Shouldn't we be cooling now?

[SP1986]

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

I'm hoping I'll be around in 50 years time to witness the effects. Failing that, seeing how it all rises while were still alive is the alternative!

[Roger J Smith]

Here's something interesting about natural cooling cycles. When the CET series began, one such cycle was probably already underway. Not sure how intense it was before 1659, but after that, almost half the winters were cold to 1700, then it warmed up fairly quickly with the Daniel Defoe windstorm near the transition point. There was one more very cold winter to come in 1709, and a fairly cold one in 1716, then 23 years of quite warm weather by the standards expected back then.

Now, in 1940 another cooling cycle began in the CET, with 13 to 15 cold winters to follow in just 48 years through 1987. This apparently ended later in 1987 with two major windstorms in October 1987 and January 1990. Following this, the winters of 1991 and 1996 were fairly cold within the developing warm phase.

So there seems to be some kind of a rhythm indicated in these two examples, cold dominant, then highly variable transition, then warm dominant.

Between 1740 and 1940, I would need to take more time to study the evidence, and accounts of windstorms in that period might be harder to find. There was a fairly cold period 1760 to 1795 followed by a warmer period to about 1828, then a cold period in the 1830s, and a more pronounced cold spell about 1879 to 1895 followed by quite a warm spell, really only 1917 and 1929 had anything like a cold winter in a fairly long period of time.

What does it all say about this question? Warm and cold spells of various durations, but averaging 30-50 years, are the norm for the climate (and this also seems to apply in North America). Not sure when Michael Fish made his comments, but it may have referred to the colder period of the 1970s and 1980s. I don't think he meant the longer geological or Milankovich type cycles, because we are nowhere near the statistical mid-point of this inter-glacial yet, I think that's a few thousand years off, and the Milankovich factors in particular are not in favour of cooling on that scale for about 8,000 years at least. I recall seeing that the next ice age window is less concentrated in terms of orbital variables than the previous two, so the very vague and very long-term forecast might be for a less severe ice age. If the AGW theory is at least one third right, as I have conceded, then that might be enough to cancel out such a modified ice age in the distant future, but I suspect massive changes in technology between now and then will render this question obsolete.

Our great great grandchildren will not only have weather control, they will have time travel and they are probably watching us now. :lol:

* screw off and go back to 2207, ya little buggers *

[Gray-Wolf]

Here's something interesting about natural cooling cycles. When the CET series began, one such cycle was probably already underway. Not sure how intense it was before 1659, but after that, almost half the winters were cold to 1700, then it warmed up fairly quickly with the Daniel Defoe windstorm near the transition point. There was one more very cold winter to come in 1709, and a fairly cold one in 1716, then 23 years of quite warm weather by the standards expected back then.

Now, in 1940 another cooling cycle began in the CET, with 13 to 15 cold winters to follow in just 48 years through 1987. This apparently ended later in 1987 with two major windstorms in October 1987 and January 1990. Following this, the winters of 1991 and 1996 were fairly cold within the developing warm phase.

So there seems to be some kind of a rhythm indicated in these two examples, cold dominant, then highly variable transition, then warm dominant.

Between 1740 and 1940, I would need to take more time to study the evidence, and accounts of windstorms in that period might be harder to find. There was a fairly cold period 1760 to 1795 followed by a warmer period to about 1828, then a cold period in the 1830s, and a more pronounced cold spell about 1879 to 1895 followed by quite a warm spell, really only 1917 and 1929 had anything like a cold winter in a fairly long period of time.

What does it all say about this question? Warm and cold spells of various durations, but averaging 30-50 years, are the norm for the climate (and this also seems to apply in North America). Not sure when Michael Fish made his comments, but it may have referred to the colder period of the 1970s and 1980s. I don't think he meant the longer geological or Milankovich type cycles, because we are nowhere near the statistical mid-point of this inter-glacial yet, I think that's a few thousand years off, and the Milankovich factors in particular are not in favour of cooling on that scale for about 8,000 years at least. I recall seeing that the next ice age window is less concentrated in terms of orbital variables than the previous two, so the very vague and very long-term forecast might be for a less severe ice age. If the AGW theory is at least one third right, as I have conceded, then that might be enough to cancel out such a modified ice age in the distant future, but I suspect massive changes in technology between now and then will render this question obsolete.

Our great great grandchildren will not only have weather control, they will have time travel and they are probably watching us now. :lol:

* screw off and go back to 2207, ya little buggers *

Awwww C'mon rodger, when Defoe was alive there weren't 5.3billion folk on this rock with a goodly proportion of those in the northern hemisphere chuffing out as much CO2 from their fossil fuel burning as there domestic/industrial hearth could cope with was there?

How can you misguide our younger readers with such a skewed version of things with a clear concience?

