General Climate Change Discussion.......

[Thundery wintry showers]

The evidence is far from convincing that a warmer world than today would be better than the world today. A warming of 1 or 2C might be beneficial, but if we're talking 4-6C then it's a completely different story. In addition a major problem is rate of change per unit time.

The possibility that we might cool over the 21st century exists (and in particular there is a significant possibility of slight cooling over the next decade or two) but the evidence for overall warming in the 21st century significantly outweighs that for cooling, unless someone can show otherwise. And by "show otherwise", I mean something rather more convincing than "it will cool because AGW doesn't exist because it will cool because AGW doesn't exist because it will cool".

I agree re. Gray-Wolf focusing on the worst case scenarios. Again the possibility exists but it's easy to become bogged down worrying about things when the worst case scenario is revealed and presented. I was like that with AGW when I was younger. But the worst case scenarios are usually on the fringes of probability.

[MR EXTREMES]

The evidence is far from convincing that a warmer world than today would be better than the world today. A warming of 1 or 2C might be beneficial, but if we're talking 4-6C then it's a completely different story. In addition a major problem is rate of change per unit time.

The possibility that we might cool over the 21st century exists (and in particular there is a significant possibility of slight cooling over the next decade or two) but the evidence for overall warming in the 21st century significantly outweighs that for cooling, unless someone can show otherwise. And by "show otherwise", I mean something rather more convincing than "it will cool because AGW doesn't exist because it will cool because AGW doesn't exist because it will cool".

I agree re. Gray-Wolf focusing on the worst case scenarios. Again the possibility exists but it's easy to become bogged down worrying about things when the worst case scenario is revealed and presented. I was like that with AGW when I was younger. But the worst case scenarios are usually on the fringes of probability.

i dont agree with gray wolf because of the drive he puts across for warming using us as the culprits ive spent most of the year looking at data videos post ect.

even tonight watching the infamous al gore and his uk high court loss,

and his video being edited to expose a more truthfull aproach after all plenty of lies in there, and being high profile like him then 9 acts being falsely claimed say alot about the kind of mountains skeptics are having to face.

climate change is real absolutely real thats why the climate is changing once again even the ipcc temp charts have seen a decline since 1998.

i myself can not a will not be influenced into the man made stuff and am certain that the arctic recovery over the past 2 years is something much bigger,

and could well be much more dangerous.

ok some more time is need to be 100% thats why nasa are starting to listen to solar influences more now or atleast looking into it ,

after all there just as guilty as the ipcc but please dont get me wrong i have not got a hate campaign against them,

i just think i expect more from them without so many errors.

and to be honest i dont need data or the information to tell me things have changed in the last few years ithink it so apparent.

there is so many flaws in computer models predicting future climate either data that should be inputted has not been,

or simply they are working on flawed inputted data from the start and most likely this started with human error or human corruption but something is wrong.

im sure sooner or later the smelly stuff is going to hit the fan.

its funny really old farmer alamac seems to do pretty good there you go back to basics lol.

Edited October 18, 2009 by badboy657

[Gray-Wolf]

I take on board that folk do not wish to 'focus ' on the extension of the measurements we are taking today (be they species loss,logging losses in the tropics, emission, pollution, ocean acidification, polar ice loss etc.) but ,in the least they are an accurate snapshot of the world we live in.

I will do my best not to 'project' our current global situation into the future (if it so offends) but I cannot stop noticing the reported impacts on the world as I am made aware of them.

This is the 'climate change forum' and so peak oil,overpopulation,resource exhaustion, food production shortfalls, water management,energy famine, global pandemic are not mentioned but they are also there and occurring and also problems that we need address (in our lifetimes).

No one told us our life would be one giant bed of roses all of the time and however unpalatable there are times we must face the more unpleasant side of life.If we wish to hide ourselves from that side of life then do not approach unsettling subjects (stay out of serious discussion and climate change!!!)

C-Bob, temps/CO2. My current understanding is based on the interpretation of the ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland and the relationship teased out of them of CO2's response to temp forcings (mainly orbital positioning). To me it makes sense that CO2 will lag behind temps as the 'natural carbon cycle' and our natural reserves of Co2/methane have to be impacted by the rising temps before change occurs (bio-die-back,permafrost melting ,methane releases, Co2 sink re-organisation).

We see in our short term global temp variations that the impact on CO2 levels are not present (the planet naturally compensates) but when the forcing is over a longer time scale then, in a very Lovelockian way, the planet 'step changes' to a different 'balance point'.

