Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Global Warming. What do you expect to see in your lifetime?


Gray-Wolf

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Evesham/ Tewkesbury
  • Weather Preferences: Enjoy the weather, you can't take it with you 😎
  • Location: Evesham/ Tewkesbury

Why would you say that AnyWeather? That's rubbish and you must know it? We are just passing 400ppm, a level not experienced for 800,000yrs, We have been much higher than this and not experienced 'runaway warming so why would we now? 1,000ppm was quite 'normal' when our planet was ice free and we saw no runaway warming then did we?

 

Then we run into timescales for warming due to CO2. Why would you speak as though we should have seen instant impacts when past CO2 warmings take thousands of years to manfest their potential?

 

Are you sure you know anything about this subject AnyWeather?

 

As for global CO2 levels we have pushed them to the point to destabilise the northern permafrost. With the warming in the pipeline we will continue to see meltdown well after we have throttled back on our emmisions and look likely to see CO2 heading toward the old 'ice free levels' of CO2.

 

EDIT: though knockers introduced it on the other thread maybe you could do with reading , and digesting, this;

 

http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/what-does-400-ppm-look-like/

 

" An increase of 10 parts per million might have needed 1,000 years or more to come to pass during ancient climate change events"

 

".Now the planet is poised to reach the 1,000 ppm level in only 100 years if emissions trajectories remain at their present level."

 

It would appear that most folk do understand CO2?

So when did the global warming theory manifest itself, politcal agenda, perhaps?? Ive got books written in the late seventies saying that the planet is heading for an ice age!?  Anyway I respect your thoughts but I do no my stuff, although Im not so antiquated with this warming theory as most of yourselves. Any info I put on here its discredited, so I will look at some of the stuff you give me , and then ask questions later...Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

So when did the global warming theory manifest itself, politcal agenda, perhaps?? Ive got books written in the late seventies saying that the planet is heading for an ice age!?  Anyway I respect your thoughts but I do no my stuff, although Im not so antiquated with this warming theory as most of yourselves. Any info I put on here its discredited, so I will look at some of the stuff you give me , and then ask questions later...Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

The first I ever heard of the theory (I poo-pooed it!) was at an OU lecture, back in 1973...Even now, the combination of appreciable ice-loss and static temperatures can - in order to comply with the laws of thermodynamic - only result from additional heating; melting ice does not get warmer, it merely changes its phase.Posted Image 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

Well then I'll retract Pete but it does leave me dizzy when the simplest science is pushed away in favour of nonsense?

 

So back on topic. The historic milestone of 400ppm is sealing our fate to the plus 2c threshold for total loss of the northern permafrost (alone far more CO2 than we have introduced into the atmosphere) and beginning to look like placing us above 1,000ppm as we had in the PETM (remember then? Crocs off Ellesmere island Lions and Hippo's in Trafalgar Sq).

 

The biggest worry is that Antarctica only started to put on ice when levels of CO2 dropped below 450ppm, a level I'm now assured to see in my lifetime, Though the Faux Sceptics will still want 'flash melt' as proof the rest of science will know that this will consign the planet to a 'Water World' future without CO2 sequestration. With Permafrost in free-fall by that time we will have 3 times the job would would face if we only had human introduced CO2 to deal with.

 

This is why I, in my more desperate moments, hope for a climate disaster of a scale to meet the expectations that they need to accept 'We done it' and so enable us to get on with dealing with the crisis we have set in motion.

 

What is so hard to understand here? Climate takes time to maximise the potential of CO2 forcing but history shows what that potential is both in global Temps and Sea level changes.

 

FYI Those interested. 400ppm ,last time around , saw Greenland 2/3 ice free and West Antarctica totally ice free (with an ocean channel between Weddell and Ross Seas. Ross embayment (that which holds back most of east Antarctica's drain glaciers), was absent. Sea level was around 5m higher. Oh ! and of course CO2 was at 400ppm which means the re-animation of 120ppm of permafrost/ice sheet carbon reserves.......and what was the planet like the last time we saw 520ppm???

