Shouldn't we be cooling now?

[snowsure]

Time to see if the ringing in my ears is yet another alarm bell or tinnitus!

Whilst considering one of SF's points about the sothern deflection of the jet stream, I stumbled upon this article from 2002.

Interesting point by Michael Fish

"...The Earth's climate at the moment should have been cooling. We were supposed to be on a cooling cycle but man's intervention has not only overridden that but completely reversed it..."

So if it is warmer than the 30 year average but we should actually be cooling compared to the 30 year average then GW may be worse than I thought.

What I would like to know is: How much cooler should the natural cycle be making us? How much, then, is the warming that we are experiencing? Assume that we are 4*C above the 30 year mean but we should be, say, 3*C below due to cooling then GW is adding 7*C, not 4*C.

Anyone have any information regarding where we actually should be due to natural cycles?

SS

p.s. Is it too simplistic to assosciate the jet stream with the gulf stream as a cause-and-effect type system? If the Gulf stream diverted south, would the jet stream do likewise?

[Gray-Wolf]

You're dead right in that, in the old way of doing things , we should be a few years into our 'chilly' 20yrs. If you have spent time on the model discussion threads over the past few winters most of us have been awaiting the descent of the 'cold 20' only to be rewarded with the warmest October on record......ah well, even though it's a 'natural cycle' that's being over-ridden it must all be 'natural'........mustn't it?

[Optimus Prime]

What are the proofs in which we should be in a cooling cycle? As far as I know in pre-historic times they didn't have Michael Fish and super computers.

[Bobby]

This chart shows this to be correct. We are at the peak of the current interglacial, maybe slightly past, and should now be starting to head into another ice age. This of course isn't happening as the planet is warming exceptionally fast.

[SP1986]

This chart shows this to be correct. We are at the peak of the current interglacial, maybe slightly past, and should now be starting to head into another ice age. This of course isn't happening as the planet is warming exceptionally fast.

Interesting that those charts show a slight correlation between CO2 and the temperature rises/falls over the thousands of year, definitely a correlation between higher CO2 and higher temperatures. Looking at the chart though its questionable whether this currently warming wont be offset by an ice age soon. Given the consistency of the patterns, its hard to see that there wont be an ice age in the future - however obviously not in our lifetime

[Optimus Prime]

its hard to see that there wont be an ice age in the future - however obviously not in our lifetime

I hope you don't have to eat your words Steve! After predicting an almost certain England loss in the Rugby and all...

It's an interesting chart. Wonder what caused those sudden (in earth terms) drop in CO2 levels? Maybe the cold stopped all those power stations and cars from running back then......

[Bobby]

I hope you don't have to eat your words Steve! After predicting an almost certain England loss in the Rugby and all...

It's an interesting chart. Wonder what caused those sudden (in earth terms) drop in CO2 levels? Maybe the cold stopped all those power stations and cars from running back then......

This is the climate change analysis area, not a sly snipe area. Sceptics just can't resist can they?

As to why CO2 levels drop during ice ages, it is believed it could be due to changes in weathering and various feedback mechanisms triggered by an initial cooldown due to wobbles in the Earth's orbit.

I recommend reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age.

[SP1986]

I hope you don't have to eat your words Steve! After predicting an almost certain England loss in the Rugby and all...

It's an interesting chart. Wonder what caused those sudden (in earth terms) drop in CO2 levels? Maybe the cold stopped all those power stations and cars from running back then......

Interesting question, one I can only offer vague theories to, and thats that it was all stored in grasslands and vegetation. I assume all over the world at some of those higher anomalies, there would have been rainforests of massive proportions - perhaps therefore massive scale sequestration is partly the answer, which in turn took the heat properties from the atmosphere, helping build an ice age. It'd be interesting to get data further back, albeit probably impossible.

Scoff

[Bobby]

This is slightly longer version of the figure I posted earlier, and shows that the current levels of carbon dioxide, around 385 ppm, are far higher than anything in the past 400,000+ years.

Edited October 13, 2007 by Magpie

[SP1986]

This is slightly longer version of the figure I posted earlier, and shows that the current levels of carbon dioxide, around 385 ppm, are far higher than anything in the past 400,000+ years.

The current looks lower than 350,000 years ago though? We're looking at the blue line here?

[Bobby]

The current looks lower than 350,000 years ago though? We're looking at the blue line here?

The current CO2 concentration is around 385 ppm, the highest anything on the graph goes to is about 300, as the graph doesn't show CO2 levels in recent years.

[Gray-Wolf]

Why are you piffling on about past CO2 increases when we know, beyond all doubt (and not just reasonable doubt!) that we have been liberating CO2 locked up for over 325 million years (if we're talking European coal reserves) and at least 80 million years if we're looking at oil and gas.

