My 11-year old son's generation have these values we are urging, in their bones. A casual visit to any elementary school proves it. Or see the "new books" rack at your library's children's section.

    Mind, this is the city that spawned Greenpeace, so I guess the indoctrination's somewhat heavier here. Anyway, it's working!

    When I talk to older generations, they may get excited but it seems more a convenient political stick to beat "the man" with: big factories pollute the air, etc. In other words climate change is just a battleground topic of politics.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    An interesting item in the latest New Scientist is a prediction of minimal solar activity in the next few years, and possibly decades. The reference suggested something similar to that which happened during the Little Ice Age.

    This will not stop global warming, of course, but it will slow the degree of warming. If true, and there is a damn good chance it is true, the warming for quite a while will be a lot less than some climatologists predict.
    A pretty recent study addressed this very subject and ran models with the Maunder minimum. The result was a 0.3 C less heating by 2100, or about a 10% reduction is temperature rise.

    http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Pu...storf_2010.pdf
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    Skeptic, surely the point is the data and science is showing something that knowledgeable people find frightening enough that they are claiming it made them vomit - that is, evidence of the bounds of the climate system we depend on is shifting irrevocably into uncharted territory. We can use the skeptical urge to check the facts about that evidence or we can use it to check their claims about what made them vomit. One guess which I think is more important. I would note that successfully addressing the issue is very much dependent on public opinion and scientists assiduously avoiding the emotive aspects will mean they will be at a disadvantage when it comes to impacting public opinion.

    So when should being knowledgeable about a growing danger to our prosperity and security legitimately lead people to shift from being practitioners of science to become advocates and activists? If and when they do how does that affect their scientific credibility? Of course if our elected representatives and others in positions of trust - and with an abundance of quality information and expert advice at their disposal - were acting responsibly on this issue scientists would not feel any pressure to make such a shift.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Ken

    Reporting what is correct is important to me, without exaggeration, and with all bullsh!t carefully excised.

    This applies also to things like global warming. We need to have what is correct reported accurately, without ridiculous sideshows about who vomits and why.
    sculptor likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    barf as the new benchmark for silly predictions based on outdated models

    jeezzzzzzzz
    field data is science
    speculation and emotional outburst ain't
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    There's a mistaken belief among scientist that reason alone is enough to persuade the public and their representatives--history shows when it comes to politicized issue this is simply not true. In the case of climate science the hard objective data and projections are damn scary--they don't need any exaggeration and to do so risk loss of credibility. On the other hand, that research needs to be delivered not with calm and completely boring science speak which only works on science geeks, but with drama, stories and yes considerable emotion to stir interest, concern and even anger. Like or not emotion is the key component to turn the boring science into palpable movement that can get idiots off the US Congressional science committee, demand change and generally turn our society away from the cliff.

    Science has been telling politians about the consequences for more than 30 years to almost zero effect--time for science to acknowledge it's not working and take a different message to the people.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    field data is science
    Presumably you know more about the proceedings at this conference than I do. So you know absolutely, incontrovertibly, certainly, beyond any doubt that there was no real world data, none at all, presented in those days that would upset a scientist who's a specialist in the area in question.

    If you'd been at dinner with me last night, you could have gathered some "field data". Our friends have spent 6 of the last 8 years sailing their yacht in tropical waters from Australia to Samoa and other Pacific islands, around Indonesia and Malaysia across to various islands in the Indian Ocean and Bay of Bengal.

    As it happens I didn't take notes or record what they said. But if you think you can sail around idyllic tropical paradises and expect to catch fish big enough to make a meal of or dive in clear, clean waters - think again. Tropical paradises are few and far between nowadays.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Lynx

    You can get as dramatic as you like in other company. However, as a member of a science forum, it impresseth me not.

    Adelady

    As a keen scuba diver who travels to many Pacific destinations, I can tell you that the old idea of a South Pacific paradise is still there. You may be looking in the wrong places. Personally, I just marvel at the wonderful and immense marine life.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I know there are some good places left.

    The main thing that concerns my friends was that they'd decided on various places they wanted to go to on the basis either of having been there before themselves on someone else's boat or of recommendations from others who'd previously had a wonderful time there swimming, surfing, fishing, diving or holidaying in beautiful waters. And were horribly disappointed in several places.

    They were really concerned not just about their own inability to catch a meal for themselves, the local fishing boats often came back with nothing to show for days' fishing, so no meals or income for several families at a time. The only people who seem to bring in any worthwhile catches are the larger foreign ships fishing waaaay out on open ocean waters.

    One thing I've not heard of before. When the ocean floor slipped and initiated the tsunami a few years ago, I hadn't heard that large areas in the Indian Ocean also sank or 'tipped up'. Apparently lots of places have had to redo surveys of navigation maps because a lot of rocks on the floor are now close enough to the surface to be hazards to shipping. Lots of ports and marinas and ramps, as well as previous coral reefs, are now 2 or more metres further out of the water. So when people pull up a small-ish yacht to a landing, there are now rope/tyre ladders to clamber up to get onto dry land. Some places are only accessible at high tide.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Adelady

    One of the current trends, which is global, is to set aside areas as marine reserves. You have them in Oz. We have them in NZ. Less than a month ago, I was diving one in Fiji (where I got that nice shark photo). As time goes by, more and more such reserves are set up. They have an impact way out of proportion to their size, since a few well protected, large, mature, individual fish, or lobsters etc., will produce vast numbers of spat to recolonise much of the ocean.

    Obviously more such areas are needed, and the growth is slow. But at least the growth is there, and we are getting more every year.

    Here is one of the prettier marine life forms - a nudibranch - a shell less mollusc, also from Fiji.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    field data is science
    Presumably you know more about the proceedings at this conference than I do. So you know absolutely, incontrovertibly, certainly, beyond any doubt that there was no real world data, none at all, presented in those days that would upset a scientist who's a specialist in the area in question.
    .
    May I present the barfometer(for those seeking an easy guide to what is and what is not real science)
    10) it makes one wretch violently for days on end untill, finally she puked out her stomach and died
    9) it makes one wretch violently, culminating in hours and days of the dry heaves (and, she lost 35 pounds of fat in the process)
    8) it makes one wretch violently, and continued for the next 3 attempts at consuming food
    7) it makes one puke
    6) it makes one head to the bathroom thinking vomit was imminent
    5) it produces belching and acid reflux
    4) it gives one an uneasy feeling in their stomach
    3) it gives one a general feeling of nausea
    2) it had no effect
    1) it puts one to sleep(finally, a cure for insomnia)

    If it didn't score at least a 6 on the barfometer, it probably wasn't real science, 7 would be better

    Seriously dear lady
    share the data
    and park the hyperbole in the childrens playground
    it does you a disservice
    ..............

    I've been trying to recall one single incident where scientists have gotten into bed with politicians for a little social engeneering, and actually came up with something that could be considered "good"
    I'm drawing blanks here
    Does anyone have such an incident like that, that you wish to share?
    ..............
    edit: alf a mo
    I mean, besides
    skeptic's marine reserves
    Last edited by sculptor; October 10th, 2012 at 09:43 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    Lynx Fox, communicating the seriousness and urgency are probably less a matter of poor communication skills of scientists than the lack of listening and comprehension skills of relevant others. When it gets into the wider public political domain powers of persuasion matter as much or more than information, information itself is not bounded by accuracy and truth. Yet elected representative, here in Australia at least, are theoretically obliged to represent their entire electorate's interests, not only those who voted for them or commercial interests with lobbying power who donate dollars towards their election. The problems are hard but those who hold positions of public trust should not be excused for shirking their responsibilities through cultivation of ignorance or misinformation.

    Sculptor - some successes off the top of my head - CFC's globally. Regionally a raft of regulation of environmental regulation that greatly reduced dumping of toxic and dangerous wastes - acid rain reduced, fish back in rivers that had been toxic conduits. Health related programs like community wide vaccinations. None 100% perfect of course.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    I understand sculptor's reservations about non field data.
    I do not believe that is 100% correct, but there is a degree of truth there. True science has always been based on empirical testing. When scientists depart from that, and go into the world of deduction, whether by computer models, or back of the envelope calculations, a level of uncertainty creeps in. Such matters, like a scientific hypothesis, require empirical confirmation.

