Jump to content
Thunder?
Local
Radar
Pollen
IGNORED

Natural Climate Cycles Discussion


Ed Stone
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

    Milankovitch cycles ensure that Earth's climate is in a perpetual state of change...

     

    Amazing lack of response here?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    • Replies 95
    • Created
    • Last Reply

    Top Posters In This Topic

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

    The melting of ice takes an enormous amount of heat from its surroundings: 

     

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

    Edited by Rybris Ponce
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

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

    The global temperature of the planet depends, more than on any other single factor, on the amount of energy being received from the Sun...If it didn't, we could survive perfectly well at the same orbital distance currently occupied by Neptune...

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Aviemore
  • Location: Aviemore

    As part of a slightly different approach in the climate area, we're starting this plus 2 other threads with the explicit aim of the threads that members take part in the discussions that best match their own views, and not in the discussions which don't

     

    The other two threads are:

    Man Made Climate Change Discussion

    Man Made Climate Change Scepticism Discussion

     

     

    Please keep to the thread (or threads) which best suit your views. This should allow for a more reasonable debate for all sides without the need for anyone to be defending their view, or attacking other views. As ever the forum guidelines apply in terms of not disrupting the forum with your posts, so please ensure that doesn't happen. 

     

    This is an opportunity for people with similar views to get together, discuss views and related news, refine ideas and opinions and hopefully learn more about the subject at hand. It's also a chance for people who would like to learn more about the subject to read the differing views and  information, which may help them to form opinions and get involved in these or the more general discussions. So please treat these threads with respect.

     

    Examples for this thread may include more in depth looks at natural climate cycles through the history, what the natural drivers of global and more local climate variations are and how they are developing currently.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Ribble Valley
  • Location: Ribble Valley

    I'm confused by all these threads Paul, could we not just lump them both together thus highlighting both points within one thread.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Mostly Watford but 3 months of the year at Capestang 34310, France
  • Weather Preferences: Continental type climate with lots of sunshine with occasional storm
  • Location: Mostly Watford but 3 months of the year at Capestang 34310, France

    I can't see how a meaningful debate can ensue if we split the climate debate into 'fors', 'againsts' and 'undecided's'.

     

    In order to get the best benefit us lower orders need to hear both sides of the argument and by that way learn and possible come to s decision if and when the evidence is there to support it.

     

    From my point of view I fall into two camps - the first being that of natural cycles with the second being that the activities of man, especially as far as deforestation, together with some pollution of the atmosphere must have some effect but the evidence is not totally compelling either way otherwise these arguments would not occur as they do at present.

     

    What we really need is for people to take the emotion out of this argument and look at it objectively which is the proper way to investigate anything.

     

    I believe that there are too many people who decide on which path to follow, then cherry pick evidence to support whichever theory they support - that is not science.

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Aviemore
  • Location: Aviemore

    Having the threads split doesn't mean anyone can't hear all sides of the arguments, all they have to do is read the different threads. At least this way they get to (hopefully) read about the subject without the continual locking of horns and ego bashing, so people may actually get to learn more about it all rather than wading through mountains of posts which can often consist of people sniping at each other and not not a lot in between.

     

    You're right about removing the emotion, if it were as simple as asking people to be less 'emotional' we'd be sailing along happily in this area, but it's not. So if we can try to take this topic to where it was intended to be now please, and if you'd like to discuss the thread layout further, feel free to pm me. 

    • Like 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

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

    Though over much longer time scales I'd like to discuss the 'rapid climate shifts' that we see as the planet emerges from glaciation?

     

    Though not within the depth of a glacial cycle we still retain a fair amount of ice. For whatever reason this ice is on the decline.

     

    Do folk see any potential for a similar 'rapid warming' should ice loss continue?

     

    As far as I understand it the albedo Flip, and re-distribution of energies that were employed in ice melt, play a large role in facilitating the rapid shift (and rapid de-icing to further force the issue).

     

    So are we living under the spectre of rapid natural warming over the coming decades?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

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

    Well, something is clearly going to happen, whenever the Arctic ice ceases it's current melting phase: all the latent heat, that's currently going into the melt-process itself will become sensible; the only consequence of that is some sort of warming - relative to what would have happened otherwise, of course.

     

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

     

     

    Apologies for usurping you, paul...is there a way of making my posts 'later'?

    Edited by Rybris Ponce
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

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

    That echo's my understanding Pete.