The extra CO2 would appear to facilitate higher global temps (by holding onto some of the heat) which in turn leads to more CO2 naturally being released.

you would imagine that this is a finite process and ,eventually, all the available CO2 would be within the system and would slowly be leached out over time (by 'normal' , 'natural' means).In reality the orbital forcing generally intervenes before this point.

Where eruptive co2 to be added into a max'ed out phase we may see a differing picture emerge and maybe a different 'balance point' being arrived at (55 million years ago and the tertiary flood basalts?) but in recent geological past we see the regular 100,000 year cycles emerging.

Today we are fast approaching the 400ppm of the 'tertiary flood basalts' period without the need for any eruptive interventions or 'natural CO2' being released from it's normal cycle because we have discovered ,and released deep buried CO2 reserves.

We are not at an orbital position to force warming but we see it occurring. We still have the 'Natural CO2' available in the global system that has added 100's of ppm in the past (once temps have 'liberated' it) why should we not see that liberation occur today if temps rise to the threshold needed?

What does this 'natural CO2' enable global temps to do when added in on top of man's 'liberated ,deep buried CO2?

I do not see CO2 as benign.

I do agree with the general understanding of Greenhouse gasses.

I do see that our liberation of deep buried CO2 reserves has the potential to heat our planet. I do reflect upon past orbital forcings warming the planet to the point that it naturally produced CO2 to aid and abet that warming (or are you suggesting the CO2 is benign and has no impact upon global temps?).

When we are at a position of having as much CO2 in our atmosphere, as we have at the peak of past 'orbitally forced' warmings do we not have to wonder at the impacts should 'natures contribution' also now be added in on top of that?

Would this accelerate the warming or would it have no impact?

Edited October 20, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

Seems like the long held idea that tree ring proxies reveal a pattern of past climate based upon temperature and precipitation, has been dealt a bit of a blow.

A new study from recently grown and felled trees (from an era with accurate temperature and precipitation records) has shown that the impact from these climate variables is barely visible in the ring growth. More interestingly, what stands out from the growth ring pattern is the varying amounts of cosmic rays, these of course vary depending upon the intensity of the Solar cycle.

The intensity of cosmic rays also correlates better with the changes in tree growth than any other climatological factor, such as varying levels of temperature or precipitation over the years.

"The correlation between growth and cosmic rays was moderately high, but the correlation with the climatological variables was barely visible," Ms Dengel told the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8311000/8311373.stm

[Admiral_Bobski]

I take on board that folk do not wish to 'focus ' on the extension of the measurements we are taking today (be they species loss,logging losses in the tropics, emission, pollution, ocean acidification, polar ice loss etc.) but ,in the least they are an accurate snapshot of the world we live in.

<brevity snip>

Would this accelerate the warming or would it have no impact?

Thank you for your considered response, GW.

I do understand where you are coming from and I agree entirely that we must face up to unpleasantness, in whatever form it takes. However, I feel that there is a difference between "facing up to unpleasantness" and "going looking for unpleasantness". Rejecting positivity on the basis that we should "face up" to the negative is not healthy, surely?

You say you do not see CO2 as benign. While I agree that it is not inert I disagree that it is not benign, since it is absolutely crucial to many (if not all) forms of life on this planet.

With regards your final comment, included in the quote above, I have this to say: Where is the evidence of accelerated warming? You might be able to argue that CO2 caused continued warming, but where is this acceleration? And if the CO2 did, indeed, cause continued warming it would need to be shown how CO2 forcing seamlessly took over from the forcings which triggered its release.

Any thoughts?

CB

[Snow Leopard]

Interesting read.

West Antarctic Ice Sheet May Not Be Losing Ice As Fast As Once Thought

If its been posted elsewhere mods, please delete.

[Gray-Wolf]

Maybe in the same way that we find it difficult to argue against the impacts of human produced aerosols and sulphate's in the upper atmosphere when we can measure the impacts of 'natures' inputs of these, via eruptions, on global temperatures? Our 'man made' global dimmed period coincided with a PDO-ve 30 yr cycle and yet the combination of both of these negative temperature forcings produced only a 'levelling of global temps through that period.

Would we not have expected a 'double whammy' of cooling (at least in the northern hemisphere?) over this period? I must look for what enabled the planet to 'offset' this cooling to produce the impacts we have measured and the only thing that I know is capable of such , and was increasing in amounts, is CO2. Am I unreasonable to suggest that a greenhouse gas , increasing in amounts, could produce the 'non-cooling' over that period?

