Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change

[keithlucky]

Hi Stew,

Trends, observe the trends. Climate is about trends. What is the trend?

 

Re Antarctic; the models do not capture well. This is known and understood. What is also known and understood is that, because the Antarctic is (broadly) a self-contained system, it does not respond to GW in the same way as the Arctic. However, work such as that done at Pine Island and the Thwaites Glacier (amongst others) suggests that parts of the area at least are showing signs of a response to the changing global climate.

 

I'm not sure why you seem to think the changes in the Arctic, Greenland, and most of the world's glaciers and ice caps are not significant - is there something you're not telling us?

Fergus please stick to your own thread .This is the Sceptic thread.

Edited October 5, 2013 by keithlucky

[Fergus Brown]

Keith,

Please look back at #555-556

[keithlucky]

Yes Stewart the coldest summer ever  recorded in the Arctic and the largest year over year increase in ice.

COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008

Edited October 5, 2013 by keithlucky

[Tamara]

In answer to your questions above:

 

How am I so sure? - I studied the subject for several years and reached the conclusion that a lot of people who are more expert than me have a lot of good reasons and evidence for AGW - therefore, both independently and in agreement with the evidence, i concluded that AGW is real.

 

I didn't really get points 2 and 3, but I guess you don't really want to know.

 

I'm sorry, I didn't realise I was in the wrong playground.

 

So this isn't a thread for discussion, then, only agreement about scepticism. Fair enough. I'll go away. 

 

Have fun.

 

By the way, I haven't been here a while, what are the new rules? Where's my bit of the playground?

I think it is right you have your own opinions and are clearly able to articulate them intelligently, even if some of us disagree with them. Maybe though if you sounded a little less patronising and condescending it might help further?

 

Separate threads have been drawn up so that different opinions can be aired and pusued without clashes of opinion and conflict arising because of the differences. There are however other threads where joint discussions are possible. Sorry to sound like a moderator, as clearly I am not I am simply trying to assist by describing how things have been developed by the administration on here to try to ensure a smoother ride for all participants

[Fergus Brown]

I think it is right you have your own opinions and are clearly able to articulate them intelligently, even if some of us disagree with them. Maybe though if you sounded a little less patronising and condescending it might help further?

 

Separate threads have been drawn up so that different opinions can be aired and pusued without clashes of opinion and conflict arising because of the differences. There are however other threads where joint discussions are possible. Sorry to sound like a moderator, as clearly I am not I am simply trying to assist by describing how things have been developed by the administration on here to try to ensure a smoother ride for all participants

Hi Tamara, thanks for answering.

I know I have a tendency online to sound like I'm being patronising - it isn't deliberate, though the hopefully gentle irony/sarcasm probably is.

I am genuinely concerned that the general public understands AGW better and try to do my little bit to help in that direction.

Of course I have my own opinions, hopefully founded on reasoned grounds, and tend to advocate my viewpoint, naturally.

I was a part of this community a few years back when the debates used to get very personal. I rarely rose to the bait, though, and have always tried to use a respectful and reasoned approach - this though can come across as patronising if a reader is expecting a conflict-based interaction.

Perhaps if this is not the right place to engage in discussion/debate, you can come across to my blog occasionally and comment there?

http://whogoeswithfergus.blogspot.co.uk/

I hope we will be able to engage at some point on subjects which are of interest to you.

Sincerely, no condescension intended,

[stewfox]

Hi Stew,

Trends, observe the trends. Climate is about trends. What is the trend?

 

Re Antarctic; the models do not capture well. This is known and understood. What is also known and understood is that, because the Antarctic is (broadly) a self-contained system, it does not respond to GW in the same way as the Arctic. However, work such as that done at Pine Island and the Thwaites Glacier (amongst others) suggests that parts of the area at least are showing signs of a response to the changing global climate.

 

I'm not sure why you seem to think the changes in the Arctic, Greenland, and most of the world's glaciers and ice caps are not significant - is there something you're not telling us?

 

The short term trend is down , I would not say its ''''steady, consistent, persistent decline. this is unarguable''''. We need another 20/30 years

 

The GW comments re artic and Antarctica suggest GW theory is complete. 

 

I am not suggesting changes in the NH are not significant perhaps more so then changes in the SH (more people in NH etc) but I do prefer to look at climate change on a global perspective rather then IMBY

Edited October 5, 2013 by stewfox

[Fergus Brown]

Stew,

 

I'm sure you know as well as I do that there is a question mark over the combination of 'short term' and 'trend', something you overtly recognise in your qualifying comment. I don't think you'd need to wait that long, statistically - perhaps another five-ten years where Global mean surface temperature does not shift much would have a few people scratching their heads.

 

My guess is that the tendency though would be less 'have we miscalculated sensitivity?' (for example), than 'Given what is already known/understood, how to account for what would then be an actual statistically significant trend?