    In the case of computer global climate models, predictions need to be made that can be checked against reality. These predictions need to be sufficiently novel that they are not obvious. Only by making testable predictions, can hypotheses, or computer models be demonstrated to be valid or not. For example : predicting that sea ice will thin as the world warms is not sufficient, since that is kinda obvious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Thanks Ken
    when the first one to come to mind was the eugenics work, I suspected that i might be heading down a blind alley of bias
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    In the case of computer global climate models, predictions need to be made that can be checked against reality. These predictions need to be sufficiently novel that they are not obvious. Only by making testable predictions, can hypotheses, or computer models be demonstrated to be valid or not. For example : predicting that sea ice will thin as the world warms is not sufficient, since that is kinda obvious.
    It's not just computer models. Arrhenius and Keeling didn't use computer models but they've both been shown to be pretty well on the money as far as temperature rise per doubling of CO2 goes. And if you want to look in detail at how reality compares with the modelling of 30 or more years ago, there are some pretty good results (esp when you look at the feeble computing power available for such things back then).

    One thing that puts some people off is that climate models model climate, not weather. So if you're looking for 'accuracy' or 'precision', climate models work admirably on century timescales, even half-century, but they're near pointless for weather or decade-level purposes. Considering how much they're out of whack with Arctic sea ice, severe weather events and glacier loss - all running decades ahead of IPCC FAR - this is really obvious. (I don't count sea level rise in any of these considerations because they explicitly excluded additional water from melting icesheets from the FAR projection. They might as well have blanked out the whole section - except that it's supposed to be an overview of the science as it stands at the time rather than of what we'd like them to be able to tell us. So they did the right thing, even though it tells us virtually nothing.)

    For comparisons of results of modelling, try
    easy to follow Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
    ditto - note standard deviations around projection line Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
    more technical links RealClimate: 2011 Updates to model-data comparisons

    I've been trying to recall one single incident where scientists have gotten into bed with politicians for a little social engeneering, and actually came up with something that could be considered "good"
    1,2,3, Eliminating smallpox and rinderpest from the face of the earth - almost there with polio.
    4, Ozone hole stabilising in SH due to international agreement on CFCs
    5, Acid rain decreased by international agreements on sulphur and similar emissions
    6, Commercial whaling controls
    7, Vaccination programs for measles and other contagious diseases
    8, Clean water supplies and sanitation
    9, 10, .... Your personal favourites for successful scientific and governmental cooperation in solving serious and/or shared problems. My candidates to fill out the top ten would be DDT and bednets for malaria control, rules for international shipping re ballast water, asbestos banned in many countries, fisheries management in the waters of my own state, AIDS prevention programs, control of tobacco companies' activities.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    thanx again adelady
    maybe the current electioneering (seeming insanity?) has tilted my mind to a place that is a tad to cynical?
    ...
    epimetheus edit

    maybe this ties into your "memory" thread?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    Empirical testing is going on constantly and with the "experiment" well and truly underway field data is thoroughly a part of the scientific process; it's the most legitimate data we can have. The problem for me is having no choice about being in the test tube! Others appear to have no problem with that but I think I would much prefer the projections of computer modeling even with limitation - if only because the results will be available much sooner (giving foresight) even if they are not quite as accurate as the field data (which give hindsight).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    Empirical testing is going on constantly and with the "experiment" well and truly underway field data is thoroughly a part of the scientific process; it's the most legitimate data we can have. The problem for me is having no choice about being in the test tube! Others appear to have no problem with that but I think I would much prefer the projections of computer modeling even with limitation - if only because the results will be available much sooner (giving foresight) even if they are not quite as accurate as the field data (which give hindsight).
    They aren't really separate anyhow. Even the most basic measures/observations of natural systems include modeling. For weather and climate: a barometric pressure measurements are modeled using assumptions about what the atmosphere might have looked like between its elevation and sea level, weather balloon data are modeled against its assumed rise and trajectory, an anemometer (wind gauge) is modeled against assumed effects of friction with the ground and dynamic stability. Observation and models are pretty much inseparable. Few sciences could do analysis without models.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    There's a mistaken belief among scientist that reason alone is enough to persuade the public and their representatives--history shows when it comes to politicized issue this is simply not true. In the case of climate science the hard objective data and projections are damn scary--they don't need any exaggeration and to do so risk loss of credibility. On the other hand, that research needs to be delivered not with calm and completely boring science speak which only works on science geeks, but with drama, stories and yes considerable emotion to stir interest, concern and even anger. Like or not emotion is the key component to turn the boring science into palpable movement that can get idiots off the US Congressional science committee, demand change and generally turn our society away from the cliff.

    Science has been telling politians about the consequences for more than 30 years to almost zero effect--time for science to acknowledge it's not working and take a different message to the people.
    Appeals to emotion have been tried too. Movies have been made like "The Day After Tomorrow" or "Water World".

    The problem is people just don't believe it. The appeal to emotion that works best is the "I'm on your side" appeal, and large industries that want less regulation have managed to make exactly that appeal to most of America. The scientists come along wagging their fingers at the public, and then put the public on the defensive, wanting to resist being told they're bad and evil because they dare to heat/cool their homes or drive to work.

    When offered positive initiatives, things like building windmills or solar panels - things which really don't solve the problem very well, but represent an effort in the right direction, the public shows quite a lot of support for it. The option they don't want to hear is to sit in their house at 100 degrees Fahrenheit and suffer all day or walk/bicycle 20 miles every day to work. I don't think any human being should have to live like that. You're going to make enemies of people if you tell them that's the answer.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Appeals to emotion have been tried too. Movies have been made like "The Day After Tomorrow"
    or "Water World".
    I didn't see either of those movies as an appeal to climate change...or having anything to with the climate debate. You really did? They were both pure fantasy--one even made up news kinds of weather systems, the other covering Mount Everest --Disney's Black Hole was more realistic.

    I'm talking a combination of documentaries which put the observed changed in peoples faces--the glacial picture difference are simply astounding.

    Movies about specific events that don't exaggerate, such as one about the frustration of scientist watching the sinking delta, loose of silt, rising sea levels and increasing intensity of Atlantic hurricane warning about vulnerability of New Orleans years before Katrina. (And it was only a cat-4 storm---not the "perfect storm by a long shot.)

    To more subtle backdrops set into the near future. Movies like "Hard Rain," with a bit more mention of increasingly severe floods in recent years; a romance set in struggling farming communities of central Kansas as it turns from fertile farmlands into hard desert; "The last icebreaker," a real subject here in Seattle as two are pending being turned into scrap etc.

    Also the scientific community needs to get our of their cubicles, grow a set, and confront the bad reporting by the media--which continues to give equal time to anti-science crackpots, seldom summarizes research correctly, and usually fails to provide DIO references so interested readers can actually read the original works. Firewalled science articles is another problem. Every undergrad science program should have a required course in media interaction--we need to break the culture of letting others badly tell the story of science.


    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    Lynx Fox, I probably should have added a smiley or something; 'only a model' seriously devalues what modeling is doing and how well it does so. We can run the real world climate experiment and get real world results - as has been happening. The early results are 'good' in the sense of showing that the world is gaining heat in response to rising GHG's, confirming the mainstream science, but 'bad' in confirming that it is a serious and urgent problem. Yet the day to day weather impacts haven't shifted far outside the realms of 'normal' variability and don't tell us the extent of underlying changes that have already occurred and how they will play out in an ongoing cascade of effects. That they are not clear and obvious to the community at large allows the opponents of action to dispute them. But I expect even running the experiment as a worst case scenario through to it's century from now conclusion will still see the results disputed. Climate science deniers and those opposing action on emissions want people to believe those developing climate models are cheating to make them show predetermined results whereas the results I believe they truly are seeking are insights into the real workings of our climate - as well as to achieve one of the more difficult outcomes our climate scientists been charged with producing - projection and prediction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    The option they don't want to hear is to sit in their house at 100 degrees Fahrenheit and suffer all day or walk/bicycle 20 miles every day to work. I don't think any human being should have to live like that. You're going to make enemies of people if you tell them that's the answer.
    The only people who advocate a hard life for everyone are in the knit-your-own-yogurt brigade, and only some of them. Certainly not the science community.