If we then focus on a time period when 'naturally produced' Co2 excess ( over the recent past's 'average' amounts) existed in the atmosphere, and over periods of time spanning many of the Milankovich type orbital forcings, then maybe we can compare that period (when we know periods of 'cooling' should have been occurring) to more recent times .

We can find no evidence of the cyclical 'Milankovich' type global cooling for the period 55 to 40 million years ago (where we know elevated CO2 levels, from fissure eruptions and mountain building, of 400ppm existed).We know the north pole remained ice free throughout this period and that the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets were much smaller.

We know our continental positioning was not dissimilar to todays (Antarctica straddled the south pole, Australia heading north,India joined to Asia,Atlantic widening) so global circulation wasn't massively dissimilar to today's with only CO2 levels showing 'difference' from the time we know orbital positioning to be a large factor in our Milankovich 'freeze/thaw' cycling.

What overcame the hundreds of occasions back then when the negative temperature forcing existed? What overcame the negative temperature drivers in our dimmed period recently? To me the most compelling common factor is elevated levels of CO2.

Due to our polluting ways we are not free from the negative forcings of our airborne pollutants but it would appear (if only to me) that these are overpowered ,to a certain degree, by our CO2 burden.

The other 'interesting thing (I find) ,about the past period of 400ppm, was that global sea temps were not 'zoned' as we find them today but were the same across the globe (north to south). This suggests that ,given enough time, global sea temps do have the conditions to equal out the thermal differences from pole to equator.What impact on global circulation does this have? What impact of climate moderation does such a global 'radiator' have on the Milankovich type forcings?

The oceans of the planet may take millenia of continued forcing to find themselves at 'equity' but the impacts on the global climate and it's speed of response to negative forcings must be immense?

Edited October 20, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

Interesting read.

West Antarctic Ice Sheet May Not Be Losing Ice As Fast As Once Thought

If its been posted elsewhere mods, please delete.

I don't think we take take much solace from the fact of isostatic rejuvenation need accounting for in the figures can we?

The ICESat figures of 9m reduction in some glacier heights a year would not seem to tally with a great miscalculation of mass loss due to crustal uplift.....or am I missing something here?

Though 'good news' is still 'good news' we have to have perspective on this 'small recalculation'.

Though rapid deglaciation of the Antarctic continent would surely facilitate an increase in the rate of isostatic uplift at present the rates are comparable with the rest of the period since the end of last glacial max.

The gravity anoms GRACE has 'mis measured' due to bedrock uplift (it being denser than ice) says nothing that undermines the 5 year 'height change measurements ' of the ICESat study, or am I sadly mistaken?

However much I'd like to see the phenomena cease we are still measuring more loss from the shelfs,glaciers and sheets than we were 50yrs ago...or are we not?

'Straws', 'clutching' and 'at' seem to be the 3 words being juggled with here?

Edited October 20, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Admiral_Bobski]

Maybe in the same way that we find it difficult to argue against the impacts of human produced aerosols and sulphate's in the upper atmosphere when we can measure the impacts of 'natures' inputs of these, via eruptions, on global temperatures? Our 'man made' global dimmed period coincided with a PDO-ve 30 yr cycle and yet the combination of both of these negative temperature forcings produced only a 'levelling of global temps through that period.

Would we not have expected a 'double whammy' of cooling (at least in the northern hemisphere?) over this period? I must look for what enabled the planet to 'offset' this cooling to produce the impacts we have measured and the only thing that I know is capable of such , and was increasing in amounts, is CO2. Am I unreasonable to suggest that a greenhouse gas , increasing in amounts, could produce the 'non-cooling' over that period?

A question that has occurred to me recently is whether or not the "global dimming" between around 1945 and 1975 was, in fact, man-made. I honestly don't know enough about the global dimming proposition to be able to offer an argument for or against it, but perhaps the "dimming" was primarily caused by the negative PDO, and sulphates and aerosols had a lesser effect than is assumed. (Also there was certainly a cooling off over that period - not just a levelling - though perhaps it wasn't as big a cooling as you would have liked.)

I shall have to look into the global dimming argument more before discussing it any further.

If we then focus on a time period when 'naturally produced' Co2 excess ( over the recent past's 'average' amounts) existed in the atmosphere, and over periods of time spanning many of the Milankovich type orbital forcings, then maybe we can compare that period (when we know periods of 'cooling' should have been occurring) to more recent times .