 

I am sure nobody in climate science would ever claim that any aspect of GW science is 'complete' - as with all science, our understanding develops and improves over time. But study continues constantly, and some things which were less well understood yesterday may be better understood today - for example, what factors effect the development of sea ice in the Antarctic.

 

I absolutely agree that we are looking at the whole picture with AGW, and that cherry-picking regional peculiarities, or short-period observations, doesn't help us understand the big picture except in context.

 

I've spent several years trying to understand the big picture for myself, and recognise two things - that it is possible to develop an opinion independent of the 'majority view',  - and that there are a hell of a lot of people who know, collectively, a hell of a lot more than me about their particular specialisms, and I would be foolish to ignore their expertise.

[stewfox]

Fergus Brown, on 04 Oct 2013 - 21:59, said:

.

If you come back with 'but there's plenty in the Antarctic', you need to read some of the literature to understand why it works that way, and why it doesn't make any difference to the overall picture, which is that there is less ice than there used to be...

 

Fergus Brown, on 05 Oct 2013 - 16:33, said:

Stew,

 

I am sure nobody in climate science would ever claim that any aspect of GW science is 'complete' - as with all science, our understanding develops and improves over time. But study continues constantly, and some things which were less well understood yesterday may be better understood today - for example, what factors effect the development of sea ice in the Antarctic.

 

 

I think this is what feeds the sceptics, the first comment is a typical 'all the theory's are facts type approach'.

 

The second is much better a type of 'we don't fully know but are investigating'

[Fergus Brown]

Perhaps you could read the first as: 'There is a lot of freely available information out there (some theory, some observation) - reading it helps us understand better.

The (scientific) literature supports the view that the Global Mass Balance of Land Ice (everywhere) and Sea Ice (at the poles) is declining, and is expected to continue declining.' Perhaps I was a bit sniffy in tone, but that aside, two questions:

1. I have made a statement about the amount of ice in the world. Please challenge it. Can you provide me with evidence that my assertion is false?

2. Have you read the literature on the subject (e.g. http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/1565/2013/tc-7-1565-2013.html ? If so, what are your conclusions?

 

There is a big difference between saying 'knowledge is not complete' and 'Don't know'. You are implying that climate science (all the research and observation and analysis and modelling) has taught us nothing. One of the most important things about science is that it takes what is known and what is observed and seeks to find an answer to questions such as 'why do things fall to the ground?' and 'Why has the Global temperature gone up?' (sic). It also tests what we think we know and challenges our assumptions. 

 

In the same way that I am trying to reassure you that my comments are not adversarial - I'm not looking for a fight, just a conversation - I'll assume that yours are intended in the same vein.

[john pike]

Fergus

That link is saying using our models suggest this

Sorry mate until these models actually show that they are reliable

I am not quite sure what the point of your last post was

I note the post i put on last night you tried to debunk a few minutes after i posted it

In no way did you read it in that time

Re ice please show that the ice is lower than this time last year

Or a thousand years ago. Its natural it melts and it grows.

My opinion on the ice caps is it has no bearing on agw and that includes

When it refreezes.

If people ignore natural causes then being a denier should have another meaning

Nature cools the planet and warms the planet

Its done it for millions of years and will continue to do so

What effects man has is unknown unless a model tells you

So you know my studies have been in geology volcanoes and techtonic plates

Etc for 15 years

[stewfox]

Perhaps you could read the first as: 'There is a lot of freely available information out there (some theory, some observation) - reading it helps us understand better.

The (scientific) literature supports the view that the Global Mass Balance of Land Ice (everywhere) and Sea Ice (at the poles) is declining, and is expected to continue declining.' Perhaps I was a bit sniffy in tone, but that aside, two questions:

1. I have made a statement about the amount of ice in the world. Please challenge it. Can you provide me with evidence that my assertion is false?

2. Have you read the literature on the subject (e.g. http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/1565/2013/tc-7-1565-2013.html ? If so, what are your conclusions?

 

There is a big difference between saying 'knowledge is not complete' and 'Don't know'. You are implying that climate science (all the research and observation and analysis and modelling) has taught us nothing. One of the most important things about science is that it takes what is known and what is observed and seeks to find an answer to questions such as 'why do things fall to the ground?' and 'Why has the Global temperature gone up?' (sic). It also tests what we think we know and challenges our assumptions. 

 

In the same way that I am trying to reassure you that my comments are not adversarial - I'm not looking for a fight, just a conversation - I'll assume that yours are intended in the same vein.

 

 

I doubt there are many people who believe man is responsible for 100% of the observed ‘climate change/variability’ or many people that believe man has no impact what so ever on climate change/variability.