     

    The way i firsee things is a sudden splurge of warming which , on top of the warming we have seen (caused by whatever) will bring into play all the processes that the 'milankovich' cycles have in the past? It's almost as if you imagine the end of the last ice age still ongoing (and not entering a period where orbital forcings should be cooling the north?) and not yet reached it's thermal max (as it did already 8 to 9,000yrs ago).

     

    All the events we associate with the ending of an ice age must be considered fair game? Melting permafrosts releasing GHG's back into the atmosphere, Albedo flip, sea level rise, alterations in both atmospheric and oceanic circulations.

     

    No matter how we got to this point we are now here and a whole host of natural feedbacks that we know are associated with the long haul out of glaciation must now be begining to emerge?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

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

    Indeed Ian...

     

    I'm also wondering just how much cooling it'd take to cause a reversal. And, here, I'm referring to the amount of ice in kgs rather than the extent? I fear that our 'last, best hope' lies with solar output...

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

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

    Well orbital forcings are already lent that way Pete? Volcanic forcing would have to come from a very messy fissure eruption over a period of decades to guarantee a long enough period to rebuild ice even to 1950's levels and that type of 'nuclear winter would take out food supply over the same period so not a direction I'd vote for?

     

    I think we also have to accept that the old basin had a built in 'perfect storm' cycle of 10 to 20yrs (as we discovered after 07') so if the Arctic climate is not impacted by ice loss we are already close to the next 'perfect storm season (the two 'perfect storms prior to 07' were 10yrs apart so 2017 is the earliest we could expect one?) so any 'recovery' would have to be strong enough to survive synoptics which both melt, and flush out, ice from the basin?

     

    I take it we are both of the opinion that ice loss is now something that has become self feeding with negative feedbacks leading to the slow wastage of older ice (compared to FY ice) with the end point being an ice free basin?

     

    If so then I would also take it as read that 'natural variability' would mean the journey to ice free would not be a smooth line but one where the ongoing 'wasting' is aided and abetted by 'natural variability' with some slower loss years and some higher ones?

     

    In an 'ideal world' we'd want to see the reverse of what we have over the past 50yrs but that cannot happen in nature can it? If we look at the amount of energy that was needed to melt out the quantity of ice that we have lost you would see the issues of finding a mechanism that could 'refreeze' such a mass without having an incredibly bad knock on effect on the rest of the planet?

     

    My reality has become so bleak over the past 7 months due to a fuller personal realisation of just what has occurred over my lifetime (which is why it's so tedious to have to hear folk trying to dismiss it as a 'nothing'?) and the sheer amount of energy that was needed to accomplish it.

     

    Anyhow , that is not my concern here. My real concern is where nature takes us next? I've heard folk banging on about 'natural cycles' and 'solars influence' until I'm blue in the face! These folk seem to have no conception of what mother nature is fully capable of once you've 'pushed' her for long enough and I'm beginning to think that what we saw in 07' was a strong signal that we had pushed enough for her to take over at the reigns?

     

    Once significant open water could appear, due to loss of ice mass, it was 'game on' I'm sure that the 'climate inertia' we have seen through the end of ice ages, when solar was on the up and up but temps/CO2 remained static, reflected the period of mass wastage up until the point that an albedo flip could occur in rapid order.

     

    We appear to have pushed the Arctic ocean to this point and the reversal from 'reflected energy' to 'absorbed energy' is an instant one (hence the decadal nature of past 'rapid warmings') and this time the GHG's are already in place once that vast resource comes on line.

     

    In reality most of the damaging changes we will now see will be 'natural' in nature (following the course of past 'rapid climate shifts' post glacial meltdowns) and our own 'polluting' will play only a small 'augmenting' role. We might be better served looking at the diversity of rapid 'natural' changes over the end of past glaciations (temp hikes , CO2 hikes, Sea level Hikes, weather pattern shifts, desertification) than try and figure a time scale for our own CO2 forcings to manifest???

     

    In the same way that i understand the current CO2 burden must , over time, bring about the corresponding temp hike i have to accept that the current 'albedo flip' must also lead to a similar set of 'natural changes' that occurred after every past 'albedo flip' and across a similar time scale. some of those changes appear 'unpredicted' and would have major , instant impacts, on global human society.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Aviemore
  • Location: Aviemore

    Interesting info about the cooling effect of 'Criegee intermediates' in the atmosphere here:

     

    Criegee intermediates act to produce extra sulphuric acid - a well-known and powerful atmospheric aerosol which causes additional clouds to form, which in turn cools the climate. This mechanism is seen in action after major volcanic eruptions, which hurl huge amounts of sulphates into the sky causing acid to form and resulting in easily detectable global cool spells - for instance the one following the eruption of Mt St Helens.