I think you've being very, very naughty!

Edited October 14, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Roger J Smith]

Oh well, I thought we were just talking about natural variability in this thread, it has nothing to do with the current debate on global warming, and I doubt that I am misleading any younger readers as they have no doubt been instructed in the right way to think at school.

Like I was with the impending ice age. :lol:

[snowsure]

... we are nowhere near the statistical mid-point of this inter-glacial yet, I think that's a few thousand years off, and the Milankovich factors in particular are not in favour of cooling on that scale for about 8,000 years at least.

Didn't know that. I thought that the current interglacial, which started about 10,000 years ago, was due to end soon. Looking at the previous glacial periods, there appears to be no common pattern amonst them. So I wonder if the real truth is that we do not know when the next ice age wil start. Nothing quite like uncertainty to scare folk, is there.

On a quick thought experiment; If there was a sudden reduction of the cryosphere and up sprung an abundance of plants, etc, wouldn't they remove lots of the CO2? If so, would this removal then cause a concentration correction that would then allow the climate to obey it's natural rhythms? I appreciate that the time-scales here would be geologically significant.

[Roger J Smith]

It is somewhat of a change of subject, but there are many things the human race could do to modify global climate, if the resources were applied.

For example, a dam across the Bering Straits, preventing warm Pacific water from entering the Arctic basin, and with the purpose of generating hydro-electric power, could easily reduce the average temperature of the Arctic Ocean by as much as 3 or 4 C degrees, and possibly reverse the loss of the arctic ice pack, a good thing if it were widely agreed that such an event, natural or otherwise, would be harmful to the majority of the earth's population and wildlife (through raised sea levels, mostly, but also in more specific terms with reference to regional animals like the polar bear).

Russia and Canada could co-operate by laying down white surfaces in marginal sub-arctic zones in the autumn to accelerate radiational cooling and possibly tweak the onset of winter by a few days or a week, perhaps a critical change that would restore the climatic balance of earlier times.

Also, Russia and Canada control 90% of the fresh water flowing into the Arctic Ocean and could divert some of this in the summer half-year so that another cause of higher temperatures in the Arctic Ocean would be removed, thus shifting the balance towards greater ice cover. In fact, in the former "ice age impending" head space of the 1970s, the atmospheric science community was concerned that the former Soviet Union might accelerate the feared ice age by diverting the Ob and Yenisei waters to west Siberian irrigation projects. Nowadays, such a development might be welcomed in some quarters.

Another thing we could do to modify climate would be snowmaking on a large scale -- all of highland Scotland could be covered in snow if the sort of technology they have in place at Whistler were to be applied at the right time. Then this would feed back into the existing natural weather patterns and cool things down by a degree or two. It might even snow in Abingdon, or they could move the snow-making machines there for a week.

I'm just saying ... :lol:

Hope I haven't misled too many youing people (again).

[SP1986]

I would severely object to modifying our climate just because we're scared of the unknown, however if it came to life or death situations I do believe if it was the climate that was threatening our existence we would have no choice, however if we went ahead with that we would really need to shape up with how we live.

[Gray-Wolf]

Roger, whilst Russia and the rest are 'flag planting' under the ice in the Arctic to claim their bit of fossil fuel reserves down there it would appear that the 'good will ' needed for such projects is about as far off as 'normal ice levels up there.

Sadly, especially for the children, we'd be better off thinking the unthinkable and prepering for the worst than carrying on talking the talk when we're never, ever , gonna 'walk the walk'!

[Roger J Smith]

I keep trying to make this rather obscure point, but rather than being a person who is "in denial" of global and especially arctic warming, I am actually a maverick member of the atmospheric science community who has long believed that a natural cycle of warming is about to remove the arctic ice pack and much of the land ice in the northern hemisphere, and that governments would be wise to expect a rise in sea levels around 2020-2040.

The main difference between me and the IPCC or Al Gore is that I don't think Kyoto-style programs will have any effect on the rate of warming. It would perhaps do more good to restrain particulate pollution from eastern Asia because that has impressed me as being a real physical process ablating the ice cover in real time.

On the other hand, I have no reason to oppose any kinds of clean technology, lower emissions, better public transport, etc, on first principles, and on another thread I have tried to point out that urban air pollution is a somewhat separate issue that can be theoretically tackled outside the Kyoto framework, and in our case here in Canada, urgently needs to be.

The main point I would like to communicate (in my attempts to mislead the young etc) is that we probably have little time left to plan a strategy to keep sea levels stable or else be ready to deal with them as they rise. Some of the ideas I outlined above could possibly keep sea levels stable. I personally would urge the governments of Russia, Canada and the United States (and Norway and Denmark) to collaborate in major projects that would be in place by 2020 and capable of reducing mean temperatures in the Arctic Ocean through changes in circulation or inflow of summer-heated river discharge.

