Past Abrupt Warmings.....what do they tell us?

[Gray-Wolf]

I've been mulling this over for a while.

When we look at past periods of deglaciation we see sudden warming spurts among the general background warming trend.

We know that the solar forcing is a near constant as we 'wobble' about our axis/orbit bringing only small changes in the amount of energy we receive. Over time even this small increase/decrease does drive our glaciations/interglacial but what of these periods of sudden warming? Where do we suddenly find the energy to achieve them?

It certainly is not sudden ,unexplained, bursts of solar that only occur during de-glaciation so how do we magic up this 'new energy'?

We don't. All that happens is we use the available energy more efficiently. As the ice melts we get to a point where the earth/ocean is once again available to recieve the suns energy and not be reflected back into space. The energy that was utilised melting the ice is no longer needed for that task either and so can be used elsewhere.

Does this remind anyone of anything that we have seen recently?

Are we not just entering a period of sudden warming due to the impacts of the ice/snow loss across the Arctic?

Even without the GHG burden we can see that summer ice/snow loss can lead to a more energetic climate system (and so lead to more melting in other areas) so what should we expect to see over the coming decade?

[BornFromTheVoid]

I think the first thing is to put "sudden warming" into some kind of context, with examples perhaps? Dansgaard Oeschger and Heinrich events might be something to look into for a start.

http://www.ncdc.noaa...rupt/data3.html

[knocker]

Another description of Dansgaard-Oeschger events courtesy 0f John Turner and Gareth J. Marshall, Climate Change in Polar Regions, Cambridge University Press. Many of the points covered in BFTV's link.

Dans.pdf

[Gray-Wolf]

Thank you for the data BFTV/Knocker but I don't think I'm troubled about freshwater discharge from the remaining ice sheets in the way that dwindling glacial ice sheets impacted the THC but I am interested in the abrupt warming phase of such meltdowns?We do still have enough ice/snow today to exert an impact on both how the global energy budget is spent and on the amount of incoming soalr radiation reaching the surface (and entering the climate system).I'm concerned about the recent changes (past 15yrs) to the amounts of ice/snow and how they may well be acting in a way similar to the sudden warming phases we see on the way to an interglacial phase.If I am correct then we should see a similar 'abrupt warming' event as the final phase of ice loss across the summer pole occurs and , in fact, we may have been witnessing the first rumblings of it with our past few years of 'odd weather'. Of course I'd expect it to be much less marked than the ones we see documented but then what would a 1c global hike in temps look like whilst deep in negative forcings and with the 'GHG' forcings under question?I am deeply concerned that were we to undergo such an event then the knock on impacts on premature permafrost melt (and it's GHG cargo) and a continued Greenland melt surge would upset the sea levels to the point of adding extra mechanical strain on the land/sea margins of all the remaining Antarctic ice shelfs, The loss of these shelfs would only serve to accelerate ice/snow loss there leading to another temp hike of a similar nature.My thinking is that the CO2 forcing has done it's job and lead us to the point where the planet takes a more prominant role in adjusting it's own energy budget to better suit the temp/GHG levels that we see todaty.No matter though as this would be a decadal alteration and so very visible to even the most skeptical of minds and as such can be proven /debunked by short term observations over the coming decade?

Edited February 5, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

Has to do a bit of rummaging to see how mad I was becoming in this concern for an impending abrupt climate shift. I find that it has been a concern of many lead climate scientists for a good while now and that the loss of the Arctic sea ice is key in move towards such.

Like with the last melt at Summit,Greenland prior to last years melt the denier-sphere is keen to push that we have experienced low ice levels over the past 8,000yrs (and so is a 'common' event???). Just so folk know the last time we had an 'ice free' basin was a least 8 million years ago (long before mankind evolved) so it will mark a departure from any debate about 'natural' or 'cyclical' warming as a reason for the changes we see.

Some groups have 2013 to 2015 as the ice free Arctic's first appearance so we won't have long to wait until all of this silliness is left behind and we know for sure that we have entered an alarming new phase for climate shift.

Models appear to show that pretty quickly after ice free conditions prevail that the ocean will move from a few weeks ice free to a few months ice free over less than a decade. The energy that will be culled into the climate system at this time will be immense. If the open water we see today can be impacting our circulation today then what will such a forcing do?

