Global Warming

[Dawlish]

Just stirring, I'm afraid; haven't even read the paper to be honest; just spreading my brand of humour around for the afternoon. My wife says it reminds her of a five-year old :blush:

It is worth a read.

Also, that puts you two years ahead of me in mental age according to my missus. Rats. I'll get there one day!

paul

[Guest Viking141]

It is worth a read.

Also, that puts you two years ahead of me in mental age according to my missus. Rats. I'll get there one day!

paul

Agreed. On both points!!

:blush:

[parmenides3]

I have to be honest about this; I think Hansen has taken a big risk on this one. I am sure that anyone who wants to challenge his findings will be able to find material to refute in there; go on, skeptics, that's a challenge!

I also suspect that Hansen wouldn't have published this without good reason. It makes me curious as to what's really going to be in the IPCC AR4.

I'll also be honest about something else; these findings come as no surprise to me. The more I have read recently, the more I think that the currently 'fashionable' view of the future climate (based, most often, on the IPCC TAR) is far too conservative.

:)P

[Guest Viking141]

If the risk he is taking is along the lines of "well they havent listened so far so lets give em something that'll really scare em" then yes that is a huge risk which could backfire badly and have the opposite effect to the one intended, especially if, the skeptics on this board could refute their material, never mind a qualified scientist with an anti-AGW agenda.

:blush:

[VillagePlank]

What about spaceships?

[Gray-Wolf]

I think we're forgetting what we are discussing if we think people will continue to be dismissive as ,soon enough, terrible confirming events must occur or we are not in a period of disastrous warming.

I thought that last years Atlantic Hurricanes may have 'lit' the public fuse but then when N.O. went under (a 'human planning' disaster as Cat 4's do make landfall even without AGW) and the likes of FOX were asking if GW played a part I knew a chance had gone begging and that attention would be deflected.

It may just be my mad imaginings but I think that the most dramatic/devastating climatic event on the planet must be an ice event. Being geologically bent I can see in the crust how solid rock can 'flow' ,bend, snap and be transported over many ,many miles in an instant. The collapse of Continental ice sheets (in part) will be just as colossal as these types of event and will have instant ramifications globally (and not a slow drip, drip effect). When one of the major remaining ice shelves in Antartica gives up the ghost, floats,is mechanicaly broken by wave action and ablates over summer you might then see how quickly a section of a Continent can shed ice under the laws of physics alone. The 'collapse' is a mechanical failure and so does not necessarily occur during the 'summer melt' if the conditions exist for a catastrophic failure to take place then , I imagine, it's mass alone will drive things.

[parmenides3]

Current favourite for potential SH collapse is the Ross Ice Shelf. If that goes, the West Antactic Ice Sheet is supposed to do exactly what you describe, G-W. This year's model runs put the likelihood of this happening in the next 100 years at 50%, if CO2 emissions continue to rise at the current rate (1.5-2.1% a year). The implication in the Hansen paper is that we could see this as an inevitable near-future event if temps. rise by 0.3 degrees in the next decade or so, and nothing is done about GW.

Every time I read a new paper about the Arctic or Antarctic, the amount of melt increases, ice-loss estimates are revised upwards, and long-term changes are predicted to come sooner. The trouble here is that such changes, whilst rapid and dramatic in geological time, are hard to see from year to year, or even over a decade or more.

Because the hurricane/el Nino GW connection is not 'immediate', but considered in terms of trends or patterns, this, too, is hard to see 'on the ground'. Until, for example, the North/North-West USA wakes up and discovers there's no water coming down the mountains any more, I don't expect political will to move any faster than it ever does, in spite of the risks.

:)P

[Gray-Wolf]

Because the hurricane/el Nino GW connection is not 'immediate', but considered in terms of trends or patterns, this, too, is hard to see 'on the ground'. Until, for example, the North/North-West USA wakes up and discovers there's no water coming down the mountains any more, I don't expect political will to move any faster than it ever does, in spite of the risks.

:blush: P

I hear (and fully appreciate) what you say but I have a strange faith in people power. Over my lifetime I have seen how, when suitably motivated, people can achieve amazing results leaving Politic struggling in their wake, playing catchup in fact.

Whilst concerted effort could still mitigate the worst case scenarios that AGW may bring then I believe that a climate event that startles the people of the first world into action could ,in the long run, save the human (and most of the animal) world.

If climate change is as 'rapid' a change to witness (not in terms of data but events on the ground) as it has been the past 15yrs, and the general public notice only the events the media point them at, then maybe things will slip too far to much to escape the worst case scenario and , "We're all doomed" ..........

[parmenides3]

I think most of us in the developed world should be okay in the long run, but there could be some drastic changes to where we live and what our countryside is like, as well as the way we live.

My concern is for the developing world in particular, especially Africa and parts of the Far East. Where there is least capacity for adaptation there is also most need. Expect human disasters on a regular basis for some time to come. :blush:

Like you, I have a lot of faith in people, but I can see our children/grandchildren living in a quite different world.