I would also urge the United Nations to abandon the misguided notion that Kyoto could somehow change the climate, and instead start to look at massive global desalinization programs that might take away some of the rising ocean waters in the period 2020-2035 and provide massive irrigation potential for the subtropical regions around the world.

There are ways to engineer our way out of the problem, but they will take unprecedented international co-operation. Kyoto, on the other hand, will just waste time, obscure the real problem at hand (natural warming already well underway) and give young people and voters in general the false hope that if they vote for certain types of political parties, the earth's temperature will go back down to where it was in the 1960s and 1970s.

The public debate on this issue, however, has nothing to do with my sort of third-track paradigm, it remains a slugfest between proponents and opponents of Kyoto on largely economic or scientific grounds without any reference to the third alternative, an inevitable natural warming that will have consequences no matter who you vote for, or what policies they enact, short of my proposed major engineering projects (and even these may be too little too late, but I think they have some possibility of reducing the overall warming and the resulting harm from rising sea levels).

The other alternative is to consider that society has always adapted in some way to environmental change, and just wait and see what actually happens. There are certain parts of the world that could ill afford to lose the first metre or 1.5 metres of their elevation above sea level -- your country among them. Part of the problem will be that Russia and Canada, the two nations that own most of the arctic land mass, as well as the USA which is also a major player, have less land at risk although I must say there are large areas around Vancouver that would be threatened by a sea level rise of more than 50 cms. Most of Richmond, a city to the south of Vancouver, is on a flat floodplain that is protected by dykes and the interior of this area is about a foot or two below sea level, especially storm tide sea level.

So, I want to repeat, I don't see any of these issues as easy or trivial, but we need the right response, not just any response that Al Gore has in mind. He's not exactly Albert Einstein and for that matter, neither are the majority of the IPCC, not wishing to be snarky here, but we're running out of time to get some clear thinking and it's not forthcoming from these sources, even if they do own a Nobel Peace Prize. I mean, would you want Yassir Arafat to design an airport security system for you?

[Essan]

The shift into a new ice age is a long term cycle that can only been seen in timescales of 1,000s of years. There are indications from the ice cores that we have been in a slight cooling trend for about the past 4,000 years. That doesn't mean there can't be short term warms spells (lasting decades or centuries) within that trend.

However current thinking is that the current interglacial will be a 'double' - lasting around 20,000 years - much like the interglacial 400,000 years ago.

IMO we have for the past few decades been in a short term natural warming trend - due to a combination of solar activity and natural oceanic and atmospheric oscillations - and that this has been further amplified by anthroipogenic warming. On that assumption, we may be due to enter a natural cooling trend over the next few decades. But anthropogenic warming with reduce the impact of that cooling (which may well prove to be a good thing). If anthropogenic warming continues, however, the next natural warming trend will be warmer still and this could, in time, negate any long term cooling that should lead into the next glacial.

Edited October 15, 2007 by Essan

[Bobby]

The evidence suggests we aren't actually heading into an ice age at the moment, we are instead on a plateau at the peak of the inter-glacial period. The plateau will last for a few thousand years before the next Milankovitch cycle comes around and we head into a new ice age. There is no immediate natural cooling trend on the horizon thus for thousands of years, so nothing to offset the current warming.

[eddie]

Slightly off topic sorry, but does anybody know what the resolution of the Vostok ice core data is?

Also, if you had a particularly warm number of years and some of the ice melted would that mean that you could loose a chunk of 'history' since only years in which ice accumulates show in the record?

I am sure the scientists have taken account of this I would just be interested to know how and if this has happened.

[Devonian]

Slightly off topic sorry, but does anybody know what the resolution of the Vostok ice core data is?

It increases the further back you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

Also, if you had a particularly warm number of years and some of the ice melted would that mean that you could loose a chunk of 'history' since only years in which ice accumulates show in the record?

Doubt it, the cores are taken at the top of ice sheets - it would be a considerable surprise if temperatures have reached above freezing at places like Vostok for any length of time.

[Mr Sleet]

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......

OP

The drop in Global temperatures caused an increase in the solubility of CO2 in the oceans. So the atmospheric CO2 concentration drops. When the ice ages end, the CO2 solubility drops so the atmospheric concentration of C02 increases. The CO2 does not drive the temperature it's the other way round. I think the lag period is about 800 years.

[Iceberg]

Previously the CO2 temperature feedback mechanism was one of the drivers for the rapid emergency out of an ice age.

C02 does drive temperature but as a feedback mechanism.

[Bobby]

OP

The drop in Global temperatures caused an increase in the solubility of CO2 in the oceans. So the atmospheric CO2 concentration drops. When the ice ages end, the CO2 solubility drops so the atmospheric concentration of C02 increases. The CO2 does not drive the temperature it's the other way round. I think the lag period is about 800 years.