We can find no evidence of the cyclical 'Milankovich' type global cooling for the period 55 to 40 million years ago (where we know elevated CO2 levels, from fissure eruptions and mountain building, of 400ppm existed).We know the north pole remained ice free throughout this period and that the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets were much smaller.

Do we know that the pole remained ice-free throughout the period? We may know that there is no ice from that period around today, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the pole remained ice-free throughout. More on this below.

We know our continental positioning was not dissimilar to todays (Antarctica straddled the south pole, Australia heading north,India joined to Asia,Atlantic widening) so global circulation wasn't massively dissimilar to today's with only CO2 levels showing 'difference' from the time we know orbital positioning to be a large factor in our Milankovich 'freeze/thaw' cycling.

Continental positioning was not massively dissimilar to todays, but if memory serves, Africa was not fully joined to other landmasses, allowing a flow through of water from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean. I have no idea if this would have an enormous impact on weather patterns or climate, but perhaps it is a big enough difference. Can anyone who knows more about ocean currents weigh in on this one? Any ideas what a flow through at that location might meanfor atmospheric and oceanic circulation?

What overcame the hundreds of occasions back then when the negative temperature forcing existed? What overcame the negative temperature drivers in our dimmed period recently? To me the most compelling common factor is elevated levels of CO2.

Due to our polluting ways we are not free from the negative forcings of our airborne pollutants but it would appear (if only to me) that these are overpowered ,to a certain degree, by our CO2 burden.

The other 'interesting thing (I find) ,about the past period of 400ppm, was that global sea temps were not 'zoned' as we find them today but were the same across the globe (north to south). This suggests that ,given enough time, global sea temps do have the conditions to equal out the thermal differences from pole to equator.What impact on global circulation does this have? What impact of climate moderation does such a global 'radiator' have on the Milankovich type forcings?

The oceans of the planet may take millenia of continued forcing to find themselves at 'equity' but the impacts on the global climate and it's speed of response to negative forcings must be immense?

The problem with this part of your argument is the certainty you attribute to the various facts you give. Historical records of CO2 do not have anything like the granularity of modern measurements. How much did CO2 levels fluctuate, and how rapidly? The further back in time you take those measurements, the more smoothed-out your answer becomes - the fine detail of varying CO2 levels and temperatures is obliterated. We don't actually know how much temperature fluctuated in the past on the 30-year timescales we are focussed on today. We can see a kind of average temperature trend, but we can't determine year-on-year, or even decade-on-decade, fluctuations with any certainty. The same goes for global sea temperatures - how do you know that sea temps were not zoned.

As far as I can see it, the problem with comparing now with past millennia is not necessarily one of continental positioning (though this might well have a large effect) but rather one of detail. We can look at data from centuries past and see, effectively, blocks of averaged data, but then we try to make comparisons with discrete modern data. Is that a legitimate comparison?

CB

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I do not see CO2 as benign.

We would not be here without it!! Nor would any plants or crops etc etc!

[PeteG]

Its like most things, in moderation they're OK but in excess may be harmful.

[Gray-Wolf]

I do understand your concerns about the 'detail' ('cause the devil is in there) but even with large brush strokes we know that CO2 levels were above the 400ppm and we can see in a few years our current levels will be at that elevated level.

Sometimes we have to merely take the 'flavour' of the subject and forget arguing over the subtle nuances within the subject lest we become bogged down.

From the 'flavour' of the topic does it appear that 400ppm helped maintain high global temps in the past or is that level merely coincidental?

High CO2 appearing when temps are elevated and low co2 when temps are depressed, should we worry about whether temps and CO2 have a relationship or not?.

We are entering a period of high CO2 right now and so surely it does us no real favours to argue about how great an influence on temperature it may have if we know it does have an influence?

Does our recent post glacial climatic stability suggest that humanity flourished in a relatively predictable environment or can we flourish under a changing ,unpredictable climate and maintain the numbers we have today?

If we feel that we could not adapt speedily enough to changing temps/sea levels/climatic zones are we not best served trying not to alter that stability?

I suppose that before anyone can provide answers we'd best make sure we all understand the questions and at the moment the one that troubles us most is that of CO2 levels and it's impacts ,over time, on climate.

Because we still see climate variation at present does that mean elevated CO2 cannot be an issue or is the climate record , and it's 'big brush strokes' ,showing us that CO2 will overpower current climatic variability over time because of it's heat trapping potential?

Do we not need avoid the tendency towards pedantry and seek to answer those broader issues, of temp and elevated CO2 levels, before focusing close on the peripheral issues?

Does elevated CO2 facilitate higher global temps or not?

