Ongoing 'surprises'

[Gray-Wolf]

Last year we had the unpredicted level of Arctic sea ice melt.

We discovered the Ozone depletion is 'healing' faster than we thought.

We had the 'unexpected' loss in functionality of the southern ocean CO2 sink and measures suggesting atmospheric CO2 is already beyond is the predicted atmospheric levels for 2015.

This year,so far we have had the 'alterations' in interpretation of atmospheric warming and the surprise report on Oceanic warming (and it's thermal expansion).

We had the new measures for how quickly the Greenland ice sheet is losing mass and new evidence for a more rapid 'thaw' of the Northern permafrosts.

I'm sure you'll all chip in with your own examples of science looking a little surprised by the rate that change that seems to be occurring.

My question is "should we be worried?"

I was quite worried to see the IPCC report last year, it seemed to be finally peddling the kind of predictions for change that I myself have been chuntering on about since at least '85. All the 'knowledge' and 'predictions' back then were cobbled together from past climatic/environmental readings we were making or from current instruments/techniques used to measure the climate/environment back then.

Over the past 6 or seven years agencies have been investing in programmes and equipment to actually look for the tell tale signs of climate change and its overall rate of change, I mean, just look at the number of 'specific' satellite systems that have been put up over this period to measure specific 'areas of concern'.

Is it really that we really only now beginning to 'learn' how to measure 'climate change' (as opposed to taking environmental/climatic 'readings' meant to form a more complete knowledge of our world and not it's 'change') and are still only 'honing our skills' in the field or can this latest suite of studies/observations be trusted to provide us with a sharper picture of the actual changes?

If these constant 'revelations' from our scientific community are really only a signal that we are now better able to pull into a 'sharper focus' the rates/types of changes currently occurring then should we now be paying much closer attention to their predictions of the consequences of change?

What do you think?

Just science doing it's normal thing or an even greater need to globally commit to action.......no matter the costs to implement the changes called for?

[davehsug]

Last year we had the unpredicted level of Arctic sea ice melt.

We discovered the Ozone depletion is 'healing' faster than we thought.

We had the 'unexpected' loss in functionality of the southern ocean CO2 sink and measures suggesting atmospheric CO2 is already beyond is the predicted atmospheric levels for 2015.

This year,so far we have had the 'alterations' in interpretation of atmospheric warming and the surprise report on Oceanic warming (and it's thermal expansion).

We had the new measures for how quickly the Greenland ice sheet is losing mass and new evidence for a more rapid 'thaw' of the Northern permafrosts.

I'm sure you'll all chip in with your own examples of science looking a little surprised by the rate that change that seems to be occurring.

My question is "should we be worried?"

I was quite worried to see the IPCC report last year, it seemed to be finally peddling the kind of predictions for change that I myself have been chuntering on about since at least '85. All the 'knowledge' and 'predictions' back then were cobbled together from past climatic/environmental readings we were making or from current instruments/techniques used to measure the climate/environment back then.

Over the past 6 or seven years agencies have been investing in programmes and equipment to actually look for the tell tale signs of climate change and its overall rate of change, I mean, just look at the number of 'specific' satellite systems that have been put up over this period to measure specific 'areas of concern'.

Is it really that we really only now beginning to 'learn' how to measure 'climate change' (as opposed to taking environmental/climatic 'readings' meant to form a more complete knowledge of our world and not it's 'change') and are still only 'honing our skills' in the field or can this latest suite of studies/observations be trusted to provide us with a sharper picture of the actual changes?

If these constant 'revelations' from our scientific community are really only a signal that we are now better able to pull into a 'sharper focus' the rates/types of changes currently occurring then should we now be paying much closer attention to their predictions of the consequences of change?

What do you think?

Just science doing it's normal thing or an even greater need to globally commit to action.......no matter the costs to implement the changes called for?

Is all this stuff new though? How much of it is actually "unknown unknowns" as Mr Rumsfeld may have put it. You may speculate on what may or may not have happened, but it's only when you can actually measure it that you know the truth.

