General Climate Change Discussion Continued:

[shuggee]

A huge iceberg has broken off from Antarctica, there's speculation that it could disrupt the world's ocean currents and weather patterns leading to colder winters in the North Atlantic.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ech/8538060.stm

Now there's a potential negative feedback nobody saw coming! :lol:

[sunny starry skies]

I think the effect (if any) has nothing to do with energy flux.

Impacts may happen if the volume of fresh water stored in the iceberg is sufficient enough and in the right position to interrupt the deep currents by reducing the salinity. It's been speculated that the last ice age was caused by a vast volume of fresh water bursting it's dam and interrupting the ocean currents. No, I'm not saying an ice age is on the way, just demonstrating the proposed mechanism and dangers involved with this adrift iceberg.

This one really is intriguing. All the talk about the Gulf Stream being cut off etc etc was significantly down to fresh water input affecting deep water formation spots in the ocean. So the mechanism is known about, and has been invoked to explain some climate shifts in the past for the NH. The tricky thing is that the deep water formation areas are (so far as I know) very small and localised, so an iceberg the size of Luxembourg may have some impact if it's in the right place. The Heinrich events, however, had vast iceberg armadas pouring into the N Atlantic, so I'd have thought were on a considerably larger scale than this particular berg. I would remain to be convinced that one berg can disrupt AABW formation all on its own, but I guess we're about to find out...

sss

Edited February 26, 2010 by sunny starry skies

[MR EXTREMES]

if you ask me i think its right if this iceberg is in the right location it would well cut the ocean c,its only a matter of time before it happens there certain something stiring in the land of warming im already starting to think mother nature has already flipped the switch.

reasons well solar activity then neg pdo southerly tracking jet oceans seem like there cooling even the el nino was a little lame or should i say it did not do what was expected.

i dred to think how cold it would have been without it.

now icebergs lol.

what i do find very funny indeed is your have 1 news artical saying about co2 because of whales then your have a the oposite its starting to become even more harder to convince some of the human race that gw is still going on,

which ofcoarse it could well be but being masked by solar and nature cycles,but im certain theres much more to come considering ski resports in scotland are talking massive amounts of snowfall take some to shift that lot through the summer infact the northern hemisphere has taken a battering this year and last.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/8538404.stm

[Devonian]

This one really is intriguing. All the talk about the Gulf Stream being cut off etc etc was significantly down to fresh water input affecting deep water formation spots in the ocean. So the mechanism is known about, and has been invoked to explain some climate shifts in the past for the NH. The tricky thing is that the deep water formation areas are (so far as I know) very small and localised, so an iceberg the size of Luxembourg may have some impact if it's in the right place. The Heinrich events, however, had vast iceberg armadas pouring into the N Atlantic, so I'd have thought were on a considerably larger scale than this particular berg. I would remain to be convinced that one berg can disrupt AABW formation all on its own, but I guess we're about to find out...

sss

I agree.

More on the Mertz Polynya

http://www.acecrc.sipex.aq/access/page/?page=01480fac-bc82-102a-8ea7-0019b9ea7c60

"Antarctic coastal polynyas are important areas of sea ice formation during the winter. For example, the Mertz Glacier Polynya, located in East Antarctica, covers only 0.001% of the overall Antarctic sea ice zone at its maximum winter extent, but is responsible for 1% of the total sea ice production in the Southern Ocean."

[sunny starry skies]

if you ask me i think its right if this iceberg is in the right location it would well cut the ocean c,its only a matter of time before it happens there certain something stiring in the land of warming im already starting to think mother nature has already flipped the switch.

reasons well solar activity then neg pdo southerly tracking jet oceans seem like there cooling even the el nino was a little lame or should i say it did not do what was expected.

i dred to think how cold it would have been without it.

now icebergs lol.

what i do find very funny indeed is your have 1 news artical saying about co2 because of whales then your have a the oposite its starting to become even more harder to convince some of the human race that gw is still going on,

which ofcoarse it could well be but being masked by solar and nature cycles,but im certain theres much more to come considering ski resports in scotland are talking massive amounts of snowfall take some to shift that lot through the summer infact the northern hemisphere has taken a battering this year and last.

http://news.bbc.co.u...nds/8538404.stm

so one iceberg triggers the release of another one, and somehow it's solar activity and PDO.... oh dear oh dear oh dear...