    Scientists and technology and city planning people advocate using existing not-very-fancy technology to reduce or eliminate carbon emissions. High mpg vehicles have been around for decades, insulation and double glazing likewise. I installed a solar hot water system in the 80s - there is no need to wash in cold water, ever, even if you're the greenest of greenies. Even stuff like porous paving has been around since before the Sydney Olympics - and that has uses far beyond what I'd thought of.

    The harder part has been areas like regulation - and now there's at least one good move in the USA on that front. Setting criteria for less or more detailed environmental impact statements for use of public lands New Solar Energy Program Signals A Paradigm Shift In Our Approach To Energy Development On Public Lands | ThinkProgress . There's a lot more to be done at local levels, but this sort of thing is good.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    There also needs a lot of R and D.
    I have pointed out before that the use of thorium based fission power has the potential to replace coal for generating electricity, without the emissions, with much greater safety, and to provide abundant electricity for the world. Thorium has a similar abundance to lead. All that is needed is the development work (the system already works. It just needs tweaking.) plus investment in this form of power instead of burning coal.

    With abundant electricity, most personal transport can be done using battery operated cars (85% of all car journeys are shopping or commuting). It can even be used to make synthetic liquid fuels.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    Lynx Fox, I probably should have added a smiley or something; 'only a model' seriously devalues what modeling is doing and how well it does so. We can run the real world climate experiment and get real world results - as has been happening. The early results are 'good' in the sense of showing that the world is gaining heat in response to rising GHG's, confirming the mainstream science, but 'bad' in confirming that it is a serious and urgent problem. Yet the day to day weather impacts haven't shifted far outside the realms of 'normal' variability and don't tell us the extent of underlying changes that have already occurred and how they will play out in an ongoing cascade of effects. That they are not clear and obvious to the community at large allows the opponents of action to dispute them. But I expect even running the experiment as a worst case scenario through to it's century from now conclusion will still see the results disputed. Climate science deniers and those opposing action on emissions want people to believe those developing climate models are cheating to make them show predetermined results whereas the results I believe they truly are seeking are insights into the real workings of our climate - as well as to achieve one of the more difficult outcomes our climate scientists been charged with producing - projection and prediction.
    My simple point is making a distinction between observation and models is a false one--- a meteorology can't draw even the most basic weather chart without using a model.


    You statement: "Yet the day to day weather impacts haven't shifted far outside the realms of 'normal' variability" surprises me. We've been completely smashing records all over the place over the past ten years even in the place we've got 100 years of direct measurements.

    One proxy indicator of how far we are outside natural variability is by looking at the ratio of high to low temperature records.


    I'm not too crazy about using single years--but the scientist should be hammering that when it happens year after year after year we can make conclusions about how things are changing--and perhaps more importantly explaining that we can look at many of these events as attribution by the changing climate.

    For example our in Western WA is today getting rain for the first time in 89 days-- most years Seattle gets at least a couple rain events during the summer. Now what should the message be? Should scientist be mute to the fact that every climate model suggest summers will be increasingly drier and winters increasingly wetter, this year is likely a good example of things to come, and at least partially due to change already happening? I think so. This topic can be broken into bite sized chunks that even our scientifically ignorant American public can understand.

    We simply have to find a way to cut through the political crap and stop doing things like the USDA did when they updated all their seasonal growing maps towards warmer zones based on actual temperature data and suggested it wasn't about climate change--bullox.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    You statement: "Yet the day to day weather impacts haven't shifted far outside the realms of 'normal' variability" surprises me.
    I fully understand that statement.
    In spite of the 'smashed records', the actual variance from long term averages has not yet been all that great. Global average temperatures have not yet increased even 1.0 C over what we had 100 years ago. Sea level rise is still 2 mm approx. per year. With the reduced solar output over the past decade, the temperature increase as global average has dropped further.

    This is not an argument against global warming. Global warming is real and continues, but it helps explain why the average citizen remains unconvinced. In terms of everyday living, there has been minimal impact. Not enough to be obvious to anyone not keeping careful records.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    There also needs a lot of R and D.
    Absolutely. All the things that should have had lots of development through deployment are now getting their boots on. And we need to go all out on further deployment/development. We've got plenty of scope for most countries of the world to have renewables as 30+% of supply with very little trouble. Doing more will require a lot of grid and battery development - but while that's happening, there's ample scope for R&D on thorium reactors.

    But the nuclear industry has been sitting on its hands all this time. They've spent far too much time, effort and money on defending their existing technologies, pretending that there are no impending issues for nuclear - like finding enough cooling water at new sites or avoiding being inundated at sea level installations, rather than saying that they have potentially better technology that they could develop. Like thorium. If they'd been advocating systems that can be turned on and off more quickly and easily than coal, with salt-cooling meaning no call on irrigation or domestic water supplies, they might have made themselves some friends. Instead they've been creating and entrenching enemies and embracing some very reluctant friends.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Global average temperatures have not yet increased even 1.0 C over what we had 100 years ago.
    Expected temperature increases are a function of CO2 concentrations - not of time.

    And they're running very much as they were modelled or projected by everyone from Arrhenius onwards.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    Lynx Fox, Perhaps I haven't expressed myself very well; most of the recent extreme and record breaking weather event manage to get fitted into the elastic category of 'normal variation' as much because it is such a subjective and elastic term and breaking of records doesn't, by itself make people think a new category is needed. Scrupulous avoidance of experts in absolute attribution to climate change has reinforced that. Although I see a trend of weather reporting, particularly from media that has an editorial bias against climate science and emissions reductions, of using 'record breaking' terminology so regularly and inappropriately that it's coming to lose it's meaning (coldest, hottest, wettest, driest in x years without being any kind of broken record at all). North America has had extreme and dramatic droughts, floods and storms in the past and it's conceptually easy to fit what's occurred recently into that familiar framework even if the likelihood and geographic extent of such occurences with climate change is greater than without. The increase in the frequency of extreme weather events appears to be (to an interested non-expert like myself) the more ubiquitous and clear signature of a changing climate system than the occurrence of completely out of the 'normal' range weather events. So far.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    The increase in the frequency of extreme weather events appears to be (to an interested non-expert like myself) the more ubiquitous and clear signature of a changing climate system than the occurrence of completely out of the 'normal' range weather events. So far.
    It's perfectly 'normal' to have a 1 in 100 year flood twice in ten years (as long as it's only that one decade). It's not quite so 'normal' to have 1 in 100 year event and a 1 in 500 year event in that same period. And when Adelaide has a 1 in 3000 year heatwave one year and Russia has a similar one a very few years later, things are piling up.

    Looking at Hansen's latest paper on the observed incidence of such things over the last 30 years is pretty sobering.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Given our earlier comments on fishing and diving in tropical waters, this item has links to relevant papers. Most coral reefs are at risk unless climate change is drastically limited
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    I've never quite understood how those 1 in x years quantifications are arrived at or how valid they really are. Something like South Australia's extreme heatwave(s) probably is a case of being outside of normal variation - 1 in 3000 yrs suggests it's extremely unlikely yet still possible but that period of time also has to allow for some actual and significant changes in the climate system; within the bounds of the climate system of recent times it probably does count as outside of normal. But after it has occurred more than once within a decade or two does that shift the metric itself? Will the next heatwave of that extent count as a one in 50 years or 1 in 20 years event and be used to downplay the significance? That we are already seeing such extremes occurring much more often is already apparent in the real world data and quite alarming, even without each being a record breaker. And the strong likelihood there will be more broken records is there with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I've never quite understood how those 1 in x years quantifications are arrived at or how valid they really are. Something like South Australia's extreme heatwave(s) probably is a case of being outside of normal variation - 1 in 3000 yrs suggests it's extremely unlikely yet still possible
    I think it's just an extrapolation into time from the standard deviations for whatever the event is. It's the way engineers and especially insurers talk. Let's face it, if Adelaide had been immobilised by knee deep snow for a fortnight that would have been a 1 in 10 or 20 thousand year event - much, much less likely than the most extreme capital city heatwave in Australia's history.