Whoopee dog pooh, the planet can ,all on it's own, produce large amounts of CO2 by it's own volition, that really makes me feel a whole load better (as we continue to liberate deep sealed, deep stored CO2 that only global catastrophe meaning the total disruption of the crust down to beyond 2 miles deep could liberate!)

Whoopee dog pooh! aren't we so clever world!!!?

So , tell me again where your point is and where your argument is leading? I'm being a little thick and don't quite get your drift. We'll be having the " in the past CO2 followed temperature increase" conversation next and I'll be left thinking "Whoopee Dog Pooh!, we've forced up temps so we can expect Gaia to dump a pooh load more CO2 up there too!

I appologise an' all that but for why does this conversation exist????

Edited October 13, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[SP1986]

Why are you piffling on about past CO2 increases when we know, beyond all doubt (and not just reasonable doubt!) that we have been liberating CO2 locked up for over 325 million years (if we're talking European coal reserves) and at least 80 million years if we're looking at oil and gas.

Whoopee dog pooh, the planet can ,all on it's own, produce large amounts of CO2 by it's own volition, that really makes me feel a whole load better (as we continue to liberate deep sealed, deep stored CO2 that only global catastrophe meaning the total disruption of the crust down to beyond 2 miles deep could liberate!)

Whoopee dog pooh! aren't we so clever world!!!?

So , tell me again where your point is and where your argument is leading? I'm being a little thick and don't quite get your drift. We'll be having the " in the past CO2 followed temperature increase" conversation next and I'll be left thinking "Whoopee Dog Pooh!, we've forced up temps so we can expect Gaia to dump a pooh load more CO2 up there too!

I appologise an' all that but for why does this conversation exist????

Whose assertions are you questioning? 'you' could be just about anyone I guess?

[Optimus Prime]

This is slightly longer version of the figure I posted earlier, and shows that the current levels of carbon dioxide, around 385 ppm, are far higher than anything in the past 400,000+ years.

By far higher you mean, 80 P.P.M.V (whatever it means) parts higher then the last dip? For a start I believe these charts give a false appearance across.

For example, If you had a line graph showing the yearly profits of Tesco and Asda through the year Tesco would look as if they make far more money then Asda if the graph was in £1000s, but if you had it in billions it would make the lines deviate much less giving the impression Tescos profits aren't that much more then Asda.

What I'm trying to get at is 80 P.P.M.V really sucha big deal? In itself it doesn't really make much sense unless you know the ins and outs of the P.P.M.V. It would be significant or it could be only slight.

[Bobby]

By far higher you mean, 80 P.P.M.V (whatever it means) parts higher then the last dip? For a start I believe these charts give a false appearance across.

For example, If you had a line graph showing the yearly profits of Tesco and Asda through the year Tesco would look as if they make far more money then Asda if the graph was in £1000s, but if you had it in billions it would make the lines deviate much less giving the impression Tescos profits aren't that much more then Asda.

What I'm trying to get at is 80 P.P.M.V really sucha big deal? In itself it doesn't really make much sense unless you know the ins and outs of the P.P.M.V. It would be significant or it could be only slight.

Here's a better chart with the recent years plotted.

By the way, PPMV is parts per million by volume.

Now, that is a huge anomoly by any stretch of the imagination. In it's still increasing at an ever faster and faster rate. Levels will reach 600 ppm in just a few decades at the current rate, that is twice anything in the last 450,000 years AT LEAST, as the chart only goes that far back because that's about as far as we can accurately estimate past CO2 levels.

It is a big deal indeed because we are entering unknown territory. What do you think has caused this huge spike?

Edited October 13, 2007 by Magpie

[Chris Knight]

Here's a better chart with the recent years plotted.

By the way, PPMV is parts per million by volume.

Now, that is a huge anomoly by any stretch of the imagination. In it's still increasing at an ever faster and faster rate. Levels will reach 600 ppm in just a few decades at the current rate, that is twice anything in the last 450,000 years AT LEAST, as the chart only goes that far back because that's about as far as we can accurately estimate past CO2 levels.

It is a big deal indeed because we are entering unknown territory. What do you think has caused this huge spike?

I wish someone on this topic would quote sources. Anyone on Wikipedia can produce convincing charts, but where are the data sourced from? Who has checked if they are not just making it up? Look up GIGO, please.

[Stratos Ferric]

Time to see if the ringing in my ears is yet another alarm bell or tinnitus!

Whilst considering one of SF's points about the sothern deflection of the jet stream, I stumbled upon this article from 2002.

Interesting point by Michael Fish

"...The Earth's climate at the moment should have been cooling. We were supposed to be on a cooling cycle but man's intervention has not only overridden that but completely reversed it..."

So if it is warmer than the 30 year average but we should actually be cooling compared to the 30 year average then GW may be worse than I thought.