"i dred to think how cold it would have been without it." Weather and climate, we've been over this about a million times. You do understand the concept of weather patterns, the possibility of high snowfalls in warmer air, and not least where we are for global temperature at present? And where we are in relation to the long-term global temperature trend? Moving right on...

The whales article is not very good, one thing I'll agree on, but northern hemisphere taking a battering? In terms of unusual weather patterns for parts of the hemisphere, yes, but in terms of low temperatures, a resounding and absolute no!

Good fun for the Scottish ski resorts though!

sss

[Gray-Wolf]

As I understand things most of Antarctica (on the ground) has been spared most of the global warming thus far (the peninsula sticks out into the warmth so the impacts of AGW can be seen there) by the impacts of our ozone messing.

Sooner or later either the ozone will heal enough to allow the temps into the continent proper of the temps themselves will overpower the Antarctic circumpolar current/Circumpolar winds.

Because this has not been 'gradual' as we have witnessed in the north then we can expect some very rapid reorganisation of the current ice sheet extents and the winter sea ice.

As we have seen in the north there may been a short term impact on the down welling but the amount of ice water available will also jump start any slowdowns as we have seen around Greenland.

Because of it's isolation over the past 30 or so years there is now a lot of 'equalisation' ready to occur down south, kinda like opening a door on an air lock before you've equalised the pressure.

For my part I think that global temps will (and already are?) breach the circumpolar currents and we can expect many of the coastal shelfs to fail (in part) as the warmer waters /swells reach the coast.This will take a toll on Ross and that worries me.

[MR EXTREMES]

so one iceberg triggers the release of another one, and somehow it's solar activity and PDO.... oh dear oh dear oh dear...

"i dred to think how cold it would have been without it." Weather and climate, we've been over this about a million times. You do understand the concept of weather patterns, the possibility of high snowfalls in warmer air, and not least where we are for global temperature at present? And where we are in relation to the long-term global temperature trend? Moving right on...

The whales article is not very good, one thing I'll agree on, but northern hemisphere taking a battering? In terms of unusual weather patterns for parts of the hemisphere, yes, but in terms of low temperatures, a resounding and absolute no!

Good fun for the Scottish ski resorts though!

sss

lol i dont think theres alot you can mock me for i know what im seeing and its not the global warming the alarmist want us to think.

im certain the skeptical side of many people is really starting to kick in now and im saying solar outputs have a time lag there for the cooling effect is just starting.

secondly if this massive amount of fresh water was to some how disrupt the ocean conveyor lets not forget the ice melt in the north aswell then over time this will certainly have an effect no conveyor very cold nh.

thirdly you telling me that a neg pdo does not have an impact on our global weather patterns?,

add in the fact we had an medium el nino which did not really touch the northern hemisphere this winter,infact is was colder this winter than last and that was a la nina year.

its also should be noted that id eat my hat if the jet stream and solar particals dont have any effect on our climate in some way theres clearly links in all ive talked about.

so as far as im concerned its not very nice to try to mock my idears after all they to come from the land of science after all it was also warm in the warm period.

maybe im blind but i could swear the last two winters have been more like winters of old also summers have not been dominated by 100f temps i could argue all day long but this is the last post i will make for sometime.

[noggin]

Another enquiry coming up. This one is re scientific procedures and management of the IPCC. Pachauri has got a few backs up by the looks of things, with his voodoo science comments and general arrogance.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7316758/IPCC-chief-Rajendra-Pachauri-to-face-independent-inquiry.html

As always, it will be interesting to hear/read the outcome.

