Climate Change Banter

[chubbs]

I agree that the paper is fatally flawed, but too many people misunderstand what ice core proxies are actually measuring. The isotope ratios used to reconstruct temperature are governed by processes over the tropical, subtropical, and extratropical oceans, not over the Arctic. The heavier O^3 isotopes are mostly rained out by 50-60N, in fact.

The isotope ratios within ice cores are, for all intents and purposes, hemispheric SST proxies. The Arctic cores depict SSTs over the Northern Hemisphere, while the Antarctic cores depict SSTs over the Southern Hemisphere.

No the temperatures are regional. Changes in isotope ratio during vapor transport are more important than changes at the source. The heavier isotopes are preferentially removed as water vapor is transported, lifted, cooled and percipitated. A local calibration is performed to relate isotope concentration to temperature on the ice sheet. Note that a part of the variation in the isotope record is due to changes in moisture transport to the ice sheet and not temperature.

[StudentOfClimatology]

No the temperatures are regional. Changes in isotope ratio during vapor transport are more important than changes at the source. The heavier isotopes are preferentially removed as water vapor is transported, lifted, cooled and percipitated. A local calibration is performed to relate isotope concentration to temperature on the ice sheet. Note that a part of the variation in the isotope record is due to changes in moisture transport to the ice sheet and not temperature.

They're not regional..the temperatures required to vaporize bonds w/ O^18 and maintain buoyancy (at the aforementioned ratio) are far above those found above 60N for most of the year. Nothing is regionally represented within the ice core data, whether it be dust concentration, or isotope formation/separation.

[AvantHiatus]

They're not regional..I don't know where you've been getting your education, but the temperatures required to vaporize bonds w/ O^18 and maintain buoyancy (at the aforementioned ratio) are far above those found above 60N for most of the year.

This is rich.

[StudentOfClimatology]

This is rich.

I'm sick of rehashing preschool science to you. Arguing that the O^18/^16 ratios are regionally representative is analogous to arguing that CO^2 is not well mixed, or that the dust concentration in the ice pack is regional.

http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/documents/icecore_review.pdf

http://eo.ucar.edu/staff/rrussell/climate/paleoclimate/ice_core_proxy_records.html

The ratio of concentrations of two isotopes of oxygen in the water molecules in ice serves as a proxy indicator of global temperatures. Oxygen has two commonly occurring natural isotopes, the usual 16O (which makes up more than 99% of naturally occurring oxygen on Earth) and the less abundant 18O. The two extra neutrons in 18O cause water molecules containing this isotope to be heavier than normal water molecules. These heavier water molecules cannot escape from ocean water to become water vapor in the atmosphere via evaporation as readily as lighter water molecules. This tendency for preferential evaporation of 18O varies, however, as a result of the ocean temperature. Through a rather complex chain of events involving the global water cycle, this disparity between concentrations of oxygen-18 and oxygen-16 shows up in the snow that falls in polar regions, and thus in the ice formed from this snow. The net result is that the ratio of 18O to 16O in ice samples provides clues about global ocean temperatures and the extent of the polar ice caps at a given time in Earth's history.

[superjames1992]

It's coming bro. I don't know what to say, it's a shame Dr. Wadhams moved his prediction to 2017.

 

So, you're predicting an ice-free Arctic within the next couple years?  Okay, good luck.

[AvantHiatus]

So, you're predicting an ice-free Arctic within the next couple years?  Okay, good luck.

Have fun with that. No i'm not predicting, it's just possible, and it would of been nice to see someone have the courage to be ballsy with risky forecasts.

[blizzard1024]

Should be obvious, we live in society deeply rooted in labels and institutions. It makes it easier for us to isolate sources of conflict and resolve them, either diplomatically/integration or by one side destroying the other.

 

Of course, someone on the inside looking out might not see the situation as it truely exists from an external observer. As with the body, our inner emotions are biased and how society views itself is also faulty.

 

There is this exceptional misdirected optimism in America and other first-world capitalistic countries. Nobody alive today has lived without the comforts of modern 20th century civilization living and there is a tendency to believe a breakdown is simply not possible. What does this have to do with CC and Denial? It just implies that we are emotionally "conditioned" from the get-go to deny.

 

You don't really want to be on the wrong end of a conflict with such wide sweeping implications such as climate change. Any person who cares about their prestige would think twice and take the low road and listen to informed experts and policy makers. You are so entrenched but I want you to get out in one piece so here's your chance.

 

We are all human here. I think we forget that. Debating climate change is nowhere near the same level as debating gay marriage. That hasn't stopped institutions like the SPLC and similar from keeping racism and racial division alive and well. The problem with the left is that their opinion of humans is very diminished and they hate the individual. Infact, they think people are born sexual, born afflicted, born poor, born racist. and have to be indoctrinated, aka reminded of our horrible history in order to prevent it from happening in the future. The perspective has always been backward looking. We've never been forwardly optimistic and we are slow to leave outdated institutions and ways of thinking behind.