Most of the research/opinions I have come across are clear that when we reach a tipping point that allows an ice free basin then we are well past human mitigation. Even an attempt to claw back our emissions will be inconsequential due to the natural CO2 that will flood the system from ice melt/permafrost melt.

Are we there yet?

I have to say we are. The 07' event relied upon a 'perfect storm' to occur but since then the ice has become so weakened that even 'average years' bring us higher losses (i.e. the tipping point was 07' and now the process is self sustaining). We are now not only on the way to the 'ice free' basin but also an ice free basin for months of the year (and on it's way to becoming permanently ice free).

So when do we see the abrupt climate shift? well, now.

[laserguy]

So when do we see the abrupt climate shift? well, now.

I can't see a thing. Sure you're not hallucinating?

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi LG!

Did you not set the Jan sat Global temp graph? how do we get a spike like that without the help of a Nino?

What of the Methane spike over Barrentsz? We can see it building over the past 5 years but why are we seeing it at all?

Why are we poised to see an ice free Arctic ocean?

Why has the Amazon just see 2 '1 in a hundred year' droughts over the past 10 yrs?

What is it with the melt across Greenland? why have some of the west coast communities seen a 10c hike in average winter temps?

What is it with year on year crop failures in our crop growing regions?

Why did our 'drought' year turn into a record breaking deluge year?

Need more? Let us see the impacts of this la Nada year and then talk some more?

[mcweather]

Hi Graywolf. Past Abrupt warmings and what do they tell us.

History tells us the planet survived them all and went on to create the conditions in which human life could adapt and thrive in various parts of the world.

[knocker]

History tells us the planet survived them all and went on to create the conditions in which human life could adapt and thrive in various parts of the world.

But we didn't have 6 billion people living on earth then. Many who will be very seriously affected by fairly abrupt climate change.

[mcweather]

But we didn't have 6 billion people living on earth then. Many who will be very seriously affected by fairly abrupt climate change.

Adapt or die has always been the case for all life on the planet. Humans are no different. We might like to think we are the most advanced form of life on the planet but in reality we've only existed for a gnats fart in terms of the life of the planet. There are far more species that have been a around a whole lot longer than us and at this stage that makes them a whole lot more successful than us.

perhaps its the six billion thats the problem rather than the climate doing what it always has done. ie change

Edited February 24, 2013 by mcweather

[Gray-Wolf]

But each one of those lives is like you or I? would you feel as cocky if it was you and L.G. who knew they were the ones with 3 months left (or our children/family/loved ones).

It is that 'humanity' that makes it hard for me to embrace such losses....worry about the future?

I think if you have a 'spirit' (believe that humans can be a 'spiritual' soul and not just blood and guts') then you think beyond your 'personal' life experience in favour of your own spiritual growth over your lifetime?

If you are more sold on existentialism then it is all about 'this lifetimes' experience and so will tend to be more focused on 'oneself', and that 'experience', than with troubling yourself with other folks woes (no wish to empathise with such a dire existence as it does not bring me 'gain' in my struggle for a 'nice' life experience only pain and upset?) ?

The pragmatist in me says that man, in such numbers, time is sure to be short-lived (as any other 'swarm' in nature) and , one way or another, nature will regain Her 'balance'. Be it natural disaster or human driven disaster our time of growth appears limited?

Edited February 25, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

Adapt or die has always been the case for all life on the planet. Humans are no different.

But Malthus was wrong.

The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world.

Science and evolution saw to that.

[mcweather]

But each one of those lives is like you or I? would you feel as cocky if it was you and L.G. who knew they were the ones with 3 months left (or our children/family/loved ones).

It is that 'humanity' that makes it hard for me to embrace such losses....worry about the future?

I think if you have a 'spirit' (believe that humans can be a 'spiritual' soul and not just blood and guts') then you think beyond your 'personal' life experience in favour of your own spiritual growth over your lifetime?

If you are more sold on existentialism then it is all about 'this lifetimes' experience and so will tend to be more focused on 'oneself', and that 'experience', than with troubling yourself with other folks woes (no wish to empathise with such a dire existence as it does not bring me 'gain' in my struggle for a 'nice' life experience only pain and upset?) ?

The pragmatist in me says that man, in such numbers, time is sure to be short-lived (as any other 'swarm' in nature) and , one way or another, nature will regain Her 'balance'. Be it natural disaster or human driven disaster our time of growth appears limited?