Edited February 27, 2010 by noggin

[Tattooed Fox]

lol i dont think theres alot you can mock me for i know what im seeing and its not the global warming the alarmist want us to think.

im certain the skeptical side of many people is really starting to kick in now and im saying solar outputs have a time lag there for the cooling effect is just starting.

secondly if this massive amount of fresh water was to some how disrupt the ocean conveyor lets not forget the ice melt in the north aswell then over time this will certainly have an effect no conveyor very cold nh.

thirdly you telling me that a neg pdo does not have an impact on our global weather patterns?,

add in the fact we had an medium el nino which did not really touch the northern hemisphere this winter,infact is was colder this winter than last and that was a la nina year.

its also should be noted that id eat my hat if the jet stream and solar particals dont have any effect on our climate in some way theres clearly links in all ive talked about.

so as far as im concerned its not very nice to try to mock my idears after all they to come from the land of science after all it was also warm in the warm period.

maybe im blind but i could swear the last two winters have been more like winters of old also summers have not been dominated by 100f temps i could argue all day long but this is the last post i will make for sometime.

Hey bad boy dont go, it is good to hear what everyone has to say! I have been reading these sort of posts for a few days now and it is all very interesting.

[Solar Cycles]

Another enquiry coming up. This one is re scientific procedures and management of the IPCC. Pachauri has got a few backs up by the looks of things, with his voodoo science comments and general arrogance.

http://www.telegraph...nt-inquiry.html

As always, it will be interesting to hear/read the outcome.

Taxi for Pachauri!

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527494.700-a-quiet-sun-wont-save-us-from-global-warming.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

So even a maunder type min. won't save us from our warming..........

[jethro]

Presumably that's measured on TSI alone? Not sure it's as simple as that to be honest, article is pure speculation IMO.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Those findings aren't necessarily the last word- research advances with time and old findings get shown false as new research supersedes them. For the record I would be very surprised if the Sun's affect on global climate was as little as 0.3C here and there!

But we can't rely upon the sun to offset any anthropogenic global warming because if natural forcings offset the anthropogenic ones over the coming few decades, they may well then "flip" afterwards leading to a very rapid warming (say, 3 decades of no temperature change followed by 3 decades of warming at 0.5C/decade, instead of 6 decades warming at 0.25C/decade).

[Solar Cycles]

Those findings aren't necessarily the last word- research advances with time and old findings get shown false as new research supersedes them. For the record I would be very surprised if the Sun's affect on global climate was as little as 0.3C here and there!

But we can't rely upon the sun to offset any anthropogenic global warming because if natural forcings offset the anthropogenic ones over the coming few decades, they may well then "flip" afterwards leading to a very rapid warming (say, 3 decades of no temperature change followed by 3 decades of warming at 0.5C/decade, instead of 6 decades warming at 0.25C/decade).

Or we may find that the sun is responsible for the warming, and that man has pretty much zilch to do with any warming, or cooling. Just a thought!! Edited February 28, 2010 by Solar Cycles

[Thundery wintry showers]

Well, it's possible, but at present there is a lot of evidence pointing the other way and still only small amounts of evidence pointing to the Sun being the main cause of the recent warming, particularly over the last 30-40 years.

I don't see how that affects/queries/invalidates the assertion that we can't rely upon the Sun to offset AGW if AGW is as serious as is widely suspected?

[Admiral_Bobski]

It is important to note that, according to the article, the scientists "modelled what would happen to temperatures on Earth if a grand minimum started now and lasted until 2100." So what we're looking at here is a computer simulation of a Maunder-type minimum, based upon the assumption that we are modelling the Sun correctly.

It seems unlikely to me, as TWS has intimated, that a Maunder-type minimum would cause as little as 0.3C drop in global temperatures, and so this - to me - suggests not that "the Sun won't save us" but rather that we are not currently modelling the Sun's effect on climate correctly.