     

     

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/25/new_criegee_cooling_intermediate_probed/

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

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

    So we don't know enough about our little 'experiment' that we have unleashed on the planet for folk to accept how serious it is becoming but folk want to add another ingredient into the planetary test tube???

     

    I'm sorry but I'd have to say no thanks. We need to stop the experiment as soon as possible and then look at both mitigation and impact reduction.

     

    Let the planet heal herself and whilst we do our best to limit the impacts we have unleashed on the biosphere?

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

    Posted
  • Location: Aviemore
  • Location: Aviemore

    Unless I'm reading it entirely wrong, they're not suggesting they release these chemicals, they're already there and occur naturally. The study is monitoring what effect they have with the aim to add that in to any climate modelling going forward.. 

     

    This is the actual study if any one is interested

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6129/177.abstract?sid=ea9db12c-4d03-4309-8aae-7bdfd3f053fd

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

    Not sure what you're on about GW!?

     

    Reading the actual studies gives you a different idea of what their effects on climate may be, rather than reading the register, which has always had a strong sceptic/denier slant. Here's a sciencedaily piece on the Criegee intermediates based on the authors study from last year  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120112142232.htm

     

    Unless I'm misinterpreting this, the strong potential cooling effect of Criegee intermediates relies on the human pollution output for reactions to occur. So as we clamp down on pollution, its effects will weaken, allowing the CO2 induced warming to increase?

    This isn't some new cooling source, but one that's always existed but has been difficult to measure up until now?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Aviemore
  • Location: Aviemore

    This isn't some new cooling source, but one that's always existed but has been difficult to measure up until now?

     

    That's how I understand it BFTV.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

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

    Sorry guys I was thinking that it was being mentioned as a way to impact warming and not an observation of 'how' it impacts warming?

     

    Agreed BFTV, we have managed to 'offset' some of the GHG forcing by the introduction of particulate pollutants so we have been our own 'volcanic eruption' for a good number of years now with only the 70/early 80's seeing impacts from our 'clean air acts' lessening the impacts. Luckily/unluckily the Indo-China economies then went into fossil fuel overdrive and have more than compensated for our 'cleaning up'

     

    As with Ozone impacting pollutants mankind will ,and is, going to reduce the amount of pollutants that cause this shielding so we can expect a slow increase in TSI at ground level (compared to that reaching the top of the atmosphere). this might put us in the unusual position of seeing terrestrial TSI increasing at ground level whilst solar output drops of to a maunder like minimum???

     

    It might just be my frame of mind at present but where ever climate seems to turn we see another impact set to increase the rate of changes we have been seeing?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

    I stumbled across this really by accident, but thought I'd share it with you guys,

     

    post-5986-0-41773400-1367485755_thumb.pn

     

    This chart is a plot of the gradient derived from linear-least-squares over 30 years running from 1880 to 2012. So, for each year, I calculate m from y=mx+c from that year back 30 years. What absolutely astounded me is the apparent periodicity of the rate of change of climate. Further more, the rate of change slopes look identical for the modern warming, and the warming that occured post 1907. 

     

    The wavelength between the lowest point in the cycle gives us about ~64 years, and given the last low point, 1971, does this therefore predict that this (I haven't seen before) natural cycle will force the rate of increase of climate down until about 2035?

     

    Far too many questions running around my head at the moment to properly draw any conclusions from this ....

    Edited by Sparkicle
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

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

    I stumbled across this really by accident, but thought I'd share it with you guys,

     

    Posted Image30yr_mroc.png

     

    This chart is a plot of the gradient derived from linear-least-squares over 30 years running from 1880 to 2012. So, for each year, I calculate m from y=mx+c from that year back 30 years. What absolutely astounded me is the apparent periodicity of the rate of change of climate. Further more, the rate of change slopes look identical for the modern warming, and the warming that occured post 1907. 

     

    The wavelength between the lowest point in the cycle gives us about ~64 years, and given the last low point, 1971, does this therefore predict that this (I haven't seen before) natural cycle will force the rate of increase of climate down until about 2035?

     

    Far too many questions running around my head at the moment to properly draw any conclusions from this ....

     

    I suppose it depends on how long it takes Asia's 'Clean air acts' to show impact?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: N.Bedfordshire, E.Northamptonshire
  • Weather Preferences: Cool not cold, warm not hot. No strong Wind.
  • Location: N.Bedfordshire, E.Northamptonshire

    I think ( I do not do that aften as it causes blinding headaches and odd flashes of supposed light and bright spots ) that we are just in another "phase" of climate fluctuation, not man made, not GW, but caused by natural cycles in climate and internal/external cycle influences, be it solar etc.