 

I have used ‘variability’  as a substitute for ‘extreme weather events’.

 

What we have is people who think climate change/variability  is 80/90% man made and those who think its 20%/30%.

 

This will impact on peoples likely view of where we will be in 50/100 years time.

 

At the end of the day the ‘debate’ becomes circular. Like who will win a football match at half time. We need more time/data  At half time its certainly not 8-0 to man made climate change.

 

If we had no summer artic ice left in 10 years time, massive glacial melt a shrinking Antarctic ice , renewed robust global warming your going to get a lot more people going towards the 80%/90% camp of a man mad influence.

 

There will always be people that will say man has nothing to do with climate and those that believe the Earth is flat the Moon is made of cheese

 

Much of the sketism is around the ‘reporting’ which often hides the raw facts.

 

With regards to your link I read

 

“â€â€Because glacier observations are sparse and geographically biased, there is an undersampling problem common to all global assessmentsâ€â€â€

 

 

Because that’s probably what I was looking for.

Edited October 5, 2013 by stewfox

[Fergus Brown]

FergusThat link is saying using our models suggest thisSorry mate until these models actually show that they are reliableI am not quite sure what the point of your last post wasI note the post i put on last night you tried to debunk a few minutes after i posted itIn no way did you read it in that timeRe ice please show that the ice is lower than this time last yearOr a thousand years ago. Its natural it melts and it grows.My opinion on the ice caps is it has no bearing on agw and that includesWhen it refreezes.If people ignore natural causes then being a denier should have another meaningNature cools the planet and warms the planetIts done it for millions of years and will continue to do soWhat effects man has is unknown unless a model tells youSo you know my studies have been in geology volcanoes and techtonic platesEtc for 15 years

 

Hi John,

 

First you must excuse my ignorance/presumption. I read the post not the links then decided I wanted to disagree with what you seemed to be saying.

 

I have now looked at the links. The first one suggests that the effects of tectonic activity should be incorporated into local global calculations. This seems very reasonable. Is it not already being done?

 

The second one was part of a textbook. I presume the relevant bit was the section about heat flow? As you are an expert, please clarify; is the heat flow they are describing primarily vertical (ie, from the core towards the surface)? I had the (quite possibly erroneous) impression that most of the heat emitted from the mid ocean ridge (and other sub-ocean plate boundaries) does not mix into the upper (0-700m) levels of the ocean; happy to be corrected on this. The book also mentioned a value of heat transport at 50mW/Km2 (is that right?). How does this measure against the observed changes in surface/atmospheric/ocean temperature?I also had the impression (which I am more confident about) that the Tectonic heat budget is already included in CGCMs. Last questions on this bit: What is the observation period for temperature flux at the mid-ocean plate? Is it long enough to reveal a statistically significant trend? how does the trend compare to the trend in global surface temperature changes?

 

The third article suggested that Tectonic emissions (sic) should be incorporated into global emissions budgets on a Tectonic time scale. This sounds reasonable. How long is a Tectonic time scale? Are we talking years, decades, centuries or millennia?

 

The fourth article was about the effect of Ash deposits on glacial melt in part of Iceland  in 2009-2010 after the big unpronounceable eruption (sorry!). It concluded that there was increased melt in some areas and decreased melt in others, and this this was connected to the amount of ash deposited. If this was intended to act as an example of the significance of volcanic ash in Cryospheric analysis, I heartily concur - it is important for a lot of reasons, not least the calculation of albedo. But it seemed a bit localised and specialised - can you clarify why you included it - ie, what point you were making?

 

On to your other comments:

 

I disagree that ice caps have no bearing on GW. Ice (and snow) form a very important part of our global climate system. What was once believed to be a steady-state (seasonally adjusted) has recently been observed to be volatile, and in particular, sensitive to changes on other parts of the global system. If it becomes so volatile as to represent a threat (via changing weather patterns, ecological devastation or sea level rise), surely this is important?

 

I agree; if people ignore natural causes then they are at the least naive.

 

I agree; nature (natural processes) cool the planet and warm it, as do celestial mechanics, etc.

 

I agree; it has done for millions of years and will continue to do so. The (main?) reason why climate change is on the global political agenda is because recent observation indicate that changes are now happening at a different (much faster) timescale, so fast that it may be difficult for humans to adapt, and almost certainly too quick for animal/vegetable species to adapt.

 

I disagree; we know the effect we are having because of physics and measurement - no hocus pocus there. The problem is that the system as a whole is so complex than only hugely vast computers can run the trillions of operations and iterations required to produce any kind of simulation. As with all computers, there are always limitations, which is why doing on the ground observation and simple human intuition must always be done alongside, to test, support and adjust the information going in and coming out.

 

I hope you don't mind the overlong post too much, and that you will be kind enough to answer some of my genuine questions. Perhaps one at a time, to make things easier?