CB

Edited February 28, 2010 by Captain_Bobski

[jethro]

For all those who would like to be a fly-on-the-wall at the climate gate enquiry, today you can. The Select Commmittee questions will be broadcast live today at 3.00pm.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/01/hacked-climate-email-scientist-parliamentary-committee?CMP=AFCYAH

[Richard Lake]

We can't cling on to Winter for ever though can we , There is something magical in the air about the first morning of spring and the charts are showing 2 glorious days of Sunshine for most , This in it's self is enough to put a smile on my face. It has been a long winter and if the trend of the last 2 years continue then we could be looking at another cold winter next year . I had a thought earlier as well what hasn't really been mentioned , I wonder if our efforts to reduce global warming are actually working and if this is helping to get seasons back to normal.

I find it quite hard Chris not to respond to your post regarding global warming. I know you was only wondering, but I feel the answer is almost a definite no. Society is certainly heading in the right direction, but surely much more needs to be done?

Look at car ownership which has grown exponentially over the last 20 years or more, yes it is not the only contributor to global warming, although the biggest by far. Now that the models seem to refuse to show anything wintry; I urge everyone just to spend 15 minutes on the below website and perhaps we can discuss this further elsewhere on the forum.

http://www.renault-ze.com/uk/#/uk.html

Will 2011/2012 turn out to be a pinnacle point in the evolution of the car? Will people embrace this technology? How long will people continue to tolerate extortionate oil prices? Is there enough will power and incentive in the private sector to build this infrastructure and sustain it? How long will it take for other car manufacturers to follow suit?

[Admiral_Bobski]

I am liking the Fluence ZE a great deal - where do I sign up?

[Iceberg]

It is important to note that, according to the article, the scientists "modelled what would happen to temperatures on Earth if a grand minimum started now and lasted until 2100." So what we're looking at here is a computer simulation of a Maunder-type minimum, based upon the assumption that we are modelling the Sun correctly.

It seems unlikely to me, as TWS has intimated, that a Maunder-type minimum would cause as little as 0.3C drop in global temperatures, and so this - to me - suggests not that "the Sun won't save us" but rather that we are not currently modelling the Sun's effect on climate correctly.

CB

Why is it so difficult to believe CB ?.

If you look back most GLOBAL temparature proxies have the LIA as having a drop in temperature of 0.4 to 0.5C.

The Maunder minimum being responsible for alot of this, but also other factors such as increased Volcanic activity etc acting as a cooling agent.

Also the cooling of the Maunder minimum.4 to .5C probably took longer than 100 years.

Put that into context with the .4 or so of warming we have already had(beyond leaving the LIA) and what they are saying seem to make perfect sense.

And attributing 0.3C to a maunder minimum make sense, but I am happy to hear/see something that would not point to this.

[sunny starry skies]

Why is it so difficult to believe CB ?.

If you look back most GLOBAL temparature proxies have the LIA as having a drop in temperature of 0.4 to 0.5C.

The Maunder minimum being responsible for alot of this, but also other factors such as increased Volcanic activity etc acting as a cooling agent.

Also the cooling of the Maunder minimum.4 to .5C probably took longer than 100 years.

Put that into context with the .4 or so of warming we have already had(beyond leaving the LIA) and what they are saying seem to make perfect sense.

And attributing 0.3C to a maunder minimum make sense, but I am happy to hear/see something that would not point to this.

Good post Iceberg - the really important thing is 'regional' versus 'global' climate, Regionally (UK, North Atlantic), we can talk of a >= +1C Medieval Warm Period of sorts, although the maximum is not at the same time everywhere. And In the same regions we can talk of a <= -1C Little Ice Age, frost fairs and the like. But globally, neither event is all that strong, and in many cases is entirely absent from records that ought to show it (ie there is clear 'evidence for absence', rather than 'absence of evidence'). So the combined influence of a strong regional cold plus relatively little effect on the rest of the world is a dilution of the signal, and smaller effect on the global mean temperature, say ~-0.3 to -0.5C for the LIA. It's exactly the reason why the MWP-LIA signal does not show strongly on global summaries of temperature data over the last 1000 years. It's present, only it's less pronounced than those whose historical reference frame is couched in northwest Europe would expect.