That doesn't mean that it has chamged in any substantial way. It could be the way it's always been, but now it can be measured rather than speculated upon.

Sounds like a few more grants for scientists to "investigate" these new developments & the gravy train rolls on!

Dave

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Without being funny GW, I can see this thread turning into another thread of posts to evidence Pro and anti-GW. Is it really that different to some of the other already open threads? I'm being genuine here

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Chris!

I think that there are very few of the topics in this area that don't run the same gauntlet of circular debate.

My hope is that we can explore both the changes in technology used in measuring climate change and the new methodologies employed.

As I outlined above much of the evidence we have is cobbled together from sources /observations not specifically meant to assess climate change (both degree and rate).

We now have lots of ongoing explorations of climate change, it's mechanism and it's parameters, that will bring us to a more meaningful understanding of the changes we are living through and the changes we are to expect.

The one thing that has pricked my curiosity is that all the results thus far seem to suggest we have seriously underestimated many areas of climate change and it's impacts on the planet. As far as I can gauge many of the current observations put us on a path that will take us beyond the worse case scenario offered up by the IPCC only last year.

I am now of the opinion that we are ,at last, starting to amass an accurate measure of the problems we have instigated on the planet and we appear not be in a good place at all.

It ,to me at least, appears that we have misconstrued past 'evidence' due too our novice status and we are only now becoming more accomplished at both measuring and then interpreting the changes on the planet.

So, whether with or against the AGW camp, if you have instances over the past 3 or 4 years where you think you've seen science do a complete turnaround or appears to be running to catch up then let's hear about it. Maybe then we can amass our own picture of the current state of knowledge of our changes......whatever drives them.

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Science is, IMHO, playing catchup most of the time. Take a look at drugs, be it prescription or alternative, and we are constantly finding new reasons not to take something.

Food is another area where science says something one day, and the next its something else. Enumbers is a classic example where a food type product is put on to this list, then xtime later, its found to be unsafe.

Initial findings are always interesting, but they are to all intent purposes, initial. Its not until somebody challenges those findings, that we start to see a broader picture. But often the difficulty is knowing where to start.

Whilst I agree the world is warming, and in fact there are climatic consequences to this, the rate of warming and alarm is sometimes hard to fatherm. If we struggle to predict a week, 2 weeks or a month ahead in weather forecasting, I wonder how accurate the climatic models are for the years ahead.

[Gray-Wolf]

Let's not be too eager to oversimplify things here Chris!

Science is split into many disciplines ,some old, some new. Food technology is one of the 'newer' disciplines and it is another area where we do not possess a great depth of observations over time.

If you think of how long we have been canning foodstuffs you may start to see what I mean. Many of the 'un-natural' additives in food to enable long shelf life's or enhance taste have not been studied over a few generations of users. You don't find many controversies around the old ,tried and tested, methods of food preservation (air drying,smoking,salting,pickling and preserves) and maybe this should give us some pointers as to why some areas of that science are a bit 'up and down'.

I often wonder where we will find ourselves when the full impacts of modern living are understood (Emfs,Microwaves,short and long radio waves, electricity, etc.) as this is another area that has not been as 'intensely felt' by humanity before (exposed to them over many generations) in the way we expose ourselves to these 'energies' in our day to day living currently.

As I've already said it would appear that we are now 'tailoring' observations (for the first time) to measure change and these new data sets, when stuck into the 'models', are proving much better at their abilities at 'hind casting' and so ,probably, in their forecasting. If so then we are in pretty poor shape I think.

Edited June 23, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[picog]

I think that the surprises demonstrate how little is understood about our climate — we may have an understanding that the climate varies between warmer and cooler periods, but we possibly have little knowledge of the micro-events that occur during each phase, or of the precipitants of the change to warmer or cooler periods.

[Iceberg]

I agree with a lot of what has been said.

I think the wealth of new measurements being taken at the moment can only be a good thing, no matter what your views.

Better understanding of ice depth, better understanding of ocean movements, carbon storage etc.