 

[john pike]

Hi fergus

No worries re post

On my phone so will reply later

[Fergus Brown]

 

I doubt there are many people who believe man is responsible for 100% of the observed ‘climate change/variability’ or many people that believe man has no impact what so ever on climate change/variability.

 

I have used ‘variability’  as a substitute for ‘extreme weather events’.

 

What we have is people who think climate change/variability  is 80/90% man made and those who think its 20%/30%.

 

This will impact on peoples likely view of where we will be in 50/100 years time.

 

At the end of the day the ‘debate’ becomes circular. Like who will win a football match at half time. We need more time/data  At half time its certainly not 8-0 to man made climate change.

 

If we had no summer artic ice left in 10 years time, massive glacial melt a shrinking Antarctic ice , renewed robust global warming your going to get a lot more people going towards the 80%/90% camp of a man mad influence.

 

There will always be people that will say man has nothing to do with climate and those that believe the Earth is flat the Moon is made of cheese

 

Much of the sketism is around the ‘reporting’ which often hides the raw facts.

 

With regards to your link I read

 

“â€â€Because glacier observations are sparse and geographically biased, there is an undersampling problem common to all global assessmentsâ€â€â€

 

 

Because that’s probably what I was looking for.

 

Hi Stew,

I must be brief in my reply otherwise I'll justifiably be accused of hijacking your part of the forum.

 

It looks like there are quite a lot of things we (broadly) agree on.

 

My impression is that your interest is mainly about extreme weather rather than climate - is this right?

 

Though I'm not responding to all your points, I think we can focus on these questions:

 

1. Are there more 'extreme' (damaging?) weather events than there used to be?

2. If there are, what relationship if any does this have with any changes in climate (eg, GW)?

3. If there is a relationship between a changing climate (warming) and extreme weather, are there likely to be more extreme (in force and frequency) events in the     future, (assuming the warming hasn't flatlined)?

 My opinions/suggestions:

1. Very hard to be certain. Personal experiences often cloud the facts, and none of can be everywhere at once. Part of the impression that there are now more droughts/storms/floods/hurricanes etc. than there used to be is that these are observed and reported much more carefully than they used to be. As a broad statement, there doesn't appear to be a lot of hard evidence that the frequency or severity of extreme events has increased enough to be statistically significant. But because we are, generally, much more aware these days of these events, it is easy to believe intuitively that things used to be better, whether this belief is right or wrong.

2. (in 2 parts) a; Personally, though I am an AGW advocate, I am not convinced at all that any recent event (eg Sandy) can be attributed to climate change, and I don't think it helps when people claim it is. I don't think CC represents an impending apocalypse - I think the problem is more subtle than that - perhaps a slowpocalypse? If I were to be convinced that the relatively small changes in climate we have seen so far were connected directly to more extreme weather, I would be even more worried about what things will be like when global temperatures increase to +2c.

3. I'd be very surprised (astonished) if a warming planet didn't substantially change global weather in many ways in the future, including droughts, floods storms and so on, it stands to reason that there will be changes. But not everywhere will see the same kinds of change, and not all of the changes will happen at the same time. I am convinced, though, that the warmer the planet gets, the more extreme will be the changes, and the more difficult it will be to adapt. Which is why, though I don't think we will see the most powerful impacts in our lifetimes, I do think that we have an obligation to get off our backsides and do something about it, inasmuch as anything; mitigation, adaptation and anything else positive, is better than doing nothing.

 

Enough for now.

[Tamara]

You are welcome - thanks for replying Yes indeed, I guess a sceptic thread is a natural place to advertise your blog

Hi Tamara, thanks for answering.

I know I have a tendency online to sound like I'm being patronising - it isn't deliberate, though the hopefully gentle irony/sarcasm probably is.

I am genuinely concerned that the general public understands AGW better and try to do my little bit to help in that direction.

Of course I have my own opinions, hopefully founded on reasoned grounds, and tend to advocate my viewpoint, naturally.

I was a part of this community a few years back when the debates used to get very personal. I rarely rose to the bait, though, and have always tried to use a respectful and reasoned approach - this though can come across as patronising if a reader is expecting a conflict-based interaction.

Perhaps if this is not the right place to engage in discussion/debate, you can come across to my blog occasionally and comment there?

http://whogoeswithfergus.blogspot.co.uk/

I hope we will be able to engage at some point on subjects which are of interest to you.

Sincerely, no condescension intended,

 

Actually as one who uses her own gentle ways of trying to reason, I find that unless this type of reasoning is done on the basis of real intended equilibrium, and because my head tries to be within my shoulders and not my backside  then even maybe your brand of 'gentle irony/sarcasm' could get on my nerves

Edited October 5, 2013 by jethro
Tut tut

[Fergus Brown]

Well, Tamara, it sounds like you have made your mind up about me already, which means it's unlikely that we'll be able to reach an understanding.