So a solar change of -0.3C for the Maunder Minimum is entirely reasonable, given historical data, with a little extra impetus to the cold added by volcanic eruptions. Interestingly, if the solar signal was felt relatively strongly in NW Europe, a future solar minimum may affect our temperatures in a comparable way. The difference this time is that the global temperature baseline is rising, and the sources for all our cold air will be warmer than they were previously, as a result of the worldwide warming. Ultimately I would not be surprised to see UK/NW Europe having colder winters than recently in a Maunder Minimum (southerly jet perhaps?), but not with the severity of winters past (note overall record high global temperatures this winter).

sss

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

It is important to note that, according to the article, the scientists "modelled what would happen to temperatures on Earth if a grand minimum started now and lasted until 2100." So what we're looking at here is a computer simulation of a Maunder-type minimum, based upon the assumption that we are modelling the Sun correctly.

It seems unlikely to me, as TWS has intimated, that a Maunder-type minimum would cause as little as 0.3C drop in global temperatures, and so this - to me - suggests not that "the Sun won't save us" but rather that we are not currently modelling the Sun's effect on climate correctly.

CB

Yes, as I repeat time after time it is based on assumptions both how the sun is modelled and assumptions in tandem with that about the existence of theorised positive amplyfing feedbacks in place to produce cumulative warming upon warming. I think it rather concerning myself how the significance of another potential maunder minimum appears to be being downplayed and how previous historical experience in terms of such deepest solar min is not being correctly reflected.

Short term solar activity has not been monitored especially acccurately by the likes of NASA etc who have backtracked on a few occasions regarding the activity wrt SC23 and SC24. There is finally and belatedly growing admission that SC25 will very likely be deeper than SC24. The likes of Landscheidt and other solar scientists had suggested this for some time - the more mainstream anthropromorphic led scientists have been playing catch up in this respect. That hardly inspires confidence in terms of the above assumptions being made about long term solar activity. With respect, I do think there are 'minority' scientist voices out there who are not heard above the cacophony of AGW theory who I think have a better grip on solar modelling and future likely activity.

[sunny starry skies]

Yes, as I repeat time after time it is based on assumptions both how the sun is modelled and assumptions in tandem with that about the existence of theorised positive amplyfing feedbacks in place to produce cumulative warming upon warming. I think it rather concerning myself how the significance of another potential maunder minimum appears to be being downplayed and how previous historical experience in terms of such deepest solar min is not being correctly reflected.

Short term solar activity has not been monitored especially acccurately by the likes of NASA etc who have backtracked on a few occasions regarding the activity wrt SC23 and SC24. There is finally and belatedly growing admission that SC25 will very likely be deeper than SC24. The likes of Landscheidt and other solar scientists had suggested this for some time - the more mainstream anthropromorphic led scientists have been playing catch up in this respect. That hardly inspires confidence in terms of the above assumptions being made about long term solar activity. With respect, I do think there are 'minority' scientist voices out there who are not heard above the cacophony of AGW theory who I think have a better grip on solar modelling and future likely activity.

There's a pretty obvious difference between monitoring activity and modelling future projections. Why has NASA's monitoring been dodgy?

Since when has forecasting solar activity been an exact science? It's still uncertain as to how strong cycle 24 will be, let alone 25, which is well out in the region of conjecture. So I really love your "belatedly growing admission" comment, where you try and suggest that solar physicists would be, erm... hiding the decline.... I think you'll find that the challenge of forecasting future solar activity has always been a difficult challenge, and so the signs over the last couple of years of a deep solar minimum were entirely likely to cause revisions in forecasts.