Edited by Gray-Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

Well then I'll retract Pete but it does leave me dizzy when the simplest science is pushed away in favour of nonsense?

I agree, in part. But, IMO, much of the fault lies with the disingenuous way in which the 'nonsense' is presented; it often has the look of being proper science, making it very persuasive...It's a bit like those logical conundrums where the logical deduction is fine though the premise is not...It's also sleight of hand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

The first I ever heard of the theory (I poo-pooed it!) was at an OU lecture, back in 1973...Even now, the combination of appreciable ice-loss and static temperatures can - in order to comply with the laws of thermodynamic - only result from additional heating; melting ice does not get warmer, it merely changes its phase.Posted Image 

 

I actually posted a link recently to a paper that first postulated the theory. It was in the 1930s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne
Rising CO2 levels linked to global warming during last deglaciation

 

CORVALLIS, Ore. – Many scientists have long suspected that rising levels of carbon dioxide and the global warming that ended the last Ice Age were somehow linked, but establishing a clear cause-and-effect relationship between CO2 and global warming from the geologic record has remained difficult.

A new study, funded by the National Science Foundation and published in the journal Nature, identifies this relationship and provides compelling evidence that rising CO2 caused much of the global warming.

Lead author Jeremy Shakun, who conducted much of the research as a doctoral student at Oregon State University, said the key to understanding the role of CO2 is to reconstruct globally averaged temperature changes during the end of the last Ice Age, which contrasts with previous efforts that only compared local temperatures in Antarctica to carbon dioxide levels.

 

"Carbon dioxide has been suspected as an important factor in ending the last Ice Age, but its exact role has always been unclear because rising temperatures reflected in Antarctic ice cores came before rising levels of CO2," said Shakun, who is a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Post-doctoral Fellow at Harvard University and Columbia University.

"But if you reconstruct temperatures on a global scale – and not just examine Antarctic temperatures – it becomes apparent that the CO2 change slightly preceded much of the global warming, and this means the global greenhouse effect had an important role in driving up global temperatures and bringing the planet out of the last Ice Age," Shakun added.

 

here is what the researchers think happened.

 

Small changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun affected the amount of sunlight striking the northern hemisphere, melting ice sheets that covered Canada and Europe. That fresh water flowed off of the continent into the Atlantic Ocean, where it formed a lid over the sinking end of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation – a part of a global network of currents that brings warm water up from the tropics and today keeps Europe temperate despite its high latitudes.

 

The ocean circulation warms the northern hemisphere at the expense of the south, the researchers say, but when the fresh water draining off the continent at the end of the last Ice Age entered the North Atlantic, it essentially put the brakes on the current and disrupted the delivery of heat to the northern latitudes.

"When the heat transport stops, it cools the north and heat builds up in the Southern Hemisphere," Shakun said. "The Antarctic would have warmed rapidly, much faster than the time it takes to get CO2 out of the deep sea, where it was likely stored.

"The warming of the Southern Ocean may have shifted the winds as well as melted sea ice, and eventually drawn the CO2 out of the deep water, and released it into the atmosphere," Shakun said. "That, in turn, would have amplified warming on a global scale."

The researchers constructed a record of global surface temperature from 80 temperature reconstructions spanning the end of the Ice Age and found that average temperature around the Earth correlated with – and generally lagged behind – rising levels of CO2.

Peter Clark, an Oregon State University scientist and co-author on the paper, said changes in solar radiation were the likely trigger for the series of effects that followed. His 2009 study, published in Science, confirmed an earlier theory that wobble in the Earth's axis, which changes the amount of sunlight captured by Earth, first caused melting of the large northern ice sheets.

"It has long been known that Earth's slow wobble is caused primarily by the gravitational influences of the larger planets, such as Jupiter and Saturn, which pull and tug on the Earth in slightly different ways over periods of thousands of years," said Clark, a professor in OSU's College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences.