To me the record, and it's big brush strokes, gives us only 1 answer.

Edited October 20, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[MR EXTREMES]

Interesting read.

West Antarctic Ice Sheet May Not Be Losing Ice As Fast As Once Thought

If its been posted elsewhere mods, please delete.

so thats both poles showing good things.

and no gray wolf it does not tell us alot because theres two sides of the story like chicken or the egg,

and nobody knows the answer to this.

we have been battling against co2 for a long time but i see no huge difference in data.

and do you know the correct levels that co2 should be?,

is today or a million years ago.

is our climate any different overall ,

than the last time co2 was above 400ppm because i dont think it is to be honest,

massive floods and extreme weather and climate shifts have have always been a feature on earth before man and his co2 hike,

Edited October 20, 2009 by badboy657

[Admiral_Bobski]

I do understand your concerns about the 'detail' ('cause the devil is in there) but even with large brush strokes we know that CO2 levels were above the 400ppm and we can see in a few years our current levels will be at that elevated level.

<snippity-snip>

Does elevated CO2 facilitate higher global temps or not?

To me the record, and it's big brush strokes, gives us only 1 answer.

You're trying to brush off a vitally important point, GW (if you'll forgive the unintentional pun). The "subtle nuances" you mention are absolutely crucial to the discussion - this last 100 years is but a "subtle nuance" when viewed on the scales you are comparing with. The detail we look at in climate change (30 year periods) is almost completely lost in the historic record. How, then, can you make the comparisons you are making?

You ask the following: From the 'flavour' of the topic does it appear that 400ppm helped maintain high global temps in the past or is that level merely coincidental?

If you look at the historic record then the answer is, so far as I can tell, "No" for the reasons I gave before - there is no evidence that CO2 forced temperatures up because there is no sign of any step change that would corroborate that idea.

Nor, however, is it entirely a coincidence.

We all know that the ocenas store CO2. The warmer the water, the less CO2 it can hold. Therefore, if temperatures rise, CO2 levels rise. On this basis, if temperatures rise then CO2 levels must rise with them (though lagged by an as-yet undetermined amount). Importantly, though, this tells us nothing whatsoever about CO2's effect on temperature.

Now, clearly the CO2 increases over the past 100+ years are partly man-made. Obviously the human component of CO2 rises was not caused by increasing temperatures. But this is a completely separate argument from the temperature/CO2 lag of past millennia.

Regardless of the cause of CO2 increase, it must be shown that CO2 forces temperature increases. Further, it must be shown how much CO2 increases temperatures.

The bottom line is this: the fact that CO2 levels were at 400ppm during warmer periods is not evidence that CO2 was responsible for the warmer periods. Correlation does not prove causation, as the saying goes.

I am not being pedantic, and nor am I "getting bogged down" over "subtle nuances" - I am addressing absolutely vital pieces of the puzzle. These pieces are of such fundamental importance that they cannot be simply dismissed with a wave of a hand as "pedantry" or a failure to see the bigger picture.

Have you been able to pinpoint any signs of CO2 accelerating temperature increases in the historic record?

CB

[MR EXTREMES]

i just got a great film called polar storm it might give me some tips :lol: only joking.

but jokes aside absolutely positive the sun increased global temps.

Edited October 20, 2009 by badboy657

[Gray-Wolf]

C-Bob, does CO2 trap certain frequencies and then re-emit them as heat or does it do no such thing?

http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_13595913?source=most_viewed

Here is a microcosm covering a mere 200,000yrs with changes only occurring in the past 50yrs of sediment.

I am not accusing any one person of any one thing but how much physical evidence of 'novel' change, over the past 100yrs or less, do we have to log before it becomes reasonable to ask "what is so different about this teeny slice of our recent glacial period that we see such changes occurring only now"

Am I so wrong to take on board the changes in this way or do other people find it 'telling' of a novel change making itself know amongst hundreds of thousands,if not millions, of years of data we currently hold.

C-Bob touched on our current major extinction event.The record shows that it is only recently that species started to disappear (and we're not just talking American pigeon or Dodo's or Tasmania tigers or megalonia here but thousands of species) so why have we been hemorrhaging species, at an increasing rate, over the lays 70yrs? another 'novel event' to be viewed only in isolation?

Ice shelfs , north and south, in place for an ice age or two, gone over the past 30yrs.Not a 'common event' as the uncovered ground attests to.

Why, when we are past out interglacial max ,are we suddenly reversing a 2 thousand year cool down (in line with our being past interglacial optimum) in the arctic and measuring a much greater rate of warming (overturning the impact of those thousands of years of slow cool down.