 

Thank goodness that the pope finally accepted climate change. Religion has been hurting us for a long long time and has lead to the worst epochs in human history.

 

Regardless, 1C of warming is enough to prompt action. We've had high damages from events with AGW influence in their signature. Don't respond with garbage about how it's not knowable, it's also not knowable that AGW did not influence these events.

 

Ok then. What do you propose we do? That's the hard part. Fossil fuels are so important to the world today that making a drastic change would hurt economies and people would suffer. I think the only hope is adapting to whatever the climate deals us. Eventually the climate will change significantly...either cold or warm and mankind just will have to adapt. What is the carrying capacity of the planet of humans? How many billions?? Cheap energy = prosperity and we all have had access to it our whole lives. Go over to parts of Africa where they don't have electricity. People burn wood for fuel and cooking have miserably difficult and short life spans. I don't want that for my kids. They also decimate the environment by cutting down trees. Even if the Earth warms 3-4C in the next 1 to 2 hundred years I believe mankind will adapt. If not, then we will see a massive die off and mother Earth will restore mankind to its carrying capacity whatever that may be.  

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

3 things we could pretty much confirm are occurring , with no real known endgame :

 

1) Co2 increasing every year...  ( I won't even go into the causes or future effects....since it'll automatically cause arguments / flame / spam )

 

2) An enormous amount of more moisture in the environment over the years, due to more freshwater / icemelting every year.  (arctic)   Which is surely already to blame for massive flooding outbreaks all across the globe.  

 

3) Clouds lowering, with no known explanation. Could also be contributing to massive amounts of rainfall in short periods of time.  http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=3285

 

Lead researcher Roger Davies said that while the record is too short to be definitive, it provides a hint that something quite important might be going on. Longer-term monitoring will be required to determine the significance of the observation for global temperatures.

 

 

 

and I didn't even mention the Methane / Aerosols ...

[Jonger]

3 things we could pretty much confirm are occurring , with no real known endgame :

 

1) Co2 increasing every year...  ( I won't even go into the causes or future effects....since it'll automatically cause arguments / flame / spam )

 

2) An enormous amount of more moisture in the environment over the years, due to more freshwater / icemelting every year.  (arctic)   Which is surely already to blame for massive flooding outbreaks all across the globe.  

 

3) Clouds lowering, with no known explanation. Could also be contributing to massive amounts of rainfall in short periods of time.  http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=3285

 

right....

 

Because floods are a new thing, 

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

right....

 

Because floods are a new thing, 

 

 

The types and severity of them are.. 

[chubbs]

I'm sick of rehashing preschool science to you. Arguing that the O^18/^16 ratios are regionally representative is analogous to arguing that CO^2 is not well mixed, or that the dust concentration in the ice pack is regional.

http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/documents/icecore_review.pdf

http://eo.ucar.edu/staff/rrussell/climate/paleoclimate/ice_core_proxy_records.html

 

Quotes from p6 of your first reference below. It is very clear that the ice core temperatures are regional.

 

 "As these water molecules are evaporated, primarily from the oceans, the lighter molecules, those having fewer neutrons, are preferentially evaporated over the heavier ones, due to a slight difference in vapor pressure caused by the extra neutrons. This causes the vapor to be depleted in heavy molecules but enriched in lighter ones. As the air mass cools and condensation occurs, the heavier molecules preferentially condense due to the same principle The condensation is then assumed to fall out of the cloud as precipitation. Thus, the oxygen isotopic ratio of rain and snow is strongly related to condensatIf the temperature of the air mass should continue to fall, the condensation will contain decreasing concentrations of the heavy molecules, resulting in a depletion of 18O relative to precipitation that condensed in a warmer environmention temperature. . ....In the context of ice cores, this technique allows scientists to estimate the actual air temperature of condensation when the snow fell".

[StudentOfClimatology]

Did you intentionally take that sentence out of context? Sorry to be rude, but this has to be the 5th time I've gone over this. My specialized area of study is paleoclimate..this is 1st grade stuff.

That sentence is referring to dating of the estimated temperature..*when* the snow fell, not *where* the snow fell. The temperature of condensation determines the initial O^16/O^18 ratio as the precipitation process is just getting underway..the required temperature to keep O^2^18 bonded and bouyant during the evaporation process does not occur above 50-60N.

The ratio of concentrations of two isotopes of oxygen in the water molecules in ice serves as a proxy indicator of global temperatures. Oxygen has two commonly occurring natural isotopes, the usual 16O (which makes up more than 99% of naturally occurring oxygen on Earth) and the less abundant 18O. The two extra neutrons in 18O cause water molecules containing this isotope to be heavier than normal water molecules. These heavier water molecules cannot escape from ocean water to become water vapor in the atmosphere via evaporation as readily as lighter water molecules. This tendency for preferential evaporation of 18O varies, however, as a result of the ocean temperature.

The net result is that the ratio of 18O to 16O in ice samples provides clues about global ocean temperatures and the extent of the polar ice caps at a given time in Earth's history.

