Polar Ice sets new minimum

[biffvernon]

There's a danger of not seeing the wood for the trees.

We burn oil and coal and increase CO2 in the air. The planet warms up. We're all off to Hell in a handcart. It's that simple.

The answer has to be to stop burning fossil fuels and start sequestering the CO2 that we've already put into the air. It will be difficult and cause much gnashing of teeth but the alternative is worse. Business as usual is not an option for our grandchildren.

To follow the car and cliff analogy, that's all you need to know - like what the gas and brake pedals do. What goes on inside the fuel management system or the differential is not required knowledge for most motorists, fascinating though it may be.

[SnowBear]

But that is ignoring all the other influences on the car and the surroundings as well though? Over simplification?

Btw, anyone else want to jump in on what I think is a great talking point?

A personal request...respect and politeness to all when posting please

[Azores Hi]

We burn oil and coal and increase CO2 in the air. The planet warms up. We're all off to Hell in a handcart. It's that simple.

The answer has to be to stop burning fossil fuels and start sequestering the CO2 that we've already put into the air. It will be difficult and cause much gnashing of teeth but the alternative is worse. Business as usual is not an option for our grandchildren.

But how do you know that? How do you know that on balance, falling off a cliff is worse than stopping the car?

It really isn't that simple Vernon.

There is a potential cliff which if we fall off may or may not be catastrophic.

There is a potential catastrophy if you stop the car.

Your analogy deals with absolute outcomes. I would argue that the outcomes are far from set in stone or as clear cut as you imagine them to be.

[Devonian]

But how do you know that? How do you know that on balance, falling off a cliff is worse than stopping the car?

It really isn't that simple Vernon.

There is a potential cliff which if we fall off may or may not be catastrophic.

There is a potential catastrophy if you stop the car.

Are the laws of physics potential?

Well, I'm with Biffveron on this. The physics - Stefan-Boltzmann, Clausius-Clapeyron, albedo, greenhouse gasses - is clearly well tested and understood by those fully versed in it (though I admit I don't understand it fully).

What isn't known is the full detail of the climate response (mostly due to uncertainties about clouds). That why the warming hasn't been pinned down to closer than ~1.5-5C or so for a CO2 doubling. We better hope clouds are a big -ve feedback else the warming is going to be high end.

Edit; sorry, several edits...

Edited April 5, 2008 by Devonian

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

We are reaching a point that has been reached many many times in the Earth's history...indeed C02 levels have been higher. Also i state again, the opening of the arctic ocean has without fail led us into serious cooling. The cooling natural cycles are combining at the same time and the acid test is fast approaching if indeed not here already. For me the very early signs show of what potentially may be heading our way.

BFTP

[Devonian]

We are reaching a point that has been reached many many times in the Earth's history...indeed C02 levels have been higher.

Not at a time with a comparable configuration of the continents, and thus ocean currents, it's hasn't?

Also i state again, the opening of the arctic ocean has without fail led us into serious cooling.

Led to or been followed by? When did it last happen?

The cooling natural cycles are combining at the same time and the acid test is fast approaching if indeed not here already. For me the very early signs show of what potentially may be heading our way.

BFTP

See you in a decade :o

[Yeti]

But how do you know that? How do you know that on balance, falling off a cliff is worse than stopping the car?

It really isn't that simple Vernon.

There is a potential cliff which if we fall off may or may not be catastrophic.

There is a potential catastrophy if you stop the car.

Your analogy deals with absolute outcomes. I would argue that the outcomes are far from set in stone or as clear cut as you imagine them to be.

There is no catastrophe if the car is stopped in the correct manner. Most people refer to the suffering of the 3rd world, and certainly if CO2 emissions are cut incorrectly then the 3rd world would suffer. However, I like the EU's approach to cutting emissions - it should all be levelled so that each citizen of the world is allowed an identical carbon allowance. For USA and Western European citizens, this would mean big cuts that would not be disastrous, but third world countries could be comfortably allowed to develop and emit more CO2 until they reach such an allowance. That way CO2 could be cut siginificantly in the western to compensate for the development that the third world are rightly allowed.

[Gray-Wolf]

Have to agree with you Dev. Can't figure another time in the planets history where an ape ancestor has been ripping the surface of the planet to bits, dumping his carp all over the place and spewing out massive tonnages of airborne pollutants.