I try to be nice to everyone but some people don't take to me - not sure I can do much about it.

Shame, though; I enjoy spirited discussion.

I'll continue to do my best to be reasonable and only ask that others try their best to do the same.

Maybe it's like one of those speed-dating things where you know before you've even sat down that this one's a non-starter...

not that I've ever done speed dating. Or am suggesting that you have. Hmm... I'm not going to get this right, am I?

Never mind. Good will

[john pike]

fergus this is a tiny amount of info re techtonic plates

 

if you wish to read this lot feel free to but it is a very complex affair and the models that the ipcc use

can only guess as to how this reacts in the future

these have played a part in earths climate for millions of years and sometimes they are more active than others

 

anyway feel free to read and hopefully most of your questions are linked up in this lot

 

Subduction zones are whwen two large lithosphere plates crrashinto each other causing one of the plates to dive under the other . They occur at the plate boundary.Plate boundaries are found at the edge of lithoisphere plates . There are three types of plate boundaries,convergent ,divergent and transformation. They can be larger than continets ...so they say, about 50 to 250 miles long.Transformation takes place between plate boundaries. One type of transform is seafloor spreading, where new land under the sea is created .Also erupting magma forms mountain ranges, in addition earthquakes, and erupting magma could destroy plant and animal life.Divergent and convergent plates are located at the bottom of the ocean , people think just because it at the bottom of the ocean it cant hurt our enviroment...WRONG,Divergent plates tend to move away from each other and convergent plates move together . This is the area that contains most of the worlds EARTHQUAKES, VOLCANOES,and mountain formation. But here's the funny thing .. I watched this video that says that there are NO subduction zones. It says thatthere are two rifts where the sea floor is spreading,one is in the Pacific and the Atlantic ocean. Core samples tell the age of the sea floor. The samples taken show that the age of the sea floor is much youngeer than the area farther away then the area fatther from the rift sea floor spreading.The area underneath the continets are too dense and rigid to move ,therefore the lithospheric plates do not move .The rifts open from from magma to create sea floor spreading which in turns creates more land.--71.254.220.87 (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Young Thinker--71.254.220.87 (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

 

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/causes.html

Over time, plate tectonic processes cause continents to move to different positions on the globe.

For example, Britain was near to the equator 300 million years ago, and therefore was hotter than it is today.

The movement of the plates also causes volcanoes and mountains to form and these too can contribute to a change in climate.

http://geology.uprm.edu/Morelock/eustatic.htm

Tanner ¹⁹⁶⁵ proposed that Pleistocene glaciations were triggered by the continents approaching their present configuration with the south pole over a landmass and the north pole situated in a shallow inland sea. The restricted heat transfer encouraged a much more zoned world climate. Glacial and interstadial episodes were then controlled by the diversion of bottom waters away from the Arctic Sea by features such as the ridge between Greenland and Scotland. More recent studies by George Stanley at Johns Hopkins University suggest an important role for the Isthmus of Panama as it formed 2-3 million years ago. These paleoclimate models highlight the potential importance of continental and oceanic evolution to the extent that they modify large-scale oceanic circulation. As our understanding of the relationship between this "oceanic conveyor belt" of Broecker ^{(Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory)} and global climate grows, so does our appreciation of the complex interplay among tectonic, oceanographic and atmospheric factors.

 

https://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/papers2/deconto_tectonics&climate.pdf

i would suggest reading this in full

 The oceans transport vast amounts of water, heat, and salt across
entire ocean basins and from low to high latitudes. As the ocean
basins and the gateways between them evolve over tectonic
timescales, so does ocean circulation. These tectonically-forced
changes in ocean circulation have long been thought to play a
key role in some of the major climatic events and transitions
recognized in the geological record. While the timing of some
tectonic gateway events broadly correspond with major paleoenvironmental
changes (e.g., the ocean anoxic events (OAEs) of
the Cretaceous (Leckie et al., 2002), the onset of Antarctic glaciation
in the earliest Oligocene (Kennett, 1977; Livermore et al.,
2004), and the onset of Northern Hemisphere glacial cycles in
the Pliocene (Haug and Tiedemann, 1998)), the actual role of the ocean in these changes remains equivocal and likely involves
a complex web of both direct and indirect effects.

http://www.geo.umn.edu/courses/1001/climate_natural.html

 

no complete answer and that includes man made theory

heres the basic easy to understand theory

• [*]

Theory of Plate Tectonics - Continental Drift

[*]

Earths outer shell is composed of plates -->

[*]

they move at a rate of about 3 cm per year

[*]

affect of more land at higher latitudes:

• [*]

alter ocean currents and therefore heat transport

[*]

alter global atmospheric circulation

[*]

more glaciers over land, higher albedo, cooler temps.

