Global Cooling Is Here!

It's not that bad. We have various records going back hundreds of thousands, in some cases hundreds of millions, of years. We have a fair understanding of various mechanisms. And the natural fluctuations you are talking about on such long frequencies are not at issue - we are only worried about the next few hundred years at most.

The effects of continental drift we can safely ignore in our predictions. Likewise asteroid impacts, enormous volcanism, and the like - they have had a lot of impact, but there's no point in building models around them as likelihoods.

Also, our lack of daily or weekly resolution in time and square-meter resolution in space is not that important either. If we have an idea of snow in winter, heat in summer, and the generally average values of them over general areas of interest, we have answered a lot of important questions.

So the questions we are asking are - a bit of luck - exactly on the scale we have the best hope of finding answers for - a few dozen years, sections of continents and major ecological and agricultural zones.

Furthermore, rough qualitative estimates are valuable -we don't have to nail Iowa's average nighttime evapo-transpiration deficit in July twenty years from now (important as that will be) to get a valuable warning of the possible effects of the CO2 boost on Iowa corn about when the current CRP contracts are running out.

So when our models check out against the recent past, and then predict the first recorded hurricane off the coast of Brazil, and then tell us we face the possibility of stronger circumpolar Antarctic winds creating essentially permanent drought in much of Australia, it would be best to keep an eye on the trends in Australian rainfall, no? Maybe set up the preliminaries for handling the most immediate problems that would create ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, but those records are by proxy. We can't measure average global temperature 100,000 years ago directly, we have to do it by measuring things like precipitation levels in ice core samples, or CO2 levels in air trapped in those ice cores, then compare that with other proxy measurements from other sources. There's bound to be a greater margin of error in this process.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To show the problem with that, the isotopes of Antarctica and Greenland disagree on the timing of the last glacial termination as can be seen here:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The AGW-ers indeed believe that this alleged temperature difference of 5-10 degrees between north and south is real, whereas current measurements over longer periods show that north and south never deviate much more than a few tenths of degrees

Problem gets larger when it is discovered that many other "proxies" in the northern hemisphere also show warming to be dovetailing with the Antarctic records, not the Greenland records.

More later

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course. And so the margin of error for the most likely onset time of catastrophic Greenland melting, if it's even possible at all (which is debatable and currently being debated, with serious researchers on both sides), is greater than the time remaining before we enter the lower bound of the 90% confidence level on the more alarming models (we're already in the 66%). Your point ?

Or check out Andre's point: that the glacial regime on Greenland - on an island in a polar sea - is not in perfect synchrony with that in Antarctica - on a polar continent - therefore we can double the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere without seriously affecting the climate of either place.

 

Point being we shouldn't be making major policy decisions based on unreliable proxy data.

 

No not local greenland, exactly the same Greenland isotope pattern is found back just about everywhere on the Northern Hemisphere especially around the Atlantic. Well known proxies are the Ammersee in Germany, Lake Gosciaz in Poland, but also the grey scale pattern in the ODP cores of the Cariaco basin, a large hole in the Caraibean, at the coast of Venezuela.

Also interesting is that the CO2 follows the Antarctic isotopes, lagging about 600 years while the CH4 is following the Greenland pattern without much delay. However both gasses are a global signal, spreading within weeks. So if both are about temperature and greenhouse effect, which one is lying?

 

You exaggerate the unreliability -it is a resolution problem and an inference problem, more than a reliability problem.

So you would suggest we make our policy decisions by ignoring lots of data, research, and models, and the likely implications of them ?

Sigh. OK, I amend things to suit your claims, without bothering to verify them or the claimed implications: " Or check out Andre's point: that the glacial regime in the Northern Hemisphere - a land mass dominated region with a polar sea - is not in perfect synchrony with that in the Southern Hemisphere - an ocean dominated region with a polar continent. Therefore we can double the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere without seriously affecting the climate of either place."

 

Not ignoring it, but not making decisions based on it either. The research produces the data, same thing really, and the models are built on the data, same thing again. We shouldn't have to use data simply because it's there.

I can come up with all kinds of data, especially in the field of statistics, for us to use in policy decisions if you'd like. Surveys are a great way to find supporting data for whatever agenda you may have, and surely we're not going to ignore this data in policy decisions just because it's hard to infer what 300 million people want from a "random" sampling of 500?

I'm near Dortmund in Germany and we had a damn blizzard here yesterday. After a winter completely devoid of snow, and temperatures hovering around +10, we got dumped on yesterday and the winds caused a white out. I uploaded a short video of it to show family back home:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY52OF4SbCs

 

So our policy decisions should not be based on the information we have.