Shakun said there is "an enormous amount" of carbon sequestered in the deep ocean.

 

"The Southern Ocean is connected to all the deep ocean basins," he pointed out, "so the most likely mechanisms to draw it out of the ocean were certainly there."

The question now, the researchers say, is how human-generated carbon dioxide will affect the planet when there isn't an ice age.

"CO2 was a big part of bringing the world out of the last Ice Age," Shakun said, "and it took about 10,000 years to do it. Now CO2 levels are rising again, but this time an equivalent increase in CO2 has occurred in only about 200 years, and there are clear signs that the planet is already beginning to respond."

"While many of the details of future climate change remain to be figured out, our study bolsters the consensus view that rising CO2 will lead to more global warming," Shakun added.

 

 

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-04/osu-rcl040212.php

Edited by knocker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

The latest studies on the temp rises through the later part of the 20th century point to this very conclusion Pete with massive amounts of energy 'hidden' by the huge task of removing 70% of the Mass of the Arctic (how can folk not understand the kind of year up on year , decade up on decade concerted spending of energy that was needed to kill the Arctic sea ice pack???) .

 

Today the energy arriving is greater than then and we have little ice left to melt over the Arctic ocean. The fact Greenland mass loss picked up dramatically after the 07' sea ice crash is no coincidence so tales of some 164yr cycle for Total surface melt over Greenland will be under scrutiny this summer as the predicted albedo crash places even more pressure on the ice to melt ?

 

I also keep seeing the GFS runs seeming to follow my child like predictions of what last years extra ice loss could do to our weather this summer. If this does pan out then Greenland's 'novel' High over it's southern half will give blue sky synoptic's for much of the highest energy portion of the summer further compounding things there?

 

At least we'll see far more H.P. influenced weather......if we're going to have extremes I'd rather be troubled with keeping cool than keeping warm or Dry!!!

Edited by Gray-Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ribble Valley
  • Location: Ribble Valley

The latest studies on the temp rises through the later part of the 20th century point to this very conclusion Pete with massive amounts of energy 'hidden' by the huge task of removing 70% of the Mass of the Arctic (how can folk not understand the kind of year up on year , decade up on decade concerted spending of energy that was needed to kill the Arctic sea ice pack???) . Today the energy arriving is greater than then and we have little ice left to melt over the Arctic ocean. The fact Greenland mass loss picked up dramatically after the 07' sea ice crash is no coincidence so tales of some 164yr cycle for Total surface melt over Greenland will be under scrutiny this summer as the predicted albedo crash places even more pressure on the ice to melt ? I also keep seeing the GFS runs seeming to follow my child like predictions of what last years extra ice loss could do to our weather this summer. If this does pan out then Greenland's 'novel' High over it's southern half will give blue sky synoptic's for much of the highest energy portion of the summer further compounding things there? At least we'll see far more H.P. influenced weather......if we're going to have extremes I'd rather be troubled with keeping cool than keeping warm or Dry!!!

Blocking over high latitudes as we've seen over the last few years is mostly down to the effects of solar output, ice loss at this time of year isn't a factor due to there bring very little in the way of melting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

A lengthy article from Rolling Stone from last year.

 

Global Warming's Terrifying New Math
 
Three simple numbers that add up to global catastrophe - and that make clear who the real enemy is

 

If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.

 

Meteorologists reported that this spring was the warmest ever recorded for our nation – in fact, it crushed the old record by so much that it represented the "largest temperature departure from average of any season on record." The same week, Saudi authorities reported that it had rained in Mecca despite a temperature of 109 degrees, the hottest downpour in the planet's history.


 

 

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719

Edited by knocker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

Blocking over high latitudes as we've seen over the last few years is mostly down to the effects of solar output, ice loss at this time of year isn't a factor due to there bring very little in the way of melting.

Well, a few papers have suggested it, yes. But, that in itself, begs another question: what could have caused the 1960s to be such a cold decade? Not only was sea-ice more extensive than it is today, the Sun was also more active...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Aviemore
  • Location: Aviemore

Just as a reminder, this thread is to talk about what people expect in terms of climate change during their lifetime - that's it, no more. 