[*]

plate movement also generates more volcanic activity

• [*]

hence, when the plates are on the move, have more volcanic eruptions -> emit more CO₂ into atmosphere

[*]

this would cause global temps to rise.

[*]

if there is little movement, volcanic activity decreases -> so CO₂ concentrations are lower in the atmosphere -> avg temp decreases

http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter16/plate_tech.html

and

http://www.brighthub.com/environment/science-environmental/articles/74098.aspx

 

point re ipcc including techtonic plates in the models

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-5.html

they have studied it but problem is it is near on impossible to predict what that will do the

next day let alone over a long period

 

Carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere acts as a greenhouse gas, trapping infrared energy re-radiated from the earth's surface, resulting in increased atmospheric temperatures. Increased rates of sea floor spreading, such as those postulated for the warmer Cretaceous period, should be associated with greater outgassing of carbon dioxide through volcanic activity. Increased concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide could be accommodated by increased silicate weathering, which consumes carbon dioxide. However, increased sea-floor spreading is also associated with high sea level. This process can be illustrated by imagining a cup filled to the brim with water. The addition of mass to the bottom of the cup (new sea floor) results in the overflow of water from the cup. Flooding of continental regions decreases the area available for weathering of silicates - thus, decreasing the likelihood that weathering processes could compensate for increases in carbon dioxide due to increased rates of tectonism

A variety of data suggest that the mid Cretaceous was a warmer interval. These data include high latitude coal deposits, extended ranges for coral reefs, displaced vegetation zones, higher sea level and isotopic evidence of increased ocean temperatures. Specifically, isotopic data suggest that globally averaged ocean surface temperatures in the Cretaceous were as much as 6-12 °C higher than at present (Barron, 1994). A variety of factors may have contributed to this warmer climate. The distribution and relative extent of sea and land masses during the Cretaceous was an important influence on atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. However, computer models that simulate the Cretaceous geography only yield a global warming of 4.8 °C instead of the presumed 6-12 °C change (Barron, 1994). But sea floor spreading rates in the Cretaceous may have been twice as great as the modern spreading rate. Increased sea floor spreading would have resulted in continental flooding and greater outgassing of CO2 to the atmosphere. Models of the Cretaceous climate, assuming a quadrupled atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, yield global warming of 8°C (Barron, 1994), similar to the observed warming of 6-12°C. Improved computer models will help to better identify the causes of the extreme warmth of the Cretaceous but it is clear from current models that both the direct effects of plate tectonics on the land-sea distributions, and its indirect effects on geochemical processes probably played significant roles.
 
 

even wiki have a link re this

Volcanoes represent powerful images and forces on Earth's landscape. Generation of a volcano depends on its location and magmatic origin. Magmas will remain a melt until pressure and temperature allow crystallization and outgassing. During outgassing, the magma chamber will rise and meet Earth's surface causing a volcano. Depending on the composition of the melted material, this volcano could contain a variety of gases. Most of the gases emitted via volcanic eruption are greenhouse gases and cause atmospheric alterations. These atmospheric alterations then force the climate, both regionally and locally, to reach a new equilibrium with the new atmosphere. These changes can reflect as cooling, warming, higher precipitation rates and many others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectonic%E2%80%93climatic_interaction

Thermal expansion – As seawater becomes warmer it expands. Heat in the upper layer of the ocean is released quickly into the atmosphere. However, heat absorbed by the deeper layers of the ocean will take much longer to be released and therefore, be stored in the ocean much longer and have significant impacts on future ocean warming.

Read more at http://www.wunderground.com/climate/SeaLevelRise.asp#wQC0ZWQ0YFzwjdPZ.99

 

however this is a uncertain theory due to lack of data in the seas-oceans

 

A significant volcanic eruption, usually persisting
over a long period of time, builds seamounts, underwater
volcanic peaks rising more than 1000 m (3300 ft) above
the ocean floor. Examples include the Emperor Seamounts
in the North Pacific Ocean basin. Massive eruptions may
cause the top of the volcano to break the water surface,
rising above sea level and forming a volcanic island.
The Hawaiian Islands, Iceland, and most other oceanic
islands are products of such submarine volcanic activity.
With the passage of time and the decline and eventual
end of volcanic
activity, weathering and erosion rapidly
dissect and greatly reduce the elevation of volcanic
islands. Meanwhile,
the subsurface void produced by
the discharge of lava during island formation may start
to collapse, causing the island to sink back into the sea.
Movement of the oceanic
crust away from divergent plate
boundaries also transports
volcanoes into deeper waters.

again volcanoes rising and collapsing very quickly can cause quite a heat increase but are not always noticed