Blast is confusing a 'natural cycle ' for a 'man made cycle'. when nature throws her pendulum one way their are balances in place which try and draw the pendulum back into balance and ,like a pendulum, there are overshoots and oscillations until rest is found [or somewhere closely resembling 'rest'].

In this case man is over-riding the planets fail safes [tipping points] and forcing things well beyond that which nature would allow [nothing can arrest the travel of the pendulum and stabilise it, in the short/medium term].

I'm again forced to ask why folk will accept the damage man is doing to the planets surface and the creatures that exist there but cannot accept that we are having as much of an impact on the planets atmosphere [leading to even more detrimental 'changes' on the surface] and instigating as far a reaching a suite of effects aloft as he is on the surface.

Take a glimpse at the impact man has had on the earths fresh water reserves, via his water management, over the past 150yrs and tell me it's a 'natural cycle'. Take a look at the deforestation that has occurred since the start of the industrial revolution and tell me again that this is a 'natural cycle'.

You cannot insist that man can instigate changes to the surface that are visible from space and let the atmosphere off scott free.......can you?

[Yeti]

Eloquently put G-W, my thoughts exactly.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I'm again forced to ask why folk will accept the damage man is doing to the planets surface and the creatures that exist there but cannot accept that we are having as much of an impact on the planets atmosphere [leading to even more detrimental 'changes' on the surface] and instigating as far a reaching a suite of effects aloft as he is on the surface.

I could have sworn that I answered that question...

CB

[BUSHY]

Well closer to topic:- RSS data is out and March follows the trend, only just above the mean at .079.

link

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Blast is confusing a 'natural cycle ' for a 'man made cycle'. when nature throws her pendulum one way their are balances in place which try and draw the pendulum back into balance and ,like a pendulum, there are overshoots and oscillations until rest is found [or somewhere closely resembling 'rest'].

In this case man is over-riding the planets fail safes [tipping points] and forcing things well beyond that which nature would allow [nothing can arrest the travel of the pendulum and stabilise it, in the short/medium term].

Take a glimpse at the impact man has had on the earths fresh water reserves, via his water management, over the past 150yrs and tell me it's a 'natural cycle'. Take a look at the deforestation that has occurred since the start of the industrial revolution and tell me again that this is a 'natural cycle'.

You cannot insist that man can instigate changes to the surface that are visible from space and let the atmosphere off scott free.......can you?

GW

I confuse nothing. You and many others confuse the warming of the west antarctic peninsula as antarctic warming when indeed 90% has been cooling. You confuse that the planet has been lush green forests and grass for its entirity. Last ice age had deforestation a further 60% reduced compared to now with desert areas increased to same level. CO2 increases further...and for ten years AND increasing temps have plateauxed with signs of potential cooling.

I have never dispelled pollution and never will but climate change? Evidence mounts that we don't control and we override absolutely nothing to do with climate. This La Nina fooled many warmist faction....it was accurately predicted by Landscheidt and others years in advabnce and its effects too.

BFTP

[Filski]

I've been having a more or less identical discussion on another forum about temperatures since 1998. I agree with Magpie as to the correct way to view temperatures. 1998 was as much of an anomaly as the drop Jan07-08. Running means are the best way to test if indeed temperatures have indeed dropped since 1998 (and they have ever so slightly) Geographical and seasonal variability should also be considered.

This was the graph posted to illustrate that temperatures have not risen and to show the extreme drop Jan 07-08

This shows that it is not a unique occurence and that a recovery usually follows

Solar cycles -black for troughs and green for peaks. The current trough is not shown for obvious reasons.

ENSO Cycles - down is El Nino, up is La Nina

Finally shifiting the reference by just one month to Dec 06-07 halves the temperature difference.

I challenge anybody to demonstrate that there is a continuing natural cycle in all the above that proves we are about to enter a continued cooling phase. Even now with a convergence of natural cycles (solar and ENSO) - the 'perfect storm' - at their minimums we are still pretty warm. With a forecast global anomaly of +0.4'C nothing like a reversal is beginning. If natural cycles were soley to blame then we have a problem, because we have not identified a natural input to our climate that exceeds the sun and ENSO combined.

[VillagePlank]

**snip**

Yes and the rate of the rate of change is unmoved? Don't think so. Moving averages contain a memory. If the last 15 years is included, the last 15 years warming will be part of the moving average. Change 15 years to period of your choice.

It is useful, for trend information, but it's not useful as a predictor. Ever. Zip. Nope. Never.