P

[Calrissian]

From a grand view of 'lets be hopeful', would not the best thing to happen, be a collapse of one of these mega ice sheets, with a sea level rise of a few feet in a short time? That would wake up the masses, I can't imagine anything else would. Most people are too stupid to ever look at the gradual changes.

Is it feasible for sea level to rise that by a few feet if an ice sheet of the huge variety disintegrated over a few years?

[parmenides3]

From a grand view of 'lets be hopeful', would not the best thing to happen, be a collapse of one of these mega ice sheets, with a sea level rise of a few feet in a short time? That would wake up the masses, I can't imagine anything else would. Most people are too stupid to ever look at the gradual changes.

Is it feasible for sea level to rise that by a few feet if an ice sheet of the huge variety disintegrated over a few years?

No, because it wouldn't, if by a few years you mean less than about 100. An ice shelf might feasibly disconnect from the Antarctic, which would certainly have a global impact, but big sea level rises (in metres) would need the ice sheet behind to contribute.

The only way a lot of people will ever give a damn is if something disastrous happened in their own street. Then they'd never shut up about it. A five-ten year drought in the South of the UK, or in the American Midwest, Florida being a disaster area after a huge storm/surge/hurricane, An entire city in India flooded - no, that's already happened this year, and it barely registered. It needs to be immediate, cinematic and in the USA (or for us, the London area) for the key player to get off its' collective backside and act.

:(P

[Gray-Wolf]

From a grand view of 'lets be hopeful', would not the best thing to happen, be a collapse of one of these mega ice sheets, with a sea level rise of a few feet in a short time? That would wake up the masses, I can't imagine anything else would. Most people are too stupid to ever look at the gradual changes.

Is it feasible for sea level to rise that by a few feet if an ice sheet of the huge variety disintegrated over a few years?

I think we would find it hard to imagine the mega tonnage of ice that could be involved in one of the catastrophic Continental ice sheet breakups the Hansen paper hinted at. Only this year, on the relevant thread, I had been banging on about the 'release' of the Antarctic continental ice/ Greenland ice sheet by the collapse of their restraining 'girdles' of ice.

The acceleration of some of the (most of the?) Glaciers in the British Antarctica where the ice shelf collapsed in the early 90's is a very minor indicator of how the giant event would start and yes , the Ross Ice shelf seems to be the favourite to go (unless the Greenland 'dome' collapses first not having had much of a restraining 'girdle' over the last few thousands of years) and I believe that over a very short span of time many feet of sea level rise would be realistic outcome.

The BAU scenario in the Hanson paper outlines just how high a 3c global rise of temp could bring in terms of matching paleoclimatic sea levels and just 10% of that max over a 5 year rapid breakdown would ring about true to me.

[parmenides3]

I think we would find it hard to imagine the mega tonnage of ice that could be involved in one of the catastrophic Continental ice sheet breakups the Hansen paper hinted at. Only this year, on the relevant thread, I had been banging on about the 'release' of the Antarctic continental ice/ Greenland ice sheet by the collapse of their restraining 'girdles' of ice.

The acceleration of some of the (most of the?) Glaciers in the British Antarctica where the ice shelf collapsed in the early 90's is a very minor indicator of how the giant event would start and yes , the Ross Ice shelf seems to be the favourite to go (unless the Greenland 'dome' collapses first not having had much of a restraining 'girdle' over the last few thousands of years) and I believe that over a very short span of time many feet of sea level rise would be realistic outcome.

The BAU scenario in the Hanson paper outlines just how high a 3c global rise of temp could bring in terms of matching paleoclimatic sea levels and just 10% of that max over a 5 year rapid breakdown would ring about true to me.

I'm less sure than you on this, G-W. My 'sense' is that a 0.3C global rise would not, quite, be enough; perhaps 0.5 or 0.6 globally, equating to about +1.5C from present cryosphere temps., might be enough to start an unstoppable chain reaction, but even then, the timescales are all wrong; these things just don't happen 'overnight'; they are a long-drawn-out process.

I should also point out that all of this, at the moment, is still speculation, not expectation. What makes the Hansen paper unusual is the forcefulness with which it triesd to make its points; much 'stronger' language than the average scientific paper, much more committal opinions/conclusions.

:)P

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm less sure than you on this, G-W. My 'sense' is that a 0.3C global rise would not, quite, be enough; perhaps 0.5 or 0.6 globally, equating to about +1.5C from present cryosphere temps., might be enough to start an unstoppable chain reaction, but even then, the timescales are all wrong; these things just don't happen 'overnight'; they are a long-drawn-out process.

I should also point out that all of this, at the moment, is still speculation, not expectation. What makes the Hansen paper unusual is the forcefulness with which it triesd to make its points; much 'stronger' language than the average scientific paper, much more committal opinions/conclusions.

:lol: P

Maybe they too realise it's put up or shut up time. No time to dilly dally anymore (oil monies put paid to the luxury of time) and one or other unmistakeable event is due. If you were in their position how would you like history to witness your contribution?

[parmenides3]

Maybe they too realise it's put up or shut up time. No time to dilly dally anymore (oil monies put paid to the luxury of time) and one or other unmistakeable event is due. If you were in their position how would you like history to witness your contribution?