What I would like to know is: How much cooler should the natural cycle be making us? How much, then, is the warming that we are experiencing? Assume that we are 4*C above the 30 year mean but we should be, say, 3*C below due to cooling then GW is adding 7*C, not 4*C.

Anyone have any information regarding where we actually should be due to natural cycles?

SS

p.s. Is it too simplistic to assosciate the jet stream with the gulf stream as a cause-and-effect type system? If the Gulf stream diverted south, would the jet stream do likewise?

Not sure what the provenance of MF's comment would have been. My instinct is that he was talking more in geological timescales than decades or centuries, but without asking him, and unless he clarifies later in the chat, we're all guessing.

What I do recall though is Philip Eden suggesting, two or three years ago, that the winters around 2007-09 would be interesting rubikons. By his reckoning cold winters in the UK reliably follow a 22-23 year cycle, so that if we didn't land a genuinely cold one in this window serious questions would be legitimised regarding warming.

Re the PFJ and the NAD. There would be a relationship, but the air would follow the water, not vice-versa (water being denser and therfore far more inert in terms of flow), and even then other factors intervene. The NAD alone is not responsible for the location of the PFJ, but it does drive it anomalously poleward in the North Atlantic.

[Bobby]

I wish someone on this topic would quote sources. Anyone on Wikipedia can produce convincing charts, but where are the data sourced from? Who has checked if they are not just making it up? Look up GIGO, please.

The data on CO2 is taken from ice core samples from Vostok in Antarctica. The graph is produced for Wikipedia, but the data is not. The raw data can be downloaded from the NOAA site at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/ant...ostok_data.html, if you don't believe the graph.

[Gray-Wolf]

Whose assertions are you questioning? 'you' could be just about anyone I guess?

? In the context of the discussion on the graph representing the past couple of hundred thousand years I'd say the 'you' was the pedants who wish to take issue with our current (well above 380ppm) level of CO2 when they know full well the a significant componant of this figure is comprised of our mega tonnage output of CO2 from carbon locked away for at least 80million years (and at greatest 360million years).

If those folk have no wish to move the debate forward in an attempt to find more meaning but would rather choose to piffle about on 'nothings' then it is only themselves they seek to embarrass in front of the rest.

What do I know ? I'm only a woollyback anyways.....

[Optimus Prime]

One last point, I can't really see a huge difference between 300 PPMV and 600PPMV (bearing in mind prior to human recording levels of CO2 releiably, the rest is basically natural cycle guess work and ice core data)

If it's 600 parts per million, surely that's only an insigificant rise compared to 300 parts per million before the big industrial age? In which case would only cause a small background affect?

[Devonian]

One last point, I can't really see a huge difference between 300 PPMV and 600PPMV (bearing in mind prior to human recording levels of CO2 releiably, the rest is basically natural cycle guess work and ice core data)

If it's 600 parts per million, surely that's only an insigificant rise compared to 300 parts per million before the big industrial age? In which case would only cause a small background affect?

What kind of rise in concentration would you call significant?

[Bobby]

If it's 600 parts per million, surely that's only an insigificant rise compared to 300 parts per million before the big industrial age? In which case would only cause a small background affect?

Huh? Surely CO2 levels being double of what they ever were in at least the past half a million years is significant? How is it insignificant?

[SP1986]

We should watch what the temperatures do over the next 50-100 years or so, to see how much of a correlation there is between CO2 and air temperature - I dont doubt there is correlation, but wonder what the next stage is.. ?

[Bobby]

We should watch what the temperatures do over the next 50-100 years or so, to see how much of a correlation there is between CO2 and air temperature - I dont doubt there is correlation, but wonder what the next stage is.. ?

We know CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas has a warming effect, so the only thing it would seem that would halt further rises in temperature, assuming CO2 levels keep on increasing at the current rate, is some kind of large natural cooling event which would offset the heating. Perhaps there will be a supervolcano eruption, the current warming could trigger a negative feedback mechanism, or some other unknown cooling event. I don't think any such event is on the horizon though, so it would seem things will keep on heating up.

[Gray-Wolf]

We should watch what the temperatures do over the next 50-100 years or so, to see how much of a correlation there is between CO2 and air temperature - I dont doubt there is correlation, but wonder what the next stage is.. ?

And ,prey tell, who will be left to do the watching????

We know CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas has a warming effect, so the only thing it would seem that would halt further rises in temperature, assuming CO2 levels keep on increasing at the current rate, is some kind of large natural cooling event which would offset the heating. Perhaps there will be a supervolcano eruption, the current warming could trigger a negative feedback mechanism, or some other unknown cooling event. I don't think any such event is on the horizon though, so it would seem things will keep on heating up.

Wouldn't a supervolcano only provide us with a couple of years cooling before it's massive CO2 output set us on the up and up again?