What do you plan to base them on ?

 

Which data set is the most important; what should the most research be done on, and in what area, discipline-wise, also geography or geology wise?

What's the most effective source of information? Ocean sediments and currents? Atmospheric humidity, ozone levels, barometry? Glaciology and ice-cores? Solar activity? Computer climate modelling? Freshwater systems (limnology)? Or maybe all the above?

Where should the millions of research dollars be spent, (chuckle) to get the best picture of even the current state of affairs, or possible future states?

What about public awareness? How many industrialists or oil magnates, or insurance companies are concerned, and what about?

If the future is uncertain, how uncertain is it? For example, how uncertain is the "we have 200 years before we have to do anything" scenario?

If the CO2 and CH4 proxy data show that there is some lag, or that CO2 has always followed a warming phase (at least over the last 100k years), isn't there a possibility that more CO2 might be on the way? Maybe we've hastened a warming phase, or bumped the climate out of an established pattern - it's more sensitive to positive feedback than we thought?

I mean it's comforting to sit around and tell yourself everything is ok (and will continue to be), but as they say, reality always catches up, at some stage.

 

Even without global warming we know pollution is destructive to the environment. We know it's often less expensive to prevent pollution than it is to clean it up afterwards. We know the amount of pollution will increase unless we do something about it. We know air pollution will adversely affect our health. I think that's enough information to make the changes we need to make.

 

None of the above, greenhouse gasses are only followers and are incapable of inflicting large changes on the climate.

To know what has been going on in the recent geologic history, the mid to late Pleistocene, with the 100,000 years glacial(?) is paramount. Only a generalist can solve that, not a specialist, it's far too complex in all specialitites. I'm not that generalist but I'm trying.

One thing is for sure, nothing is what it seems to be. Nothing whatsoever. For instance I can and will substantiate that the shown variability in isotopes in Greenland is not only consistent with the isotope physics of humitidity variation, much more than temperature variation. I can also demomstrate that humiditiy changes only, are enough to explain that isotope variation.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This hints that hydrography and oceanography (as precipitation source) are the main area of concern. it's quite sure to me that understanding the behavior of the oceans during the Pleistocene is the key to solving the mystery.

But this key will likely hint towards major unexpected and rapid geography changes of the Earth, things we can do nothing about.

So we should only limit our research to devellop the right belance between society, environment and sustainable energy without worrying about greenhouse gasses.

 

Geoengineering is wrong, we should just let nature take its course... while we are at it medical science is wrong, we should just let nature take its course.

 

In the past, maybe.

But we know by direct measurement that this particular CO2 boost is not a follower.

So what will its effects be ?

So if anyone were claiming that temperature variation was not associated with humidity variation, you'd have a counter-argument.

For example ?

 

care to substantiate that claim?

problem is relative humidity, not absolute humidity. I should have emphasized that. The glacial termination graph is consistent with low relative humidity during the Oldest Dryas and Younger Dryas and high relative humidity during the Bolling Allerod and Preboreal.

Problem is that low temperatures are associated with high relative humidity and vice versa. So if you'd hypothetically kept the absolute humidity about constant but you'd increased the temperature during the Oldest Dryas, aka Mystery interval (Denton et al PAGES, 2006), and the Younger Dryas and you'd decrease the temperature during the Bolling Allerod and the Proboreal you would find that consistent with ALL records and proxies. But it's the world upside down.

For example, variation in eccentricity of the geoid/ellipsoid shape of the Earth.

 

The recent increase in CO2 is all derived from fossil fuel combustion, according to isotope analysis and so forth at Mauna Loa.

What problem ?

Are driving the cllimate on thousand-year cycles. Got it.

 

Some of you seem to be overlooking the fact that comparing climate changes in the past, based on ice-core samples, shows one significant difference. The current rate of change is faster than it has ever been, which argues that we have had some hand in it.

The sane thing to do is to consider coping mechanisms for the future, but that will only happen if there is common consent that we are facing a problem. Sadly. I cannot see that happening because so many have their heads buried in the oil-rich sand.

 

Not a chance, see that spike in that graph in a previous post at 14,500 years ago. The scholar interpretation (not mine) is ten degrees within a decade. Currently we're looking at 0.6 in a century, followed by the current decline to a lot less.

 

Global warming is the most visible problem, but another even more pressing problem is peak oil, which everyone seem to ignore for some reason! When you have the CEO of Shell admit that his product will not be able to match world demand within the next 7 years you would think that would be big news, but noooo not a peep.