I hope the information is all good news !.

I think past paralles can be drawn though. For example we know that some of the ice in the arctic ocean is at least 80 years old, hence if all of it melts this is at best an infrequent occurance(maybe once every 100 years) and could be a lot less frequent. Ditto goes for Glaciers, ice sheets etc that have been around for 10,000's of years and which are either strinking or vanishing. This is all circumstantial but does paint a picture.

The new measurements do show up a few unknowns however it probably more frequently reinforces our current understanding

Matt

[Gray-Wolf]

I think that the surprises demonstrate how little is understood about our climate — we may have an understanding that the climate varies between warmer and cooler periods, but we possibly have little knowledge of the micro-events that occur during each phase, or of the precipitants of the change to warmer or cooler periods.

But surely picog this is my thrust?

We are now moving into a time where we have better defined the problem so can more adequately seek to measure/understand it with technologies/techniques tailored for the job.

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Hi GW. Just to probably pick up on the point above I am most familiar with...Food.

Additives arent actually that unnatural. Vitamin C, Citric Acid, Malic Acid...all additives, and natural too. Infact, artficial was kicked out in the majority along time ago. Its the perception that hasnt gone.

And in terms of the 'tried and tested' methods of preserving:

Salting - High salt content, with links to heart issues.

Smoking Foods - Issues with carcenegens

Air Drying - Not uisd very often due to the fact that it has low quality control

Pickling - You dont see it in the mean stream anymore, bar veg and eggs

So actually, the old methods have in fact been scrutinised and in most cases removed.

Thats the thing with science also. Is sometimes we are too eager to believe what we hear, rather than sit down and understand it in its entirity.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'd agree with that Chris and thanks for your 'expertise' on the food side of things. We do tend to be a little 'behind the times' in our knowledge of things and also quite selective. Were it not for my son ,Jamie, I would still think that blue smarties sent you batty but we DO now check for the types of things we feel are bad within his foods/drinks. Some of the sweeteners used are surely not naturally occuring sunstances though?

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Sweeteners as a majority, no. Most are not natural. However, there are some natural versions out there (Thaumitin (sp?) being one of them).

[Gray-Wolf]

Anyhow, back to the main thrust. Are we now better able now ,than before, to measure and predict climate change or are our best scientists as clueless as the the rest of us?

[SnowBear]

In my opinion we are better able to measure and its getting better all the time, but the ability to predict is still very difficult due to there being so many influences with even todays technology and knowledge. The other point is we may be able to measure with 100% accuracy all the influences, but can we get the accuracy of prediction when all the influences are played together. Can we get a true handle on the systems and cycles involved, can we figure out how it all fits together. In this there are hundreds of bits to the jigsaw, a global climatic system, something very much larger than we have ever tried to tackle before and I believe beyond our capability at the moment.

[Gray-Wolf]

Another little bit of info that helps highlight the thread

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Ice_Core...hanges_999.html

The first we heard of 'rapid climate shifts' was in the 60's/70's and the proponants were put down as living in a 'science fiction' reality.

In the 90's Lovelock again proposed that dramatic climate swings would be the result of heating the planet (as opposed to a slow, year on year increase in change)

Now we have the evidence from the Greenland core that proves that not only can rapid climate shifts exists but they formed the mechanism for the end of our last glacial period.

So, in the 60/70's we'd have been laughed out the door for believing in it, the samer in the 80's. By the 90's the 'forward thinkers were once again proposing it. Today it'd be foolish to ignore the science now we have honed our techniques for extracting the info that give us that all important 'glimpse' into our past climate.

I think that I do believe that the data we are now culling is the best yet and so the latest model runs (incorporating the new data) are the most 'realistic' yet.

Science 'running to catch up'?, I'm beginning to wish I could run and hide from science!!

[Iceberg]

To be honest it's good that science is running to catch up as soon as it has caught up and considers itself competant it starts to stagnate and rest, what we have with climate science at the moment is probably one of the most vibrant areas of science around.