CO2 has a warming effect, and the more if it in the atmosphere the bigger the warming effect it has. Whether increases in temperature increased CO2 levels in the past is irrelevant. If CO2 is increasing today, the warming affect is increasing and temperatures should increase, and indeed temperatures have increased as all the charts show.

Edited October 15, 2007 by Magpie

[eddie]

It increases the further back you go <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core</a>

Doubt it, the cores are taken at the top of ice sheets - it would be a considerable surprise if temperatures have reached above freezing at places like Vostok for any length of time.

Thanks. Always good to learn something new every day.

[Mr Sleet]

CO2 has a warming effect, and the more if it in the atmosphere the bigger the warming effect it has. Whether increases in temperature increased CO2 levels in the past is irrelevant. If CO2 is increasing today, the warming affect is increasing and temperatures should increase, and indeed temperatures have increased as all the charts show.

Magpie

I wasn't trying to comment on AGW, just answering OP's question.The rapid emergence from the ice age was driven by factors other than CO2 - there is no evidence that CO2 accelerated or prolonged the warming.

I agree that the Vostok ice core data doesn't necessarily say that CO2 isn't responsible for the warming we saw in the 20th century.

[SP1986]

Magpie

I wasn't trying to comment on AGW, just answering OP's question.The rapid emergence from the ice age was driven by factors other than CO2 - there is no evidence that CO2 accelerated or prolonged the warming.

I agree that the Vostok ice core data doesn't necessarily say that CO2 isn't responsible for the warming we saw in the 20th century.

depends what you mean by accelerated. If you mean by accelerated the Co2 sent the warming way ahead of it, then you're right it didnt acclerate, but if you mean by acclerate the the warming followed the general path of Co2 then yes.

The only problem I'd have with it, is that charts that put CO2 and warming on surely cannot be compatible with each other, unless each part per million of CO2 corresponds with a certain temperature.

[Mr Sleet]

depends what you mean by accelerated. If you mean by accelerated the Co2 sent the warming way ahead of it, then you're right it didnt acclerate, but if you mean by acclerate the the warming followed the general path of Co2 then yes.

The only problem I'd have with it, is that charts that put CO2 and warming on surely cannot be compatible with each other, unless each part per million of CO2 corresponds with a certain temperature.

Stephen,

The earth cools (orbital, axial, plate tectonics) so CO2 levels in the atmosphere drop ; earth warms up (orbital, axial, plate tectonics) CO2 levels increase. Its because the C02 solubility in water increases as the ocean temperatures drop and vice versa- thats a fact. It takes a while for the atmospheric changes to build up as the ocean temperature changes at different rates with depth.

The fact that the graphs are superimposed on each other rather nicely in terms of gradients with an 800 year time lag suggest that CO2 in this scenario is having little effect.

BTW , you haven't been drinking this lunchtime have you ? :o

ps Ignore edit, I accidently pressed edit instead of reply. (Stephen)

Edited October 16, 2007 by Stephen Prudence

[SP1986]

Stephen,

The earth cools (orbital, axial, plate tectonics) so CO2 levels in the atmosphere drop ; earth warms up (orbital, axial, plate tectonics) CO2 levels increase. Its because the C02 solubility in water increases as the ocean temperatures drop and vice versa- thats a fact. It takes a while for the atmospheric changes to build up as the ocean temperature changes at different rates with depth.

The fact that the graphs are superimposed on each other rather nicely in terms of gradients with an 800 year time lag suggest that CO2 in this scenario is having little effect.

BTW , you haven't been drinking this lunchtime have you ?

ps Ignore edit, I accidently pressed edit instead of reply. (Stephen)

Why is everyone saying I've been drinking? all my friends seem to be saying am I drinking, I gave up drinking ages ago! I'm baffled... :o

As for whether CO2 or temperaturee interacts with each other though it probably makes no difference in climate change (natural or AGW), 6 of one and half a dozen of the other comes to mind.

[parmenides3]

In answer to the original question: yes, supposedly.

:)P

[Gray-Wolf]

In answer to the original question: yes, supposedly.

P

and if you agree with this why do you think we aren't/are delayed in our cooling P3?

[Gray-Wolf]

Maybe this stuff has something to do with it (the CO2 not the fossils!)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...71016090525.htm

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Don't know about this cooling period since 2002. There is the perturbation cycle which we have entered [La Nina] Dominance since Feb 07. This cycle fits with what Roger has mentioned. Re the CO2 matter yep its in the mix but as we see it clearly gets overridden, and its regular and hasn't failed and that is always something that gets avoided CO2 clearly getrs overridden...why?

BFTP

Edited October 17, 2007 by BLAST FROM THE PAST