    If you look at the figures from Hansen's review of extreme heat events over the last few decades, you can see the previously 100+ years, 1000+ years kind of heat events are becoming more common. They'll become 20 years/300 years events.


    (Last modified: 2012/08/03)

    Correspondingly, extreme cold events are becoming less and less frequent. No value to us in Adelaide or Perth - we've never had to build roads or bridges to cope with ice anyway.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Almost all current temperature/climate records date from the mid to late time of "the little ice age", few go back to it's beginning around the time of the great famine of the early 1300s, certainly almost all "american" temperature records are from the last 2 centuries.

    warming?
    Damned straight
    we ain't even at the estimated temperatures of the holocene optimum, nor the mideival warm period
    C3: ? Are Modern Temperatures Unprecedented
    so we got a ways to go yet.

    Have you relooked at the milankovitch charts after looking at the lake E data?
    I'm seeing simular patterns to the warm mis 11 in the current milankovitch cycles

    anyone else seeing the same patterns
    discussion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Sculptor

    You will find that the vast majority of climatologists would rank the Medieval warm period as a lot cooler than today. The "study" you quoted looked at one single core taken from one site in one lake. Not precisely definitive, when we are dealing with something that varies dramatically from place to place and one study to another. I am aware, for example, that some studies show no warming at all for the Medieval warm period.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    The Medieval 'Warm Period' now has a more accurate name. Most people now refer to it as the Medieval 'Climate Anomaly'.

    Because it's really just an accident that a small area of the globe had a warm period not extending to other areas - and that area happened to be one with the capacity to record what happened. An anomaly in several ways.

    And we've now found places all over the globe that had the occasional one or two century period after or before the medieval period where temperatures ran above the location average. Records from any one location have to be lined up with others to see whether the cooler or warmer temperatures were local, regional or global.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    skeptic----------------you need to be more skeptical
    adelady----changing the name don't change the game.

    File:Greenland Gisp2 Temperature.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    lol
    as/re MWP/mca
    Was it really warmer?
    it happened in chile,
    it happened in switzerland,
    it happened in alaska
    it happened in antarctica
    it happened in lake erie
    it happened in south africa
    it happened in west africa
    it happened in japan
    it happened in canada
    it happened in venezuela
    ...........BUT IT WASN'T GLOBAL!!!(stamping of feet here)
    honest

    silly people
    anyway
    that wasn't my question
    My question had to do with comparative milankovitch cycles from 400kybp and today
    eccentricity seems almost identical, while obliquity seems out of phase

    It has been stated that the warmest period in the eemian was within 3kyrs of deglaciation
    coincidental with our holocene optimum---------(no surprise there)

    when insanity rules, when agendas effectively act as blinders and science is abused for personal prejucices--there is no science-no quest for truth-no good--no beauty

    let us rely on field data and make up our own minds and not mindlessly parrot others prejudiced agendas
    ......
    milankovitch?
    anyone???
    Last edited by sculptor; October 14th, 2012 at 10:08 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I don't know what you mean by "it happened."

    It was a global event, as in the climate changed in most parts of the world in some way, but some places it was warming, others cooling as well as significant precipitation changes. Much like an extended La Nina event.
    This shows what I'm talking about:


    Here's a collection of recent articles that show the huge amount of work trying to understand the global shifts during that period.

    http://www.pages-igbp.org/download/docs/NL2011-1_lowres.pdf


    Mush like the Medieval Climate Anomaly showed regional differences, it would no surprise me if there are similar differences in distribution pattern as we continue to warm the global lower atmosphere this century. Some effects we already have a reasonable understanding for, such as the application at high latitudes. In other places, increased precipitation will reduce temperatures, the reverse happening in other places. Figuring out the most likely patterns are critical to future planning. Will Darfur or Northern Texas become green again, or remain increasingly parched in a warmer world? Substitute your own local concerns for similar vital questions.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    when insanity rules, when agendas effectively act as blinders and science is abused for personal prejucices--there is no science-no quest for truth-no good--no beauty

    let us rely on field data amd make up our own minds and not mindlessly parrot others prejudiced agendas
    Now this is a bit rich, even for me.

    I am not mindless.

    I know a great deal of "field data".

    I do not "parrot" any views. I state my own and I try to back up with good evidence where it's available.

    I am not party to any "agenda".

    If anyone can show me where I am "prejudiced" in any way I'd hope they'd point to something specific.

    As far as science goes, this is the area of my main interest and a little expertise (by scientists' standards that is, I'm close to expert in layman's terms).

    You may not want to follow where the science leads me and most of the world's scientists. That's a choice you've made (and I see little evidence that you want to add to your knowledge, let alone allow such additions to modify your views).

    But don't tell me it's because I'm prejudiced or duped or foolish or don't know what I'm talking about that you disagree with me.

    I can think of several areas where new data or theory could change my current views on climate, either past or future or general principles.
    One question you might want to reflect on for a while.
    Can you think of any data, any evidence or theory or analysis that anyone might present that would cause you to change any part of your views on climate? If not, why not?
    Ken Fabos likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Thanx lynx nice chart, (some minor noncomformities from my readings into siberian records, and some to degree, but over-all +++)("it happened" = data as/re warming during MWP was found)

    There are many studies of sedementary pollen, tree ring data, forests found under glaciers, ocean benthic cores, etc showing warmer temperatures during the MWP.
    so
    perhaps I over reacted to the dismissive nature of:
    "The "study" you quoted looked at one single core taken from one site in one lake"
    Anyone seeking to find more studies which claim warming in various places all over the world for that time can do so easily.
    Hellman
    a simple google search will yield 20-30 such places in a couple minutes.......as far afield as greenland and antarctica.....
    This should never be in dispute.

    The degrees of the warming, and the interplay between warmer or colder oceans and the land masses is the really interesting part.
    But if the dismissive "single study" crap obfuscates the reality of known data, it is a disservice to the science, and ultimately to our understanding of our precious earth. (Of course, the obfuscatory crap promulgated by those intent on proving that CO2 has no climate effect is also a disservice)

    Figuring out the most likely patterns are critical to future planning.
    precisely so young sir, clarity becomes the only thing worth while.

    as/re
    Can you think of any data, any evidence or theory or analysis that anyone might present that would cause you to change any part of your views on climate?
    I did say of the Lake El'gygytgyn data that it was a paradigm changer, but even that ain't completely accurate as one could derive an inclination to their data by carefully studying the Lisiecki and Raymo data.
    What I do know is that what we do know is far less than what we don't know, and that we live in an era where more studies are coming to light, filling in details of the older broad strokes. New instrumentation allows us to see much more depth in the materials from whence we derive our data.

    Parts of my views on climate are modified with each new study, parts are cumulative, and form classificatory schema through whose lense, the "new" material is seen and catalogued(can any of us be both knowledgeable and completely free of prejudice?---I think not-------the trick is in trying to allow precision to shift our internal paradigms as they unfold)

    so
    queries about chile, switzerland, alaska, antarctica,lake erie, south africa, west africa, canada, china, japan, or venezuelia?
    or
    can we just move on to looking at the milankovitch cycles and the previous super interglacials?
    or
    do studies into previous glacial and interglacial cycles boor the hell out of you?
    Last edited by sculptor; October 14th, 2012 at 12:51 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Parts of my views on climate are modified with each new study,

    That's a good thing...and true for climate science (and every other science).

    But it's also to recognize that all that filling of the details hasn't changed the basic conclusion known by climatologist for the past 40 years--our strong addition of greenhouse gases is pushing the climate system well beyond natural limits we'd be experiencing given our current orbital parameters and solar output variability. Studies of past climate have improved our understanding of overall sensitivity, and by comparison to simulations, helping us understanding changed ocean/atmosphere/cryrospere interactions that might be relevant to the regional differences we can expect over the next century.