 

We've set up three specific threads of which the majority of the posts in this thread of late would fit into one of, so please use them, as any more off topic stuff in here is going to be removed. 

 

Man Made Climate Change Discussion

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76446-man-made-climate-change-discussion/

 

Man Made Climate Change Scepticism Discussion

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-man-made-climate-change-scepticism-discussion/

 

Natural Climate Cycles Discussion

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76447-natural-climate-cycles-discussion/

 

Three threads which pretty much cover all angles in terms of general climate change chat so please head over to the one which interests you / best fits your view and allow this thread to go back to what it was intended for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ribble Valley
  • Location: Ribble Valley

Well, a few papers have suggested it, yes. But, that in itself, begs another question: what could have caused the 1960s to be such a cold decade? Not only was sea-ice more extensive than it is today, the Sun was also more active...

Indeed RP, I would say that we was in a cool cycle both climate and oceans with the PDO being in its negative phase. But that's not the whole picture and it certainly is a conundrum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

Well, a few papers have suggested it, yes. But, that in itself, begs another question: what could have caused the 1960s to be such a cold decade? Not only was sea-ice more extensive than it is today, the Sun was also more active...

 

MT Agung might have helped although not for the whole decade.

post-12275-0-36155400-1367265060_thumb.j

Edited by knocker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

Blocking over high latitudes as we've seen over the last few years is mostly down to the effects of solar output, ice loss at this time of year isn't a factor due to there bring very little in the way of melting.

 

I do not think anyone believes that ice loss is an instant impact on northern hemisphere circulation patterns??? Once change has been set in motion though it is hard for the perturbations to smooth out before the next dollop of forcing's are entering the system? We are still impacted by last years record losses and these will exacerbate this years melt cycle (as we have seen with differing synoptics over the pole in the late winter driving the fracture/export events) . By May , when the snow cover is fading across the region, the first wallop of this years forcing will be building in the system (remember some snow fields ,now lost, have been in place over 12,000yrs...or so finds from them show us?) so the lands exposure to Sun is brand new these past few years and the 'new energy' does accelerate surrounding ice /snow loss leading to more 'earlier' energy pumping into the climate system. 

 

We have not seen our circulation settle from last years losses and we won't before the cycle is in full flow again but this time stronger than before due to the extra energy making it through to the new season? Change becomes easier, less energy is needed to fetch us to the same point as this time last year and so more energy can flow into the system itself.

 

Just watch the first half of melt season and the new Greenland melt plot....see what you make of it?

Edited by Gray-Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

I actually posted a link recently to a paper that first postulated the theory. It was in the 1930s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Stewart_Callendar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

Just as a reminder, this thread is to talk about what people expect in terms of climate change during their lifetime - that's it, no more. 

 

 

 

Puts some of us at a bit of a disadvantage Paul. For example I don't have to be mystic meg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

But Paul , the whole point of me starting this thread was to explore 'why' folk would expect such changes (and bring to bear evidence to support their views). This is naturally going to have folk question the views and science that they support? It enables members to 'pad out' the' soundbites' we hear so many of and to allow folk to amend their personal views , should they choose, in the light of new evidence they were unaware of?

 

A steady stream of 'I think that....' with no chance to explore the 'whys' is stifling for discussion and this is a 'discussion Forum' and not a memo pad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and heatwave
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft

But Paul , the whole point of me starting this thread was to explore 'why' folk would expect such changes (and bring to bear evidence to support their views). This is naturally going to have folk question the views and science that they support? It enables members to 'pad out' the' soundbites' we hear so many of and to allow folk to amend their personal views , should they choose, in the light of new evidence they were unaware of?

 

A steady stream of 'I think that....' with no chance to explore the 'whys' is stifling for discussion and this is a 'discussion Forum' and not a memo pad?