How can people focus in so tightly on areas that suit whilst ignoring a wealth of data that surely poses questions deserving of answers (for the sake of unchallenged continuance of our and other species)?

[Admiral_Bobski]

C-Bob, does CO2 trap certain frequencies and then re-emit them as heat or does it do no such thing?

<snip>

How can people focus in so tightly on areas that suit whilst ignoring a wealth of data that surely poses questions deserving of answers (for the sake of unchallenged continuance of our and other species)?

The problem is, GW, that it is you who are focusing in so tightly on areas that suit, more specifically on the last 50-100 years. It is very easy to look at such recent events and decide that they are "novel", because they are the only events that you have any experience of, or that you can comprehend.

100,000 years ago did the PDO (or similar) cause annual and decadal fluctuations in temperature? Of course. So where are those fluctuations recorded in sediment or ice cores or wherever? Things like that are not preserved with anything like the detail of modern measurements.

Did we really go through a period, 55-40 million years ago, when there was persistently no ice? We can't say. Perhaps it was ice free in summer every year for 15 million years, but good extents were reached in winter. Perhaps there was a permanent arctic ice cap for a full 1 million years, but it melted out again - not, perhaps, a thick or extensive cap, but a cap nonetheless.

The point is that paleoclimatology is a good guide, but we can't draw conclusions by making the kind of analyses you are making - they are logically and scientifically flawed analyses.

And in answer to your first question, yes - CO2 has energy-trapping properties. But I'm not talking about CO2's properties, or what CO2 does in laboratory experiments - I'm trying to ascertain what effect CO2 actually has in the real world.

CB

EDIT - Also, if I may be so bold, how do you know we are 2000 years past our interglacial maximum? Honest question.

Edited October 20, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[Gray-Wolf]

C-Bob, The sedimentation record, type of sediments, shells of critters,types of critters,typical ranges of said critters are all indicative of a contiguous ice free period.

Certain foram.s shells will coil in opposite directions depending upon the temperature of the sea water they live in and ,as our midge friends show, some critters are excellent 'zone fossils' purely because of their temperature 'needs'.

Are you really saying that the folk who train in their respective fields, and bring us such evidence, are fooling themselves when they say the pole was ice free throughout the whole of that period? Surely you are not yet another who demands a trip in a time machine before grudgingly accepting that the folk that know their stuff actually know their stuff?

As I have already alluded to the earlier phase in the Tertiary you would imagine that you could expand the narrow zone of my interest a tad or is it really that we cannot credit modern science with the methods to accurately portray global temps ,climate,vegetation,and zoology of those periods?

I'm not having a pot I'm just being a little flabbergasted at both the accusation of close focus and the questioning of the accuracy of our various paleo disciplines.

I know we neither are experts in any of the relevant fields but surely we must accept others expertise and training and not just deny it because of our ignorance of the finer point of their discipline?

My degree is Combined Science and my major was Geology.My knowledge of petrology ,stratigraphy and paleontology is sat at that generalised level but I do know that paleo climates can be both interpreted and populated with the creatures of those climates with accuracy (even from my lowly understanding).

Certain weathering only occurs in certain temperatures, certain sediment will only arise under certain temp environments. Times of year leads to sedimentation patterns which can be read like tree rings.

I would suggest it foolhardy to try and usurp records that have be honed, with the help of modern techniques, for longer the you or I have graced this world.

Amongst all of the papers that flesh out that ice free period please bring us just one that paints the opposite of the consensus and I'll happily update my understanding and admit that the science of that period isn't as 'settled' as I understand it to be.

Edited October 20, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Admiral_Bobski]

C-Bob, The sedimentation record, type of sediments, shells of critters,types of critters,typical ranges of said critters are all indicative of a contiguous ice free period.

<snip>

Amongst all of the papers that flesh out that ice free period please bring us just one that paints the opposite of the consensus and I'll happily update my understanding and admit that the science of that period isn't as 'settled' as I understand it to be.

We all know the fossil record is incomplete. Do our little shelled friends exist in a completely contiguous timeline, or are they deposited discretely? I do not suggest that we can only find the truth with a time machine, and nor have I ever suggested this. Paleoclimatology is nowhere near as exact a science as you seem determined to make it out to be, and I don't think there's a paleoclimatologist or a paleontologist out there who would say any different. Geologists do work with more concrete (forgive the pun) absolutes than either of the other two, but its accuracy is still open to uncertainty (as is all science).