    My point is, even the most exciting studies and new information, aren't' overturning the apple cart of climate science. It's also far too easy for deniers to hype the minor scientific disputes without the broader context and make claims they completely change the filed--in reality there are few examples of field changers in modern science--and nothing in climate science since the paleo research back in the 60' and 70s.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    I think science based understanding the dynamics of the MCA/MWP will be mostly important as part of better understanding regional effects of the current global climate changes. What it hasn't and won't do is show the GHG driven climate problem is overstated by mainstream climate science. Understanding MCA better won't stop dedicated climate science obfuscators or ill-informed opponents of action on emissions using it to undermine public confidence in scientific expertise. An excess of focus by researchers on it as a response, expecting better understanding within science will see the arguments made outside and around it to be settled, is probably a bit wasteful of research budgets and expert brainpower. I think the climate problem is understood well enough that arguing about MCA/MWP with amateur 'experts' is wasteful of my own time and inexpert brainpower.

    Sculptor, why can't you see that the people running sites like C3 headlines have a clear agenda to misinform and mislead and that there are far more reliable sources of information? They want you to believe that because climate has changed in the past from natural causes, the cause of current change in climate must be natural. The appearance of correlation of current warming to solar is inherent in the article you linked to. Yet the continuing heat imbalance over recent times does not correlate well with solar at all. It can't explain this -



    Nuccitelli_Fig1.jpg
    Last edited by Ken Fabos; October 14th, 2012 at 05:04 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    When I see words and phrases
    like
    deniers
    and
    the climate problem
    You might as well be wearing a giant neon lit hat-sign that says
    "I'm biased"
    "I've prejudged all the data, both old and new and as yet undiscovered
    and predetermined what I will and won't believe or care about"

    No wonder Lovelock referred to it as a religion

    What if everyone is intently staring at the mighty ship and it's rudder, and nobody has noticed the trimtab?

    What if we continue to refuse to see the trimtab, and won't even notice the small teltale signs of it's existance?

    What if we need several different forcings to allign in just the right sequences and strengths to create a superinterglacial, and they are staring us in the face as we sit here voicing our prejudices instead of taking a giant step backward and looking again?

    It seems that some of the superinterglacials may have lasted up tp 30k yrs.
    What if all the CO2 we could possibly add to the atmosphere will have a very limited impact if the rest of the forcings ain't lined up right?
    and
    What if, as a "trimtab", even small amounts of added greenhouse gasses, building to the right proportions, and properly alligned with other forcings, could be a trigger casting us into a whole new world of climate possibilities(both good and bad)?
    What if that trimtab could substitute in for one or another of the "natural" climate forcings?

    As the lake e team stated---
    Simulations using state-of-the-art climate models show that the high temperature and precipitation during the super interglacials can't be explained by Earth's orbital parameters or variations in atmospheric greenhouse gases alone, which geologists usually see as driving the glacial/interglacial pattern during ice ages.
    or
    Climate simulations show that these extreme warm conditions are difficult to explain with greenhouse gas and astronomical forcing alone, implying the importance of amplifying feedbacks and far field influences.
    disparity of quotes and misquotes aside:

    so, where's the trimtab?
    what , as yet, unknown/unrecognized force(s) turn(s) a normal interglacial into the superinterglacial with temperatures and sea levels, etc... that you all seem to fear.
    Is this the early stages of a superinterglacial?
    Is this near the end of a normal interglacial?

    There is no problem with the climate. The problem lies within each of us. (or not)
    Shelve the disaster bullshit, and try to understand.

    so
    comparative milankovitch cycles anyone.
    Other "far field influences" ?

    Now that we know when the superinterglacials existed, is there other paleo data delineating local climates in other various parts of the world during a superinterglacial?
    Last edited by sculptor; October 14th, 2012 at 05:53 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Anyone seeking to find more studies which claim warming in various places all over the world for that time can do so easily.
    Hell man a simple google search will yield 20-30 such places in a couple minutes.
    It isn't that easy in fact. I did quite a lot of work a couple of years ago on a well known denier's map which claimed to show about that many locations with a "MWP" so-called signal. Focusing particularly on that time.

    If you're looking for that specific time, it's just not there except in a tightly clustered European group. If you expand your time period to 400 years before and after that period, you get a warm period in all of them. Unfortunately, a significant fraction also had a coolish period at the crucial MCA period conclusively showing that it wasn't global at all. It also showed that some people's definition of medieval was so loose as to be useless.

    Unfortunately, I didn't have the computing/statistical/graphics skills to come up with a good display to counter the map's contentions. (If you prefer different words, I was too fed up with it to bother putting in any further time or energy.) It's malarkey.

    The MWP/MCA is not special. Most importantly, that's a good thing. If all the nonsense about the MCA turned out to be true, then we really are in a whole lot more trouble than we thought. Why? Because getting a significant global warming event out of the negligible climate forcings in play at that time would indicate that the climate system is a great deal more sensitive to minor perturbations than we previously thought.

    Our current greenhouse gas forcing results in the ocean/atmosphere absorbing energy equivalent to 2 Hiroshima bombs every second of every day of every year, not minor by any definition. Anyone who wants to downplay the gravity of our situation should be looking for evidence that the climate system responds very little and very slowly to forcings of any kind.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    what , as yet, unknown/unrecognized force(s) turn(s) a normal interglacial into the superinterglacial with temperatures and sea levels, etc... that you all seem to fear.
    Is this the early stages of a superinterglacial?
    Is this near the end of a normal interglacial?
    Not in the habit on hedging bets on some unimagined forcings when we already have good confidence to answer those questions.

    There's nothing in the natural forcing projections to suggest we're moving into what you're trying to call a super-interglacial, nor is this interglacial coming to an end. Earth's orbit is becoming nearly circular and tilt declining--so forcing changes will be is pretty mild for the next 50K+ years, not much more than the range of climate experienced over the past thousand years or so.

    --
    Shelve the disaster bullshit, and try to understand.
    We would if the science wasn't leaning that way. So far most of it is telling us we're underestimating the effects--including the study you posted. A lot of the disasters aren't hardly being covered at all--like the complete collapse of shellfish reproduction already being experienced in some parts of the world (my part...argg) due to acidification.

    Even this past week there were more distressing news which connects increasing CO2 is weakening the ice caps (something that might directly relate to your study):
    "Ice caps and glaciers cover 7% of the Earth, greater than the land area of Europe and North America combined, and play an important role in global climate. The small-scale failure mechanisms of ice fracture, however, remain largely elusive. In particular, little understanding exists about how the presence and concentration of carbon dioxide molecules, a significant component in the atmosphere, affects the propensity of ice to fracture. Here we use atomic simulations with the first-principles based ReaxFF force field capable of describing the details of chemical reactions at the tip of a crack, applied to investigate the effects of the presence of carbon dioxide molecules on ice fracture. Our result shows that increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide molecules significantly decrease the fracture toughness of the ice crystal, making it more fragile. Using enhanced molecular sampling with metadynamics we reconstruct the free energy landscape in varied chemical microenvironments and find that carbon dioxide molecules affect the bonds between water molecules at the crack tip and decrease their strength by altering the dissociation energy of hydrogen bonds. In the context of glacier dynamics our findings may provide a novel viewpoint that could aid in understanding the breakdown and melting of glaciers, suggesting that the chemical composition of the atmosphere can be critical to mediate the large-scale motion of large volumes of ice."

    Carbon dioxide enhances fragility of ice crystals - Abstract - Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics - IOPscience
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    Sculptor, climate science deniers - and they are deniers, not respected independent experts - are dangerously irrresponsible, endangering our future as they pretend to be better able to do science than our institutions and practitioners of science. I should treat them with respect and let them lead me in circles by the nose into a maze of 'what-ifs' and 'maybes' as the problem gets worse? The deniers who know quite well that the problem is almost certainly real - and I believe plenty of them do, yet actively promote the kinds of misleading information at sites like C3 Headlines - and do for gain, for the sake of future earnings from fossil fuels or to attract votes and gain positions of trust, or simply because they think it's all too hard and costly to act - deserve contempt.

    The climate problem is real and urgent - that's the considered conclusion of every scientific institution that studies climate.

    I admit I don't have the minimum necessary skills to critique our scientists and I definitely don't believe you have the necessary minimum skills to weigh the field data up competently enough to reach any meaningful conclusions, especially when relying on secondhand and politically biased interpreters like C3 Headlines for information. There are no huge unknowns that will rewrite the science and make the problem go away and claims that serious omissions of that order of magnitude are embedded into climate science are complete bunk.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    climate system responds very little and very slowly to forcings of any kind.
    when, in fact, in the past, the heating up part seems to have been real fast, while the cooling down part is the slow one.(except for the volcanic winters)

    Point being, we do not know why it warmed or cooled during the various cycles within this holocene interglacial.