 

There seems to be a lot of recent debates around past 'evidence' to 'support' future changes. Have we not learnt that past evidence is a poor soundbite for the future ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

There seems to be a lot of recent debates around past 'evidence' to 'support' future changes. Have we not learnt that past evidence is a poor soundbite for the future ? 

 

Not really. Because we have try to get to grips with the past to try and put in context what the effect stuffing billions of tons of unnatural  carbon into the atmosphere will be. Anyway the Montreal Protocol wasn't a bad soundbite.

Edited by knocker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

I don't see how stew?

Raise CO2 ,raise temps/sea level? quite simple really?( and repeated throughout the paleo record)

Does anyone really doubt that evidence?

The way the warming/sea level rise unfolds is the only area where we cannot give precise answers on but, once the forcing is installed, are the results not set in stone (or mud logs)?

We are on the verge of breaking through 400ppm CO2, a level last seen 800,000yrs ago, why is it unsafe to look at the conditions across the planet under this regime? Why should we not expect the end point of our CO2 forcing not to be similar to how the planet settled out then?

Edited by Gray-Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

The first I ever heard of the theory (I poo-pooed it!) was at an OU lecture, back in 1973...Even now, the combination of appreciable ice-loss and static temperatures can - in order to comply with the laws of thermodynamic - only result from additional heating; melting ice does not get warmer, it merely changes its phase.Posted Image 

  And before that I found this quite interesting and admit I'd never heard of James Croll or Louis Agassiz.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Croll

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Agassiz

Edited by knocker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Aviemore
  • Location: Aviemore

But Paul , the whole point of me starting this thread was to explore 'why' folk would expect such changes (and bring to bear evidence to support their views). This is naturally going to have folk question the views and science that they support? It enables members to 'pad out' the' soundbites' we hear so many of and to allow folk to amend their personal views , should they choose, in the light of new evidence they were unaware of?

 

A steady stream of 'I think that....' with no chance to explore the 'whys' is stifling for discussion and this is a 'discussion Forum' and not a memo pad?

 

What stifles debate is people who have an opinion, share it and then feel the need to say it over and over in various forms and tones within a thread without ever taking any time to even consider that they could actually learn something about the subject by reading more and spouting a bit less. This is the problem in the climate area (on both sides of the climate divide), and this thread is becoming an exact replica of the news thread which we locked as it was basically a slanging match with people just digging out links and 'news' which supported their opinion along with a bit of name calling in between. 

 

In an ideal world, debate is healthiest when people of varying opinions come together and talk things out, but this isn't an ideal world it's the climate area and we know circular debate with people who are completely entrenched within their viewpoint is the norm, hence the change to the split out threads to at least allow people to post things which interest and support their current viewpoint without the need to continually protect that viewpoint. In the short term you may consider it a weaker discussion, but in the long term without the bickering then maybe people will let their defences down and at least take the time to read the views in the other threads, also more people may be inclined to get involved in here without the ongoing battles we keep having. 

 

So please, try it - the alternate is we just lock this thread because we have to change the pattern in this part of the forum, and to do that we actually have to follow through with a plan in order to make that change.

 

(PS - Ian to make a start I'm moving your post above in to the Climate change scepticism discussion).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

The first I ever heard of the theory (I poo-pooed it!) was at an OU lecture, back in 1973...Even now, the combination of appreciable ice-loss and static temperatures can - in order to comply with the laws of thermodynamic - only result from additional heating; melting ice does not get warmer, it merely changes its phase.Posted Image 

 

I'm not sure whether I posted this. I've a feeling I did.

 

In 1938, Guy Stewart Callendar was the first to demonstrate that the Earth’s land surface was warming. Callendar also suggested that the
production of carbon dioxide by the combustion of fossil fuels was responsible for much of this modern change in climate. This short note
marks the 75th anniversary of Callendar’s landmark study and demonstrates that his global land temperature estimates agree remarkably
well with more recent analyses

 

 

http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ed/home/hawkins_jones_2013_Callendar.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...