Sorry; (nice query) which 'their', Hansen, or the oil companies? P

[Gray-Wolf]

Sorry; (nice query) which 'their', Hansen, or the oil companies? P

Ah , uhmm, I could have worded that a little better though I don't think that the procrastinators can have many problems sleeping at night or they wouldn't have done/be doing what they've done/are doing so I doubt they would overly concern themselves with how their historical reputations may appear.

[parmenides3]

Ah , uhmm, I could have worded that a little better though I don't think that the procrastinators can have many problems sleeping at night or they wouldn't have done/be doing what they've done/are doing so I doubt they would overly concern themselves with how their historical reputations may appear.

Their gravestones will read 'we made our shareholders richer; we were just doing our jobs'. As ever in history, the wealth of the few is at the cost of the poverty and lives of the many.

P

[WindWatcher]

Their gravestones will read 'we made our shareholders richer; we were just doing our jobs'. As ever in history, the wealth of the few is at the cost of the poverty and lives of the many.

P

I haven't seen this posted elsewhere and it seems an apt point to post, Virgin transport are to invest heavily in finding green fuels. Here is the full story Virgin give away

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

This was a lucky accident, Paul. I was checking out blog called Climate Progress http://climateprogress.org/

by Joseph Romm. It seems pretty up to date. Credit to Mr. Romm, really.

In a few days, this will probably be the next 'nine day wonder' on CC/GW. Watching the shenanigans should be rather entertaining.

Thanks for the kind comments, anyway.

:)P

Edited September 28, 2006 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[The Penguin]

I think we're forgetting what we are discussing if we think people will continue to be dismissive as ,soon enough, terrible confirming events must occur or we are not in a period of disastrous warming.

Or we're not and they will, as they'll not, because we're not.

[Guest Viking141]

Or we're not and they will, as they'll not, because we're not.

Quite. I think!

:lol:

[Dawlish]

Quite. I think!

:lol:

I think he's still recovering from the Guiness and champagne

[Dawlish]

Incidentally, the arctic was much warmer than it is now in the recent past :

Goodness me, that's interesting. I think this belongs on here, but I've cut and pasted Mr. Sleet's graph from the Ice reports thread.

In replying to Big Bear's post, on the autumn and Winter thread, I've just realised that the only, remotely comparable, 15 year warm spell, in the whole of the Hadley series, was in the late 1930's and 1940's. That coincides exactly with the warmest period in the Arctic in the last 125 years. That coincidence, over a 15 year period has to be statistically significant.

If the Arctic warms, to the same levels as 1935-1950, which the present trend indicates could happen in the next 30-40 years, what will that mean for the UK climate? If the UK climate has warmed to these levels already, without a warm Arctic, maybe Hansen really is right. it certainly appears that a warming Arctic led to a warmer UK in 1935-50.

Coo, I've actually got goosebumps linking those two.

Paul

[Gray-Wolf]

Goodness me, that's interesting. I think this belongs on here, but I've cut and pasted Mr. Sleet's graph from the Ice reports thread.

In replying to Big Bear's post, on the autumn and Winter thread, I've just realised that the only, remotely comparable, 15 year warm spell, in the whole of the Hadley series, was in the late 1930's and 1940's. That coincides exactly with the warmest period in the Arctic in the last 125 years. That coincidence, over a 15 year period has to be statistically significant.

If the Arctic warms, to the same levels as 1935-1950, which the present trend indicates could happen in the next 30-40 years, what will that mean for the UK climate? If the UK climate has warmed to these levels already, without a warm Arctic, maybe Hansen really is right. it certainly appears that a warming Arctic led to a warmer UK in 1935-50.

Coo, I've actually got goosebumps linking those two.

Paul

If we give any credence to the Global dimming school of thought then maybe the 'warmer Arctic' phase of the 30's and 40's should now be viewed only in the context of the past 20 yrs of Arctic warming and not up against the other 35yrs of 'skewed' data.

If you cut out that period of 'skewed data' from any 'warming' graph of the past 150yrs or so and then ,overlaying the edges of the pre-1940's warming next to the 'post global dimming' mid 80's onwards,then the resulting warming rate line makes much more sense and looks a lot less ambiguous.

Edited September 28, 2006 by Gray-Wolf

[Dawlish]

If we give any credence to the Global dimming school of thought then maybe the 'warmer Arctic' phase of the 30's and 40's should now be viewed only in the context of the past 20 yrs of Arctic warming and not up against the other 35yrs of 'skewed' data.

If you cut out that period of 'skewed data' from any 'warming' graph of the past 150yrs or so and then ,overlaying the edges of the pre-1940's warming next to the 'post global dimming' mid 80's onwards,then the resulting warming rate line makes much more sense and looks a lot less ambiguous.

Mmmm, I can go with that. I'm not sure it's true, completely; I'm not sure two day's data, after 9/11 (except under the flight path of Bin Laden's escaping family, of course) and some studies of pollution plumes from Bombay, can really show us that, but I can certainly see the logic.

Paul

Edited September 28, 2006 by Dawlish