    Ken, I do know who the C3 croud are, and what they claim, and dismiss most of it---I just borrowed their misquote to show how a few small changes in a quote alter the meaning ever so slightly(like the aforementioned trimtab)

    adelady
    getting a significant global warming event out of the negligible climate forcings in play at that time would indicate that the climate system is a great deal more sensitive to minor perturbations than we previously thought.
    If we actually knew what "climate forcings were in play at that time" then we might be able to understand what is and what is not negligible.
    But we don't so we can't.
    You know what a trimtab is?

    draught and dust seem to be underestimated climate forcings------as/re andril, dust seems to have preceeded the shifts to interglacials, and dust seems to have preceeded the "little ice age"--------so? one dust cloud cools, and one heats?
    what we do not know exceeds what we do know.

    Now that we know when to look, if we can find the data, we can make a realistic estimate of what to expect if/when we hit the same temperatures.
    example---------water flow through the bering sea--------if warm water flows into the arctic, then circumpolar currents within the arctic will make either canada or siberia relatively warmer when compared to the other. True? do we know which way the currents will flow if the flow increases by different percentages?
    What, exactly, is the lag time between adding greenhouse gasses and climate reactions?
    what we do not know exceeds what we do know.

    something like what makes a gene express itself when it does, and how small a change in that sequence will remain unnoticed, or how much is needed for something unforseen, something really different?

    from yale:
    Until a few decades ago it was generally thought that all large-scale global and regional climate changes occurred gradually over a timescale of many centuries or millennia, scarcely perceptible during a human lifetime. The tendency of climate to change relatively suddenly has been one of the most suprising outcomes of the study of earth history, specifically the last 150,000 years (e.g., Taylor et al., 1993). Some and possibly most large climate changes (involving, for example, a regional change in mean annual temperature of several degrees celsius) occurred at most on a timescale of a few centuries, sometimes decades, and perhaps even just a few years. The decadal-timescale transitions would presumably have been quite noticeable to humans living at such times, and may have created difficulties or opportunities (e.g., the possibility of crossing exposed land bridges, before sea level could rise). Hodell et al. (1995) and Curtis et al. (1996), for instance, document the effects of climate change on the collapse of the Classic period of Mayan civilization and Thompson (1989) describes the influence of alternating wet and dry periods on the rise and fall of coastal and highland cultures of Ecuador and Peru. The beginning of crop agriculture in the Middle East corresponds very closely in time with a sudden warming event which marks the beginning of the Holocene (Wright 1993). Even the burial in ice of the prehistoric mummified corpse of the famous 'Iceman' (e.g., Bahn and Everett, 1993) at the upper edge of an alpine glacier coincided with the initiation of a cold period ('Neoglaciation') after the Holocene climate optimum (Baroni and Orombelli, 1996). On longer timescales, evolution of modern humans has been linked to climatic changes in Africa (e.g., de Menocal, 1995). But the full implications of these sudden changes for biogeography and for the evolution of human cultures and biology have barely begun to be considered; there has simply not been time for the message to be absorbed by biogeographers, archaeologists and palaeoanthropologists, and this review is intended to help the process along.
    Sudden climate changes in the recent geological record
    and they go on:
    ... there are indications of large-scale climate instability in the middle of the Eemian (e.g., Maslin and Tzedakis, 1996). This finding is alarming, as we are presently living in an interglacial period (called the Holocene) which closely resembles the Eemian in many respects (though it is not yet clear how closely; Imbrie and Imbrie, 1992; fig. 48). If sudden, dramatic climate changes could occur within the Eemian, then they could perhaps occur in the future during our present interglacial ... Furthermore, the shifts between these warm and cold periods seemed to be extremely rapid, possibly occurring over a few decades or less.
    ...
    daily we know more

    Lynx
    as/re
    Earth's orbit is becoming nearly circular and tilt declining--so forcing changes will be is pretty mild for the next 50K+ years, not much more than the range of climate experienced over the past thousand years or so.
    Where did you get the "another 50k years from? Has there ever been another interglacial during this ice age that has lasted more than 30kyrs? the eemian lasted maybe 16kyrs.
    .........
    We know that the climate was significantly warmer during several previous interglacials. It is believed to have been much warmer during the eemian also. What we do not know, is the overall productivity of the biom during those times, nore specific biom productivities for specific locations.
    So, if you have no data confirming "problems" or "disasters" during those warm phases, why is it that you are so convinced that they will happen this time?
    Last edited by sculptor; October 14th, 2012 at 07:20 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    There's been a flurry of "Oh shit" comments in the climate world following the release of this paper. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v.../ngeo1573.html

    Of course the full text is behind a paywall so we need others to give us the details. First cab off the rank was Permafrost Projections « ClimateSight . Kate had the advantage of seeing the paper in draft form, but she still says,

    This paper went in my mental “oh shit” folder, because it made me realize that we are starting to lose control over the climate system. No matter what path we follow .....
    Then Tamino got in on the act with Oh Shit | Open Mind and a lot of good comments are in there along with his usual clear presentation of stats and graphs. There's also an explanation of the graphics from the paper itself at Modelling the permafrost carbon feedback .

    One of the most startling comments is not about this topic itself, it's that other "Oh shit" topic, ocean acidification ....

    In a book published this year about the oceans, Mitchell tells the story of Colorado-based marine ecologist Joanie Kleypas, who, when she realized the implications of ocean acidification, ran to the bathroom at the scientific conference she was attending and threw up.
    When scientists are so frightened that they throw up, the rest of us should start taking notice.


    Its not just the data you stated,

    Some scientists fear that global warming will stop deep ocean currents, and destroy the whole planet. By doing things like putting a layer of snow 2? (miles) high on America.


    There are already strange weather conditions in Texas (USA), that scientists blame on global warming.
    In the USA (massive) amounts of heat records have been broken recently.

    Some scientists think that global warming weather changes, could change weather conditions in the (USA), so crops will no longer be able to grow, were they do now. And this would destroy the American farmland known as the "world's bread basket."



    300 years from now, most to all, humans on this planet ((could)) be dead from these things. Most to all, of our future great, great, great grandchildren dead and gone. Most to all, of our future families ((could)) be dead. I heard that the Earth, could change into a planet like Venus.

    Only problem is most people don't even care.
    There are only a few of us, who have the mental ability, to understand these things.
    But even worse is, only a few of those who can understand these things, have the love/ respect to care.

    I have been scared of this for years, I sometimes watch my young nephews, and imagine the world that waits for them, or the world that waits for their children, and I want to cry.
    Last edited by chad; October 17th, 2012 at 01:15 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    A Chilling Possibility - NASA Science


    Nasa says this could happen in a few decades.

    And its not just America covered in ice, its Europe too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    if warm water flows into the arctic, then circumpolar currents within the arctic will make either canada or siberia relatively warmer when compared to the other. True? do we know which way the currents will flow if the flow increases by different percentages?
    What Arctic circumpolar currents?

    I found precisely 1 paper ScienceDirect.com - Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography - The Arctic Circumpolar Boundary Current on Google Scholar with this term (but only just, it also includes the word 'boundary'). I also found 2 comments from yahoo and ask sites on why it's impossible to have an Arctic circumpolar current.

    What, exactly, is the lag time between adding greenhouse gasses and climate reactions?
    Depends which response time (lag time) you're talking about. For practical layman's purposes in our current circumstances, it's about 30 to 40 years. So the atmospheric temperature signal now showing up is attributable to emissions (and accumulated concentrations) of the 80s.