 

another link to read

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

 

finally

http://www.livescience.com/21396-underwater-volcano-eruption.html

have not even mentioned underwater volcanoes

black smokers vents chimneys

if you wish to read this lot please feel free to do so

re your comment re arctic ice melt

i said i do not believe agw has a bearing on the melt or refreeze

this is not the same as saying its not important to study it

just a shame the ipcc use these issues to blame man on this when there are plenty

of others causes that can contribute to it

 

one question that you did not answer

i posted the map of the sea temps rises and the plates of the world

they quite clearing show the heat in the areas of the plates

would you like to comment on that

if i have missed something sorry but if you think this subject is easy you are mistaken

i will not be back for a while as my services are needed elsewhere for a few days

regards

john

[stewfox]

Hi Stew,

I must be brief in my reply otherwise I'll justifiably be accused of hijacking your part of the forum.

 

It looks like there are quite a lot of things we (broadly) agree on.

 

My impression is that your interest is mainly about extreme weather rather than climate - is this right?

 

--------------  etc

 

. Which is why, though I don't think we will see the most powerful impacts in our lifetimes, I do think that we have an obligation to get off our backsides and do something about it, inasmuch as anything; mitigation, adaptation and anything else positive, is better than doing nothing.

 

Enough for now.

 

My interest is in meteorology and has been since I was around 6.

 

I suppose you have kind of 'supported' unknowingly the reason why there are two separated threads, I'm not sure if there is much benefit in trying to preach to someone re 'where they have gone wrong' ?

 

We often forget there is a massive cost in having wide spread green taxes or spending trillions globally on unnecessary projects that are based on untested science.

 

Its not a question of getting of ones feet and waiving a flag, also more generally being a sceptic for me doesn't make one 'anti green', happy to have a 10p charge for each plastic bag at the check outs.

Edited October 6, 2013 by stewfox

[Fergus Brown]

John - for when you get back;

 

I found this: http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/voices-volcanic-versus-anthropogenic-carbon-dioxide-missing-science?page=1

 

On the surface of it the article seems to address a lot of the ideas you propose.

 

I'd appreciate your feedback.

 

Thanks

[Tamara]

My interest is in meteorology and has been since I was around 6.

 

I suppose you have kind of 'supported' unknowingly the reason why there are two separated threads, I'm not sure if there is much benefit in trying to preach to someone re 'where they have gone wrong' ?

 

We often forget there is a massive cost in having wide spread green taxes or spending trillions globally on unnecessary projects that are based on untested science.

 

Its not a question of getting of ones feet and waiving a flag, also more generally being a sceptic for me doesn't make one 'anti green', happy to have a 10p charge for each plastic bag at the check outs.

I think it is important to be open minded on all these threads. I don't think in general there is any unwillingness of people to do this on their part - it is more to do with attempts to impose opinions on others that causes the divide and need for two separate threads. Imparting information about the various drivers behind climate variation is to be welcomed from all sides - we can all then read what is available and make our own minds up. Preaching however and being told what to believe will always keep a barrier in place.

 

I hoped to see more from the latest IPCC report that might give new food for thought - but as i see it, it is very much a case of 'same old' recycled simply to try to give a fresh impetus to the climate change campaign. However, the feedback assumptions are still as uncertain as ever - and the coming years would need to be seen to buck the trend to suggest that any artificial forcings that may be present are having anything like the effect that we keep being told they are by anthropromorphic agences as highlighted by the IPCC in their work to serve the governmental agendas.

 

And being sceptical and open minded is essential in finding out the truth - which is the importance of this thread

Edited October 6, 2013 by Tamara תָּמָר

[Fergus Brown]

Hi Stew,

 

My interest is in meteorology and has been since I was around 6.

Guess this is why we're both here...

I suppose you have kind of 'supported' unknowingly the reason why there are two separated threads, I'm not sure if there is much benefit in trying to preach to someone re 'where they have gone wrong' ?

Agree. Preaching is annoying. What about discussing opinions and challenging the assumptions that lie behind them? Is this a good thing to do or a bad thing? I'm happy to be contradicted and corrected - it's how I learn. Generally; Polemic = monologue, Debate = dialogue. Does anyone want to engage in a dialogue about climate change, or is this now impossible?

We often forget there is a massive cost in having wide spread green taxes or spending trillions globally on unnecessary projects that are based on untested science.

Ignoring the second part of your comment for now, this is at the centre of both the ethical and political divide (sic) over climate change, sustainability in general, and ecology & environmentalism; not the taxes, but the costs. Very broadly, one side argues that spending now is an investment in the future and is Morally necessary, the other that it is a tax on the present with limited future benefit and is Practically inefficient (and unfair). It is very hard to cross this divide once it has been established.