[SnowBear]

The biggest problem I come up against is defining what the "norm" is for our planet.

In that article you posted GW, they say that the end of the ice age brought quite large fluctuations year on year in climate. Is it possible that at each major change, from ice age to warmer period, and from warmer back to ice age we get large fluctuations, is what we see now, the beginning of that period whereby we descend back into ice age.

I do wonder sometimes if we have been lulled into a false sense of security with our climate over time, and that constant change is more the norm than stability. Have we been fortunate to have seen most of human history being made in a more unusually stable period of the Earth's climate history.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Have we been fortunate to have seen most of human history being made in a more unusually stable period of the Earth's climate history.

And furthermore, has the human race flourished over the past few thousand years as a direct result of the unusual climatic stability...?

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

I'd agree that climate is better imagined as a series of steps rather than a 'smooth line'. That must be the way climate 'adjusts' to differing forcings (kinda' like the latest understanding of glacial movement with the 'slip/stick' seismic observations). The point in which we differ is in accepting/accepting the scale than humanity is playing in creating a 'novel climate driver' by his interactions with the planet.

We, who accept that man is indeed turning into a multiple climate driver, must then fear as to the possible rapidity of change we have unintentionally set in motion.

It doesn't much matter whether the changes lead to hot or cold climate shifts it is the rapidity of the regional changes that we should fear.With the global specialisation of areas in food producing,oil refinement/production etc. we must be at risk of being totally overwhelmed by rapid climate shift and unable to produce that which keeps the world ticking today. This month alone we have both the U.S. floods threatening to 'up' corn prices whilst being warned by Australia that if the drought in the Murray Darling Basin does break soon the the area will be 'permanently lost to agriculture'.

If the new data culling is to be trusted then surely we should already be preparing our contingency strategies?

Edited June 24, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

And going on your last paragraph GW, and the title of this thread, can the data itself be trusted in respect that is science advanced enough to understand climatic change?

[SnowBear]

The main land US can have vast areas flood, look at the Mississippi flood plain, it is huge and at various times that whole area has been under water in the past. The threat that the US will up corn prices is to do with economics and taking the chance to plant crops in areas which may at some point have catastrophic events due to the rivers and flood plains nearby, not climate or weather. If the Mississippi wishes to take back its flood plain one year, where humans have planted crops, then that is not a cause to see it as a disastrous change in climate.

Similarly Australia, is a dry continent, at times it can dry out completely, and yet, on the very odd occasion a complete inland sea appear when it does rain in the inner regions. Plus maybe it is not climate that is driving the Marray to its state, perhaps the increasing drawing of water for consumption and land irrigation from the Marray is causing the problem, if water wasn't being taken, then it would not be in trouble.

Is it really the case that climate is causing our hardships? Or the fact that the capacities of rivers, land usage is at, or beyond its capabilities now with todays rising population.

[stewfox]

It doesn't much matter whether the changes lead to hot or cold climate shifts it is the rapidity of the regional changes that we should fear.With the global specialisation of areas in food producing,oil refinement/production etc. we must be at risk of being totally overwhelmed by rapid climate shift and unable to produce that which keeps the world ticking today.

Agree a warmer Earth would be better then a cooler one if we had 10,000 years to prepare

Is it really the case that climate is causing our hardships? Or the fact that the capacities of rivers, land usage is at, or beyond its capabilities now with todays rising population.

Agree we need to be careful re man made /climate change

More people more deaths that's the sad fact

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1241...ing-again-.html

[Gray-Wolf]

Maybe if more folk would widen out their horizons to include all the other 'pressing issues' that face the world today we could find a better level of accord.

The 'new' science shows (quite plainly to my mind) that the time for debate/discussion is over and the time for action is upon us. The 'trend' of the new science highlights that the more we delay taking major steps towards preserving the world as is the more costly, in both lives and cash, it will be to achieve later.

Are we always to be a 'reactionary being' or can we really do the "stitch in time....." business????

Edited June 25, 2008 by Gray-Wolf