All of this, of course, is by the by. I'm not talking about geological processes or the fossil record or even the ice-caps - I believe I specifically mentioned paleoclimatology, and the inaccuracies inherent in that discipline. I believe I was talking about CO2 levels and temperature levels and the inaccuracies inherent in the record that has been laid down in ice cores and sediment.

I'm not sure why you're "flabbergasted at...the accusation of close focus." Your main focus is, and always has been, the last 100 years or so, and how "novel" and dangerous man's activities are. Your references to earlier times are simplistic attempts to "prove" that man is damaging the environment, and not evidence of any more extensive scope in your timeframe of interest. And how you can be so upset about my "questioning of the accuracy of our various paleo disciplines," I don't know because, as I said a moment ago, there isn't a scientist out there who would argue with the suggestion that historical sciences are subject to uncertainty (and increasing uncertainty the further back in time you go).

I'm not trying to "usurp records" as you so witheringly put it - I am making you aware of the limitations of those records. And there are, indeed, limitations to those records.

And as for your final comment: Amongst all of the papers that flesh out that ice free period please bring us just one that paints the opposite of the consensus and I'll happily update my understanding and admit that the science of that period isn't as 'settled' as I understand it to be.

Dodge, dodge, dodge. I would like to emphasise that I did say "perhaps it was ice free in summer every year for 15 million years, but good extents were reached in winter." Note the "perhaps". I am quite happy to concede that it may have been ice free - I don't know that period well enough to be able to debate it. My point was that broad brush strokes are all well and good, but a single broad brush stroke could paint over the past 150 years and it wouldn't even be noticed in a million years' time. How many periods have there been like today? Maybe none. Maybe hundreds. Or thousands.

You get particularly aggravated when your understanding of things is called into question, and you evade point after point after point. I really can't be arsed with this any more GW. If you're not going to actually answer my questions then I don't know why I should even bother responding to yours.

CB

[SteveB]

We all know the fossil record is incomplete. Do our little shelled friends exist in a completely contiguous timeline, or are they deposited discretely? I do not suggest that we can only find the truth with a time machine, and nor have I ever suggested this. Paleoclimatology is nowhere near as exact a science as you seem determined to make it out to be, and I don't think there's a paleoclimatologist or a paleontologist out there who would say any different. Geologists do work with more concrete (forgive the pun) absolutes than either of the other two, but its accuracy is still open to uncertainty (as is all science).

All of this, of course, is by the by. I'm not talking about geological processes or the fossil record or even the ice-caps - I believe I specifically mentioned paleoclimatology, and the inaccuracies inherent in that discipline. I believe I was talking about CO2 levels and temperature levels and the inaccuracies inherent in the record that has been laid down in ice cores and sediment.

I'm not sure why you're "flabbergasted at...the accusation of close focus." Your main focus is, and always has been, the last 100 years or so, and how "novel" and dangerous man's activities are. Your references to earlier times are simplistic attempts to "prove" that man is damaging the environment, and not evidence of any more extensive scope in your timeframe of interest. And how you can be so upset about my "questioning of the accuracy of our various paleo disciplines," I don't know because, as I said a moment ago, there isn't a scientist out there who would argue with the suggestion that historical sciences are subject to uncertainty (and increasing uncertainty the further back in time you go).

I'm not trying to "usurp records" as you so witheringly put it - I am making you aware of the limitations of those records. And there are, indeed, limitations to those records.

And as for your final comment: Amongst all of the papers that flesh out that ice free period please bring us just one that paints the opposite of the consensus and I'll happily update my understanding and admit that the science of that period isn't as 'settled' as I understand it to be.

Dodge, dodge, dodge. I would like to emphasise that I did say "perhaps it was ice free in summer every year for 15 million years, but good extents were reached in winter." Note the "perhaps". I am quite happy to concede that it may have been ice free - I don't know that period well enough to be able to debate it. My point was that broad brush strokes are all well and good, but a single broad brush stroke could paint over the past 150 years and it wouldn't even be noticed in a million years' time. How many periods have there been like today? Maybe none. Maybe hundreds. Or thousands.

You get particularly aggravated when your understanding of things is called into question, and you evade point after point after point. I really can't be arsed with this any more GW. If you're not going to actually answer my questions then I don't know why I should even bother responding to yours.

CB

I have to give credit were credit is due. That is a fantastic response.