I know it seems harsh Graywolf and believe me I,m not cocky about it at all. If it was me or or any one I knew or cared about and we knew we only had three months due to whatever impending disaster then I would I,m sure be s******g bricks like the rest of the population, but that doesn't actually change anything.

I certainly don't take the existentalist view either. I feel and have a soul etc but in the end that still doesn't make the slightest bit of difference if its going to happen it will and will probably be self ( ie human) induced.

My conundrum is that i certainly don't want to seem millions of people die as you say each and every one is just like you and I, but for me the ongoing overpopulation compared to the resources available is a far more pressing problem than the probably overplayed outcomes of abrupt climate change climate change if it does indeed occur.

Nature will as you say regain its balance if pushed too far and unfortunately if that means getting rid of us then nature will do so no matter whether we have souls or not and it won't discriminate between those who worried about CO2 or not either.

Believe me Graywolf I am not cocky about any of this it worries me greatly that by dint of its inability to control its level of breeding Human life ends up simply being a destructive virus upon the planet that nature deems too damaging to have around. I worry for future generations a lot but just don't believe that climate change human induced or otherwise is as big a problem as those with a vested interest in it being a big problem tell us.

Edited February 25, 2013 by mcweather

[laserguy]

I worry for future generations a lot but just don't believe that climate change human induced or otherwise is as big a problem as those with a vested interest in it being a big problem tell us.

The only folk who 'worry' about AGW or any of the other myriad scenarios that can be tagged onto it, are those who want to believe it,and those who have something to gain by peddling and perpetuating such nonsense.

[Devonian]

The only folk who 'worry' about AGW or any of the other myriad scenarios that can be tagged onto it, are those who want to believe it,and those who have something to gain by peddling and perpetuating such nonsense.

I'm not 'worried' by AGW but I am concerned about it, reading your post I now see I must having something to gain that you haven't. What would that be? And why do I 'want' to believe it? Edited February 26, 2013 by Devonian

[BornFromTheVoid]

The only folk who 'worry' about AGW or any of the other myriad scenarios that can be tagged onto it, are those who want to believe it,and those who have something to gain by peddling and perpetuating such nonsense.

Sciency shmiency nonsense eh!?

Like those science types who think we evolved from spineless fish. Well why aren't we seeing fish turn into people nowadays? 'Cos evolution is cobblers, that's why. The folk that want to believe evolution are God hating atheists, trying to peddle their distorted, lefty, communist logic.

I worry for future generations a lot but just don't believe that climate change human induced or otherwise is as big a problem as those with a vested interest in it being a big problem tell us.

.

Who are those vested interests? I can think of many that would continue to benefit by quashing any concern about climate change.

[Gray-Wolf]

But Mr Scrooge? There are many in desperate need of our help for without they would surely die?

Well they'd better get on and die then and decrease the surplus population......

Why the Dickens would things have changed???

Anyhow , 'Abrupt warming'.

It's very nature makes it a lot easier for us to decide whether or not it is occuring the bigger question is have we manged to see enough buttons pushed to cause such to ocurr over this past 7 years?

I'm sure that there are folk out there willing to crunch the numbers (and bring us a hard number of the type of energy surplus we have seen since 07') but just mulling what has occurred over that period surely must have each of us wondering what this extra energy can do to our climate? We've all seen the images of Cumulonimbus building over oil rig burn off towers or over Power station cooling towers so we know small local inputs will bring us an impact if conditions favour? Well the extra energy we are talking about is surely much more than a binch of cooling towers or a lone gas flare?

Are these energies partly feeding back into the system making larger amounts of extra energy available the next time around the loop?

We have recently seen concerns about the permafrosts bring us a number not to exceded lest we begin the melt down of all the northern permafrosts. We have already eaten 0.8c into that figure and , should it prove correct, only have 0.7c of warming left until we hit problems that will feedback into the climate system (as I said 5 years or more ago this solves the Denialist issue as all the feedbacks are 'natural' in nature, just driven into operation by mankind, so it swapa from AGW to NGW)

I am concerned that the changes we have wrought willl have no problem in driving change enough to bring us rapidly towards that 0.7c warming even if we meet our carbon targets.

[knocker]

I'm pretty sure I, or someone, else, has uploaded this video previously but some may have missed it.

Thawing Permafrost.