    If you want to go into the various technicalities of terms like Charney sensitivity, transient response and equilibrium response then I'll dredge up a few papers for you. Though there's a pretty good summary in the last IPCC report to get you started. 9.6.2.3 Constraints on Transient Climate Response - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Where did you get the "another 50k years from? Has there ever been another interglacial during this ice age that has lasted more than 30kyrs? the eemian lasted maybe 16kyrs.
    "Most of the natural scenarios indicatethat: (i) the climate is likely to experience a longlasting (50 kyr) interglacial; (ii) the next glacialmaximum is expected to be most intense at around 100kyr after present (AP), with a likely interstadial at60 kyr AP; and (iii) after 100 kyr AP continentalice rapidly melts, leading to an ice volume minimum 20kyr later. "
    Climatic Change, Volume 46, Numbers 1-2 - SpringerLink

    "Therefore we conclude that the long interglacial simulated for the future is a robust feature and the Earth will not enter naturally into glaciation before 50 kyr AP."
    ScienceDirect.com - Earth and Planetary Science Letters - Clues from MIS 11 to predict the future climate ? a modelling point of view

    And yes we've had similar orbital forcing before
    The insolation over this interval shows a strong linear correlation with the insolation signal over the recent past and the future. In addition, simulations using the climate model developed in Louvain-la-Neuve (LLN 2-D NH) show that both MIS 11 and the future are characterized by small amount (if any) of continental ice, with almost no variation during the whole interval. In contrast, MIS 5 is exhibiting larger variability in simulated ice volume. This confirms that the interval [405–340 ka BP] may lead to a better understanding of our present and future warm climate."
    ScienceDirect.com - Global and Planetary Change - Marine Isotope Stage 11 as an analogue for the present interglacial
    --
    Perhaps the best display that makes it obvious is looking at the 65N summer solstice insolation of the past and future based on astronomical changes (a good proxy for average temp and ice amount). The mild forcing we are going through is pretty unique compared to past or projected 800,000 year periods. See the next dip at ~50K CA? See the slightly more active, but relatively low variability during that last long interglacial mentioned in the paper from 405 to 340K BP?
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; October 14th, 2012 at 08:05 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    coupla things:
    from prentiss hall :
    An analysis covering 40 million years (229) found a 44,000 year cycle
    corresponding to tilt (as well as 25,000, 100,000, 133,000, and 400,000 year cycles).
    and:
    In this case of the 5.5 million year record examined in Ref. 245, both strands of data led
    to observation of a strong 400,000 year cycle
    http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/ob...pdfs/E16.7.pdf

    from wiki:
    MIS 11 427, the most similar to MIS 1.
    Marine isotope stage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    and, then, we get the lake E team showing one of their "super inter glacials" at mis 11, a little over 400,000 ybp.

    ergo:
    my questions
    .........
    I do not know why the wiki guy wrote most similar to mis 1(that's us--now) next to mis 11(which is supposed to be the last "super inter glacial")
    perhaps from Ramo/Mitrovica? : http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...e10891_F1.html

    but, therein the reason for my questions


    so, in light of the above........?
    and, please focusing on this data

    What do you think?
    Are Ramo et. al. onto something?
    ----------


    why do the charts i try to load shrink?
    the 400kyr cycles were shown in really good detail therein
    Attached Images
    Last edited by sculptor; October 15th, 2012 at 08:44 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    What's your question? Mis 11 is the most similar to now because it's the last period we had low tilt and near circular orbit over an extended period of about 50K years. Even than, Mis 11 wasn't as stable as our current period, prone to swings of slightly more and less forcing at high latitudes and was can assume the corresponding feedbacks towards warmer&cooler temps through that interglacial.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    What's your question? Mis 11 is the most similar to now because it's the last period we had low tilt and near circular orbit over an extended period of about 50K years. Even than, Mis 11 wasn't as stable as our current period, prone to swings of slightly more and less forcing at high latitudes and was can assume the corresponding feedbacks towards warmer&cooler temps through that interglacial.
    and precession?
    in phase? or out of
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    mis 11 climate and biom over eurasia and north america ?
    Last edited by sculptor; October 15th, 2012 at 10:17 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    and precession?
    in phase? or out of
    Doesn't matter much either way when eccentricity is low.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    so
    recapping
    we have PrentissHall claiming a strong 400kyr cycle
    and your noting that insolation and eccentricity and tilt are roughly the same as miss 11- 400kyrs ago
    and Ramo et.al. noting that mis 1 and 11 are similar
    and others, Lake E, etc... claiming a long warm mis 11

    OK
    Seeing that data: Could any reasonable person conclude that we will not experience melting of west antarctica, all of the arctic, most or all of greenland, and a "debated" amount of the east antarctic ice = minimum of 6 meters higher seas, and less than 50 meter higher seas?

    If so, Then
    'twould be nice to know the details of the biom during mis 11>
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Seeing that data: Could any reasonable person conclude that we will not experience melting of west antarctica, all of the arctic, most or all of greenland, and a "debated" amount of the east antarctic ice = minimum of 6 meters higher seas, and less than 50 meter higher seas?

    For this super-interglacial (calling it that for convenience) we might have already missed our chance since obliquity peaked about 8000 years ago,

    If so, Then
    'twould be nice to know the details of the biom during mis 11>
    Absolutely. And this study helps sort that out. That same part of Russia is already about 2C warmer and projected to be 4-6C warmer by the end of the century. The implication is the melting, sea level rise and some other mechanisms such as their hypothetical about increased warm waters through the Bering sea might be more possible than our conservative climate models suggest. That's really bad news if it bares out.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Seeing that data: Could any reasonable person conclude that we will not experience melting of west antarctica, all of the arctic, most or all of greenland, and a "debated" amount of the east antarctic ice = minimum of 6 meters higher seas, and less than 50 meter higher seas?

    For this super-interglacial (calling it that for convenience) we might have already missed our chance since obliquity peaked about 8000 years ago,

    If so, Then
    'twould be nice to know the details of the biom during mis 11>
    Absolutely. And this study helps sort that out. That same part of Russia is already about 2C warmer and projected to be 4-6C warmer by the end of the century. The implication is the melting, sea level rise and some other mechanisms such as their hypothetical about increased warm waters through the Bering sea might be more possible than our conservative climate models suggest. That's really bad news if it bares out.
    By "missed our chance" I assume you mean missed our chance to avoid a super-interglacial?

    I've been searching for biom data for mis 11, and mis 5, to try'n reconstruct a 'most probable' scenario for biom strength, tendencies and integrity.
    Give adelady her due--web searching is getting more difficult----search for "mis 11" and get everything from 1/2 naked women, to star treckies, and, of the sites having to do with the subject matter, 40% are about global warming fears, and 40% are anti-global warming fears, and climat change deniers, and assorted lunatic blogs----and, maybe 1-5% have materials and data pertinate to what i was searching for in the 1st place.

    So, if I find anything worthwhile, I'll post if you want, and if you should find any field data for specific locations, etc., please share.

    meanwhile...
    "That's really bad news if it bares out"
    is winter bad news? is summer bad news? is a 5" mountain downpour bad news? is a river flood bad news?
    all of the above are just part of nature
    we stack firewood for winter, plant shade trees for summer, live above the flood-plain,
    all because we know what to expect

    nature ain't never bad news.
    some of us just have bad attitudes
    and ignorance is almost always bad news.
    ....................
    ....................
    (speak about your "oh shit" moments--and bad attitudes---when i was in the army, they convinced us that we were going to war against china-----and I had a prolonged "ohhhh shhhiiiitttt" moment, for which, I was invited to visit with the batallion comander, who informed me that I had a "bad attitude")

    what goes 'round comes 'round?
    .........
    Oh, and as/re "warming speed" I'd expect faster than predicted.
    Last edited by sculptor; October 15th, 2012 at 06:28 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    By "missed our chance" I assume you mean missed our chance to avoid a super-interglacial?
    Super-interglacial refers the duration...not the amplitude of the warming.