Would you ever bet on moving average? If you did - you'd be too late and lose your money.

[HighPressure]

Where is one shred of evidence that reducing CO2 emissions by the amount possible will have any impact on our climate what so ever? The fact is there is none! its a pure guess based on laboratory tests and assumptions.

It seems such a simplistic and naive approach to what is a very complex system, it really is not that easy. I would say that we are at more risk of rapid cooling from increased CO2 levels then we are significant warming, the earth's natural reaction to warming is to shut off ocean currents. By speeding up warming we simply bring the next iceage forward reducing CO2 levels now will not stop complex chain reactions that happen naturally in our climate. Yes we may well of played a part in that but to suggest we can now remove a few percent of CO2 and we will be all right is a load of tosh.

Edited April 6, 2008 by HighPressure

[PersianPaladin]

I've been having a more or less identical discussion on another forum about temperatures since 1998. I agree with Magpie as to the correct way to view temperatures. 1998 was as much of an anomaly as the drop Jan07-08. Running means are the best way to test if indeed temperatures have indeed dropped since 1998 (and they have ever so slightly) Geographical and seasonal variability should also be considered.

Why do we decide if its anamoly? Do people not realise that background warming affects ENSO events which are in turn affected by the MJO and they are all part of the same system?

Everything is interlinked. For example, stratospheric cooling (which is a symptom of global warming) does affect the degree of seasonality in the northern hemispheric temperate regions with more meridional rossby wave patterns and less pronounced solar\native-airmass enduced variations. Oceanic climates like ours are at the frontline of AGW and will report the most enhanced affects of the extra energy in the system; whereas there is more of a lag in those continental regions.

[bluecon]

I can't see it is worth destroying the economy just on the off chance that AGW is true. And that is looking less likely all the time. China, India, etc. are exponentially increasing their output and China is now the number one producer of greenhouse gasses so it wouldn't matter anyway. If the AGW theory is true we are all doomed anyways, so you might as well enjoy the ride.

[Devonian]

I can't see it is worth destroying the economy just on the off chance that AGW is true. And that is looking less likely all the time. China, India, etc. are exponentially increasing their output and China is now the number one producer of greenhouse gasses so it wouldn't matter anyway. If the AGW theory is true we are all doomed anyways, so you might as well enjoy the ride.

That's the spirit

With an attitude like that you'd have been a great help in summer 1940: 'Hey, we're doomed, just enjoy yourselves in the time we've got'?

[Hiya]

That's the spirit

With an attitude like that you'd have been a great help in summer 1940: 'Hey, we're doomed, just enjoy yourselves in the time we've got'?

Are you going to tell China that they are ruining the planet and they have to stop it at once?

[Devonian]

Are you going to tell China that they are ruining the planet and they have to stop it at once?

What a strange question, of course I am

Seriously, do we (people like me) just give up? I just think that would be a bit pathetic.

Edited April 6, 2008 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

China may well do for for China itself. As a 'planned ecconomy' moves ever more into the free market then manufacturing costs will rise as the price of labour rises in line with the developed world (strikes etc. as labour organises) and so production will slow as the goods become more expensive....

Power use by them will ,of course, continue to rise.

[NorthernRab]

The global approach to preventing climate change will begin win China, India and Brazil enter the third stage of population, i.e, birth-rates will start to decline, more students will start attending university, the economy will become stable with its growth rate shrinking to around 2%. This will probably happen in about 20 years time, and hopefully with that (in fact, it's looking quite likely) democracy will be formed in China (India and Brazil already have it). Democracy will probably be demanded due to a highly educated middle class (which are beginning to boom already, there are an uncountable number of yuppies in China now), it's sort of a natural process when it comes to demographics. So, basically in about 20 years the world will start to take climate change very seriously, sadly this will probably be a bit too late :/

[West is Best]

Am going to post more on this when I have some time. Fascinating to see the truth at last coming out in the wash.

[biffvernon]

I'm not sure there is any close connection between whether a country is a democracy and it's effect on climate.

Compare democratic USA with monarchist Bhutan. If we were all like the Bhutanese there would be no AGW.

[NorthernRab]

I'm not sure there is any close connection between whether a country is a democracy and it's effect on climate.

Compare democratic USA with monarchist Bhutan. If we were all like the Bhutanese there would be no AGW.

Very true, but my point was more that the Chinese people have no say; the dictatorship cares for nothing other than stimulating the economy. In the future, when their economy has settled down, the people will have their say.