Its not a question of getting of ones feet and waiving a flag, also more generally being a sceptic for me doesn't make one 'anti green', happy to have a 10p charge for each plastic bag at the check outs.

I would argue that addressing GW is one of several imperatives which have fallen to our generation in relation to the planet on which we live and the people on it. I happen to think it's one of the most important ones, but almost all of the key global environmental and social issues which face us today are interlinked on so many ways, it isn't necessary to me that everyone else thinks this way. In terms of 'action vs inertia', each of us can make our own personal decisions. But the sheer weight of the evidence that we are continuing a tradition of screwing up our planet and creating human misery is so great that many -probably most - of us now feel that 'something should be done'. On a personal level, every drop in the ocean towards a more sustainable world is a good thing, and even if the ocean is vast, (to paraphrase Cloud Atlas) 'what is the ocean but a multitude of drops?' On a society-wide level, if you believe strongly enough that you want to contribute, you can be politically active or organisationally active. What truly concerns me is the consequence of inaction.

 

Nice to chat...

[Fergus Brown]

I think it is important to be open minded on all these threads. I don't think in general there is any unwillingness of people to do this on their part - it is more to do with attempts to impose opinions on others that causes the divide and need for two separate threads. Imparting information about the various drivers behind climate variation is to be welcomed from all sides - we can all then read what is available and make our own minds up. Preaching however and being told what to believe will always keep a barrier in place.

 

I hoped to see more from the latest IPCC report that might give new food for thought - but as i see it, it is very much a case of 'same old' recycled simply to try to give a fresh impetus to the climate change campaign. However, the feedback assumptions are still as uncertain as ever - and the coming years would need to be seen to buck the trend to suggest that any artificial forcings that may be present are having anything like the effect that we keep being told they are by anthropromorphic agences as highlighted by the IPCC in their work to serve the governmental agendas.

 

And being sceptical and open minded is essential in finding out the truth - which is the importance of this thread

Hi Tamara,

 

In response to your assertion that the feedback assumptions are uncertain, here is a link to chapter 10 of the AR5 : http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter10.pdf

 

It is quite a lot to read, so it's probably forgiveable to focus on the summary. On the basis of the evidence presented there, which of the feedback assumptions do you think we should look more closely at?

 

I agree that it is important to be open minded, so I am not asking you to agree that I am right, but giving you the opportunity to show me that I am wrong to think that humans are responsible for at least half of the observed warming, as asserted by the IPCC in summary of the evidence of scientific research.

 

[john pike]

maybe its me but stopped reading that report after the 5th likely

 

i will respond to that link re volcanes later but not sure where the man made co2

against volcano argument comes into it

 

i will show you later how misleading that blog post was

 

challenge for you fergus

 

show evidence where the 50th warming is caused by man and not the maybe possibly and likely slapped

 

all over the reports

 

most here want actual facts not assumptions which is all that seems to be used as fact

[Tamara]

Being open minded isn't inextricably about being right or wrong. Opinions are a constant work in progress that can evolve or stand still according to how one is, or isn't, moved by what they find out. On that basis there is no need or purpose in trying to prove anyone right or wrong - doing so can be a futile and counter productive process. That is the point. And that is where this thread has its relevance in the same way as the manmade thread. My recent (very rare) post in the man made thread, whilst having some relevance to some comments made there about solar science, was also meant to serve to indicate that value of posting without obligation to have to automatically respond to another if so desired. Hence for that reason I won't be choosing to post in there again in the foreseeable future. There are plenty of other threads available to do so if one chooses to want to engage in exchanges... voluntarily

 

Too many repetitive, circular and time wasting exchanges are the result when getting into 'right or wrong' exchanges. Hence it can be far more convenient sometimes to simply post your thoughts without any of the associated baggage that follows afterwards.

Edited October 6, 2013 by Tamara תָּמָר

[UV-RAY]

Being open minded isn't inextricably about being right or wrong. Opinions are a constant work in progress that can evolve or stand still according to how one is, or isn't, moved by what they find out. On that basis there is no need or purpose in trying to prove anyone right or wrong - doing so can be a futile and counter productive process. That is the point. And that is where this thread has its relevance in the same way as the manmade thread. My recent (very rare) post in the man made thread, whilst having some relevance to some comments made there about solar science, was also meant to serve to indicate that value of posting without obligation to have to automatically respond to another if so desired. Hence for that reason I won't be choosing to post in there again in the foreseeable future. There are plenty of other threads available to do so if one chooses to want to engage in exchanges... voluntarily

 

Too many repetitive, circular and time wasting exchanges are the result when getting into 'right or wrong' exchanges. Hence it can be far more convenient sometimes to simply post your thoughts without any of the associated baggage that follows afterwards.

The Punch and Judy syndrome Tamara, hence why I think having separate  threads is a great idea.