Do you have some supporting evidence as to why you think these 'minority' scientists you speak of would be more likely to be right? I know you state it as 'your opinion', but I'd be curious as to know what you based your opinion on? Or do you simply generally distrust "mainstream" scientists of all flavours, be they astrophysicists or climate scientists? Do you ever think seriously why there may be such a thing as 'mainstream' in a branch of science, given the intellectual/career advantages of finding something new?

BTW, whether or not Landscheidt was onto something is neither here nor there - unless you can show that the radiative forcing effect of anthropogenic GHGs is far less than observed and predicted. It may slow greenhouse warming (unlikely to reverse it, the forcing effect is too small) a little for a while, but then when solar activity picks up again, future generations will have to deal with both high GHG (the larger effect) and high solar...

sss

[Thundery wintry showers]

Ultimately I would not be surprised to see UK/NW Europe having colder winters than recently in a Maunder Minimum (southerly jet perhaps?), but not with the severity of winters past (note overall record high global temperatures this winter).

sss

It's quite feasible, and there are some signs that we might be moving into an era of colder winter synoptics as well in any case. I don't think the warmer global temperatures have made much of a difference to this winter over the UK- while global temperatures have been at either record or near-record warmth (depending on which source you prefer to use), they have only been elevated by about 0.5C relative to the very cold winters of the mid to late twentieth century. But in the future, if we start seeing anomalies of +1-2C across the Northern Hemisphere (which is likely to start happening at some point in the next half-century), then it will make more of an obvious difference.

Regarding the Medieval Warm Period there is still some uncertainty over how much it affected the rest of the globe as opposed to just Europe (a recent "climategate" interview supported this) and there is still a good deal of uncertainty over temperature reconstructions back to the 17th century when the Little Ice Age hit, so I remain unconvinced by the reliability of this 0.3C figure. At the same time, though, I agree with the conclusion that it's extremely unlikely that the sun would be able to come close to offsetting 2-4C worth of AGW unless something happened to the sun that was unprecedented in the last millennium and probably for much longer.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Why is it so difficult to believe CB ?.

If you look back most GLOBAL temparature proxies have the LIA as having a drop in temperature of 0.4 to 0.5C.

The Maunder minimum being responsible for alot of this, but also other factors such as increased Volcanic activity etc acting as a cooling agent.

Also the cooling of the Maunder minimum.4 to .5C probably took longer than 100 years.

Put that into context with the .4 or so of warming we have already had(beyond leaving the LIA) and what they are saying seem to make perfect sense.

And attributing 0.3C to a maunder minimum make sense, but I am happy to hear/see something that would not point to this.

If I may ask, why do you find it so easy to believe? Is it because it fits in so snugly with your worldview? Well, of course it does: that's the problem. It's yet another study which "shows" something to be the case which, in fact, only shows what the outcome of a given scenario is so long as all the assumptions made are correct!

The GLOBAL temperature proxies (thank you for shouting or I may not have heard you) show anything up to a 1C drop in GLOBAL temperature..there's a certain amount of uncertainty, surprise, surprise.

And what of the cooling taking longer than 100 years? Are you implying that cooling takes time - almost like there's some kind of...ooh, what's the word...lag?

Your post (and sss's quick pat-on-the-back follow-up) is a prime example of why I don't post on here any more - you patronise others and force them into repeating themselves time and again.

What's the bloody point?

CB

I agree with the conclusion that it's extremely unlikely that the sun would be able to come close to offsetting 2-4C worth of AGW unless something happened to the sun that was unprecedented in the last millennium and probably for much longer.

Something worth noting, though, is that the calculations which determine AGW's 2-4C of warming are determined along with the assumption that the Sun has the effect of only 0.3C during the Maunder minimum. If the Sun's effect during that period was higher then, by extension, GHGs have a lesser effect, which means that a Maunder-type minimum wouldn't have to offset 2-4C of AGW but rather something less than that.

CB