    By "missed our change," I meant the peak obliquity and thus max high N latititude insolution came very early in during this super-interglacial period. This interglacial did start with a bang but temps have slowly cooled as tilt has declined. Obliquity will decline and not peak again until near the end of the current super-interglacial. The added CO2 from burning fossil fuels is adding enough radiative forcing to return North Hemispheric summers to higher levels than even during the peak obliquity; this is what make that lake study so important.

    is winter bad news? is summer bad news? is a 5" mountain downpour bad news? is a river flood bad news?
    Why the sarcasm. The answer obviously depends on the natural range for those areas...and what systems man has built around that natural range. A 5" mountain downpour is standard fair in Western WA State...in Tuscon it would easily be the most rain ever observed in less than 5 days, and do catastrophic destruction--what most people would consider "bad news." If the storm was attributable to man's monkeying with the atmosphere, by most definitions, it would not be considered natural. Sir, your dismissive tone does you no credit.
    adelady likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    'twasn't meant as sarcasm

    my point was that all mentioned were bad news if you didn't expect them and plan ahead.
    and sometimes, even if you did try to prepare people die from all mentioned

    but that ignorance was the baddest news> no time to prepare, no plan, just blind luck to see you through

    ...........
    that being said:
    never underestimate the power of dumb luck to see you safely through when planning and intellect fail.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    bad news if you didn't expect them and plan ahead
    How can you 'plan ahead' if you don't know whether this year's crop will be affected by drought or by flooding?

    Perhaps the smooth average warming trends that the climate models predict – simultaneously terrifying and oddly reassuring – mask wild extremes for which no farmer can plan and to which no farmer can respond.
    From today's Guardian. If extreme weather becomes the norm, starvation awaits | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Adelady

    Those predictions are not terribly valid. Like numerous disaster predictions of a similar ilk in the past, they suffer from the same fallacious assumption. That is : that agriculture will not continue to improve.

    In fact, the trend towards more and more efficiency in agriculture is a long term trend that shows no sign of abating. Humanity has been generating more and more food per acre for the past 100 years, and the future should, if anything, accelerate that trend, mainly due to the accelerating capability with crop genetics. Record harvests will continue to rise. Erratic weather will be a problem which will stimulate the invention of many solutions. Overall, more and more food will be grown each year.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    the best local farmland was the "big bottom" (now underneath the lake in our dammed river) deep sedementary soils from ancient swamps then wooded.
    The settlers who claimed this land cleared the forest, and plowed the fertile flood plain------some years, they were flooded out, but most years, they outproduced their neighbors--then the guy who homesteaded the soil where I now live, lost a wife and child, then next winter, another child, disheartened, and haunted by his memories, he sold this land and moved farther west---

    if we do not know what awaits next year----like this years midwest drought---sometimes, crops fail
    but as long as we have alternate supplies, and an almost universally overweight populace, we'll survive.
    the trick is in the study of the climate's past, and being able to guess well most years

    from what i've assembled so far, it seems that there were different growing zones, but how much of the biom was governed by the forests which grew in certain places remains an unknown....
    on average, I am assuming that areas that were forested by broadleaf species will do well as cropland when similar conditions present.
    (but that is a guess)
    ............
    maybe it's just a personality quirk, but I never buy fear....if someone tries to sell me a product or idea, and uses fear as a sales tool, I just do not buy.
    newspapers, however, sell hype and fear is always a damned good hype. (but I ain't buying---shelve it for me-my reaction is invariably negative-all i really want is the data---even if i'm wrong, I'm gonna make up my own damned mind)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Record harvests will continue to rise. Erratic weather will be a problem which will stimulate the invention of many solutions. Overall, more and more food will be grown each year.
    Only if we actually eat them. Did you look at the numbers? Third largest crop in our whole history and we're in food deficit. The only way we can feed ourselves, for the time being at least, is for every successive year to be a record.

    The self-indulgent 'advanced' economies are going to have to switch to smaller servings of meat pretty quickly. Seeing as I grew up in a meat eating culture - but one leg of lamb did four of us a roast Sunday dinner plus one or two hot meals as well as cold meat for sandwiches, I don't see this as a problem personally. And corn syrup for soft drinks and sickly sweet foods as well as food for fuel are just going to have to disappear.

    But that's just Mama Bear, Big Daddy Bear is the real problem ......

    Forty years ago, extreme summer heat typically affected between 0.1 and 0.2% of the globe. Today it scorches some 10%.

    "We can project with a high degree of confidence," the paper warns, "that the area covered by extremely hot anomalies will continue to increase during the next few decades and even greater extremes will occur." Yet these extremes do not feature in the standard models predicting changes in crop production.
    I agree with you that there will be improvements.

    the future should, if anything, accelerate that trend, mainly due to the accelerating capability with crop genetics
    But how much of a gamble will it be each year for seed producers and farmers to sell or to buy the drought tolerant species or the wet feet tolerant species? The bigger the gamble becomes, the more risky it will be for everyone, not just the seed merchants and the farmers. How high will premiums on crop insurance go before farmers give up.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Adelady

    Humanity could solve any food crisis right now by simply switching food produced to grain feed cattle and to make biofuel, and apply it to feeding people. We would have a significant surplus!

    That is a political and economic solution, requiring no technological improvements, and yet there will be technological improvements. If there is hunger in the future, it will be caused by dirty politics, and selfish economic policies, not global warming.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Was it really warmer?
    it happened in chile,
    it happened in switzerland,
    it happened in alaska
    it happened in antarctica
    it happened in lake erie
    it happened in south africa
    it happened in west africa
    it happened in japan
    it happened in canada
    it happened in venezuela
    I notice you haven't shown the start and end dates for those warm periods.
    Do you have that information?
    (I recognise most of those location names from my previous exercise. The data I assembled disappeared along with my old computer to computer heaven I'm afraid. I could have saved it on a USB but it's not yet appeared so .... )

    I'm really not interested in doing it all again if I don't have to.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    If there is hunger in the future, it will be caused by dirty politics, and selfish economic policies, not global warming.
    As if global warming is purely, pristinely unrelated and immune from such dirty politics or selfish economic policies.

    The coal and oil industries are not like the subsidy suckers of the corn for ethanol industry?

    Car manufacturers didn't resist high mpg regulations for 30 years because they had a high-minded commitment to ...... or did they just want to not spend on re-engineering?
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post

    As if global warming is purely, pristinely unrelated and immune from such dirty politics or selfish economic policies.

    The coal and oil industries are not like the subsidy suckers of the corn for ethanol industry?

    Car manufacturers didn't resist high mpg regulations for 30 years because they had a high-minded commitment to ...... or did they just want to not spend on re-engineering?
    Adelady

    I am not sure that this comment actually means anything in the context of what I said.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    OK. I started looking for that set of locations (not all of them) and didn't get very far. And I'm not inclined to go further because the very first search result took me to that ghastly (cycles) book by that ghastly, opinion-for-hire, evil man Fred Singer. I couldn't find anything in the next four pages of search results that were relevant at all. When the only supporting argument I can find has to be through the filter of the man who's pretended lofty scientific objectivity while taking millions of dollars to resist restrictions on tobacco, acid rain, CFCs, asbestos, DDT and every other worthwhile environmental and health regulation of the last 40 years - I'll not go there.

    So I went to the IPCC. Heaps of 'spaghetti graphs' for the Northern Hemisphere - they don't even bother with a global dataset for MCA.

    "The weight of current multi-proxy evidence, therefore, suggests greater 20th-century warmth, in comparison with temperature levels of the previous 400 years, than was shown in the TAR. On the evidence of the previous and four new reconstructions that reach back more than 1 kyr, it is likely that the 20th century was the warmest in at least the past 1.3 kyr. Considering the recent instrumental and longer proxy evidence together, it is very likely that average NH temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were higher than for any other 50-year period in the last 500 years. Greater uncertainty associated with proxy-based temperature estimates for individual years means that it is more difficult to gauge the significance, or precedence, of the extreme warm years observed in the recent instrumental record, such as 1998 and 2005, in the context of the last millennium."
    I'm happy to accept that and not argue about or test any contrarian arguments unless they come from reasonably respectable sources.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. The two realms (The Unthinkable Thought / Realm of Mind)
    By oneinzero.me in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 1st, 2010, 03:07 PM
  2. Phase of Venus
    By ricci70 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 16th, 2009, 10:51 AM
  3. Venus
    By George Moll in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: September 15th, 2008, 11:03 PM
  4. How does Venus appear during its transit?
    By Attiyah Zahdeh in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 27th, 2008, 01:02 PM
  5. Mac did a bad, bad thing...hard drive problems
    By MacGyver1968 in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 13th, 2006, 04:54 PM
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
  •