Edited October 20, 2009 by SteveB

[Gray-Wolf]

And for my part C-Bob I'm still none the wiser as to why you feel that the 400ppm period had the 6c average temp increase, giving us our Crocs on Ellesmere island and our hippo's in Trafalgar square, without either a 15 million year hike in incoming energy or the blanketing of the 'average' heat input with a greenhouse gas leading to a gradual increase in global temps to the point where the ecological equation once again balanced.

What other mechanism would you suggest could give should a long period of high temp stability?

The excesses in CO2 fell away as those 3 mountain ranges (Alps,Rockies,Himalaya's) reached their final first phases of growth, the Deccan traps were flooded, our tertiary basaltic outpourings ended and CO2 levels, no longer subsidised by the planets internal rearrangements, fell away to within the ranges we are familiar with.

We (humanity) appear to have been acting like our own flood basalt event, we have elevated atmospheric levels of CO2, over a teeny period of time,to levels the planet took millenia to achieve herself in the past.

Can you still see no reason to consider how temp and CO2 are linked in a relationship?.

Elevated levels of CO2 will support temps that we have seen them support.

Without evidence of something else altering the planets energy levels what could cause us to hold onto more heat from our 'normal' input of energy?

Why must it be a case of who does what ,when if it appears that one does not 'do' without the other following?

Again I'd ask you whether or not CO2 acts like a blanket on the planet helping hold onto heat that would otherwise be radiated away?

Oh, by the way , I do 'Lie to me' and 'The mentalist' too

[jonboy]

I am no expert GW but pehaps this wonderful blanket of co2 is being over ridden.

If as you ascertain greater levels of CO2 create greater levels of warming why is this not happening!!!

Perhaps the fact that low level of solar activity leads to greater cosmic ray input leads to grater lower level cloud cover which acts as a reverse thermal blank leading to the earth cooling is the over riding influence. But somehow I think you are so entrench in your view that the 'wood obscures your view of the trees'

We are in new uncharted teritory and we must view this with an open mind somehow GW I don't think you are able to do this because you need information that is not yet available and therefore are unable to adjust your basic believe system

Jon

[Admiral_Bobski]

And for my part C-Bob I'm still none the wiser as to why you feel that the 400ppm period had the 6c average temp increase, giving us our Crocs on Ellesmere island and our hippo's in Trafalgar square, without either a 15 million year hike in incoming energy or the blanketing of the 'average' heat input with a greenhouse gas leading to a gradual increase in global temps to the point where the ecological equation once again balanced.

<snip>

I'm going to go and bang my head against a wall for, ooh, four or five hours before retiring to bed, I think...

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

I am no expert GW but pehaps this wonderful blanket of co2 is being over ridden.

If as you ascertain greater levels of CO2 create greater levels of warming why is this not happening!!!

Perhaps the fact that low level of solar activity leads to greater cosmic ray input leads to grater lower level cloud cover which acts as a reverse thermal blank leading to the earth cooling is the over riding influence. But somehow I think you are so entrench in your view that the 'wood obscures your view of the trees'

We are in new uncharted territory and we must view this with an open mind somehow GW I don't think you are able to do this because you need information that is not yet available and therefore are unable to adjust your basic believe system

Jon

I think maybe because you expect to much of it too soon?

The complexities of this planet/solar system/universe escape me but I can't escape feeling that if you drive a system to hold onto something then it'll hold onto it.

If by holding onto it you promote an acceleration of the self same driver then that can't be good can it?

I know there are balances and checks but if the forcing becomes too strong then don't we 'step change' to a point where the system is at balance again?

CO2 holds heat in. No matter how many checks and balances nature has CO2 will grab onto, and hold onto, that heat and that heat will accumulate.

When you look at all that has to be heated across the globe, the oceans the ice to melt the land to warm to higher 'averages' is it all set to happen at once?

When the ice is gone what happens to the energy that was being spent on melting it?

Does it gave a hand to the energy being spent on heating the oceans? the land?.

As the carbon from the frozen north is liberated won't that CO2 help with the heat sequestration?

Won't the process accelerate further?

As the biomass across the equatorial regions dies back won't the CO2 it was suppose to use join in with the heat sequestration? the rotting carcasses of the forests, where will that CO2 end up?

These are real questions and though I have my current answers I am willing to be shown a different ,more plausible set.

[MR EXTREMES]

i noticed the scary climate change video is kicking up a stink.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ics/8317998.stm

im also very happy to see that after reading through the artical that 50% of people in the uk did not think climate change was real.

27million people lol.

although climate change is real but the flaws are in whether its man made.

Edited October 21, 2009 by badboy657