     

    Why do I think that?

     

    well records "made" are patchy and dependant on the recorders choices of instruments and methods over time, to get a "good" picture you would need decent and confirmed data, much of the older data is IMHO patchy on its ability to be accurate to a +- variable.

     

    Something else is local history, here for example in Roman times on south facing slopes of the near by valley were populated as vine yards, that would indicate is was possibly warmer then than it is now. 

     

    That would indicate it is getting cooler from a "historical" perspective, but other reports say we are warmer now than then? and getting warmer?

     

    Population globally then to now has a "significant" difference, so reports that humankind is "warming" the climate may not hold weight if that assumption is taken.

     

    Then you have reports where patches of the globe appear cooler, yet others are showing as warmer.

     

    Is this just climate "shift" rather than change?

     

    We *do* have historial records that show climate then to be different to now, so that IMHO makes more sense.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

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

    Hi JAX!

     

    I think that you will find it is in those 'historical records' that you will find the answers as to what is occurring today? Not being 'Cleva' I tend toward the 'Big Picture' so look at Sea Levels, CO2 conent of the atmosphere, temp reconstructions, ice cover etc and just 'pattern match' to see what our current 'mix' promises in the future?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

    The recent study linking cold European winters and sunspot cycles using freezing of the Rhine gets quite a slating...

     

     

    Google search basis undermines sunspot-winter coldness link

     

    Geert Jan suggests that science wasn’t working properly in this case. “The scientific process tries to balance two forces: The creativity to find new connections between seemingly separate phenomena; and the criticism to check that the new ideas are in accord with the known analyses and observations. This paper failed on both counts: the idea that low solar activity is connected with severe winters has been around for a long time, and they failed to do the most elementary checks against the available literature and data.â€

     

    Much more here http://simpleclimate.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/google-search-basis-undermines-sunspot-winter-coldness-link/

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

    I stumbled across this really by accident, but thought I'd share it with you guys,

     

    Posted Image30yr_mroc.png

     

    This chart is a plot of the gradient derived from linear-least-squares over 30 years running from 1880 to 2012. So, for each year, I calculate m from y=mx+c from that year back 30 years. What absolutely astounded me is the apparent periodicity of the rate of change of climate. Further more, the rate of change slopes look identical for the modern warming, and the warming that occured post 1907. 

     

    The wavelength between the lowest point in the cycle gives us about ~64 years, and given the last low point, 1971, does this therefore predict that this (I haven't seen before) natural cycle will force the rate of increase of climate down until about 2035?

     

    Far too many questions running around my head at the moment to properly draw any conclusions from this ....

     

    Had a look at that a while ago myself. A smoothed graph of the PDO would probably sit quite tightly with the slope values at certain points.

    Looking at the troughs in the cycle suggest that the next one remain above 0C, so no 30 year drop in temperatures

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: N.Bedfordshire, E.Northamptonshire
  • Weather Preferences: Cool not cold, warm not hot. No strong Wind.
  • Location: N.Bedfordshire, E.Northamptonshire

    Hi JAX!

     

    I think that you will find it is in those 'historical records' that you will find the answers as to what is occurring today? Not being 'Cleva' I tend toward the 'Big Picture' so look at Sea Levels, CO2 conent of the atmosphere, temp reconstructions, ice cover etc and just 'pattern match' to see what our current 'mix' promises in the future?

    Hi GW

     

    So as to explain my post, it was originally in the "are we entering a new mini ice-age" thread, but got moved for being deemed "climate related", though I find it difficult to explain/discuss the question originally posed without making any references to climate, but that aside, yes I too tend to rather see the bigger picture, short term climate data study will show you short term results, expanding that historically will show that, as a whole, the global climate has "shifted" a few times, due to many historically recorded reasons.

     

    I think it is hard for anyone to give a definitive answer to climate direction as we do not really have one, like you said, there are clues in the historical records, but then as now climate as a whole is quite fluid in its direction, so some places get warmer or dryer, others will get colder or wetter, the overall whole remains almost the same, the displacment is what changes what goes where.

     

    Not sure if this rambling nonsense makes any sense to you (it does in here with the other voices, but we argue a lot), trying to articulate my thoughts can sometimes take a while and further explaining over time.

    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
     Share

    ×
    ×
    • Create New...