[ma blizzard]

I think 2 different concepts are being argued over, especially the second point:

 

1.) O^18 / O^16 ratio is indicative of changes in global SST / change in global ice volume --> relate to global surface Temps, although not directly 

2.) O^18 / O^16 ratio corresponds to temperature of snow when the snow fell, which isn't necessarily where the snow fell .. 

[StudentOfClimatology]

I think 2 different concepts are being argued over, especially the second point:

1.) O^18 / O^16 ratio is indicative of changes in global SST / change in global ice volume --> relate to global surface Temps, although not directly

2.) O^18 / O^16 ratio corresponds to temperature of snow when the snow fell, which isn't necessarily where the snow fell ..

Bingo, and both of these are true.

Ice cores are the very foundation of paleoclimate research today, so I'm surprised so many people don't understand how to interpret them. If anything, they're hemispheric SST proxies.

[chubbs]

I think 2 different concepts are being argued over, especially the second point:

 

1.) O^18 / O^16 ratio is indicative of changes in global SST / change in global ice volume --> relate to global surface Temps, although not directly 

2.) O^18 / O^16 ratio corresponds to temperature of snow when the snow fell, which isn't necessarily where the snow fell .. 

 Yes The ice core records are broadly indicative of  regional and hemispheric temperatures but are most closely related to cloud temperatures when snow condenses. The measured oxygen isotope ratios in the core are usually converted to temperatures by collecting current ice sheet snow and temperature data  and correlating the local isotope ratios and temperatures

[StudentOfClimatology]

Yes The ice core records are broadly indicative of regional and hemispheric temperatures but are most closely related to cloud temperatures when snow condenses. The measured oxygen isotope ratios in the core are usually converted to temperatures by collecting current ice sheet snow and temperature data and correlating the local isotope ratios and temperatures

The bold is where you make a leap...that's only half of what determines the weight of the ratio. Remember that the temperature at which evaporation occurs determines the initial O^16/O^18 ratio before the precipitation process occurs..polar SSTs are usually too cold to sufficiently evaporate O^18 at the ratio observed in the cores. A good portion of the O^18 that precipitates over the poles has a tropical/subtropical source. These isotopes are subsequently rained out during the condensation process and relatively few are transported to the poles. So, warmer tropical/mid-latitude oceans will lead to more O^18 being transported poleward.

For all intents and purposes, ice cores are hemispheric SST proxies.

[blizzard1024]

The types and severity of them are.. 

 

And you know this from what study? How do you know that land use changes, and poor engineering in cities is not the cause??? That is what we have found in our local flood studies. Has nothing to do with climate change. Man put a lot of cities and towns on drained swamps in the flood plains back in the 50s and 60s and now we are paying the price as the infrastructure wears down.

[ORH_wxman]

The empirical evidence shows no detectable link between floods and AGW. It is in the IPCC SREX report.

[chubbs]

The bold is where you make a leap...that's only half of what determines the weight of the ratio. Remember that the temperature at which evaporation occurs determines the initial O^16/O^18 ratio before the precipitation process occurs..polar SSTs are usually too cold to sufficiently evaporate O^18 at the ratio observed in the cores. A good portion of the O^18 that precipitates over the poles has a tropical/subtropical source. These isotopes are subsequently rained out during the condensation process and relatively few are transported to the poles. So, warmer tropical/mid-latitude oceans will lead to more O^18 being transported poleward.

For all intents and purposes, ice cores are hemispheric SST proxies.

You are underestimating the importance of condensation vs evaporation. Here is a plot of current mean annual temperature vs isotope ratio for samples collected at different locations in Antarctica and Greenland. Note the Antarctic data is Deuterium and Greenland is O18. There is a very good correlation between isotope ratio in current snow samples and the local mean annual temperature.  O18 is removed preferentially over the  lowest and warmest portions of the ice sheet so by the time water vapor reaches the highest and coldest locations it has been significantly depleted in O18.

 

Lets go back to the original point. The lines in this plot, or similar, are used to convert the measured isotope ratio in the ice core to a local temperature value. So when the paper that started this discussion reports ice core temperature variation of 0.97C it doesn't mean that the mean global temperature has varied by 0.97C.  Similarly when an ice core shows a temperature change of 10C in a short period of time during the Younger Dryas it doesn't mean that the mean global temperature varied by 10C - obviously the oceans can't warm or cool that quickly.

 

However I do agree that ice cores are good proxies for temperature change over broad regions. There had to be large changes in NH jet stream configuration and climate during the Younger Dryas and similar periods with rapid variation in ice core temperature.

 

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

chubbs, student, orh...there are way too many environmental variables to strain your brains on such nonsense equations. (without even mentioning space / solar / or even magnetic variables... Yeah, it temporarily makes you look like a rocket scientist to the public...but to no avail.

 

And you know this from what study? How do you know that land use changes, and poor engineering in cities is not the cause??? That is what we have found in our local flood studies. Has nothing to do with climate change. Man put a lot of cities and towns on drained swamps in the flood plains back in the 50s and 60s and now we are paying the price as the infrastructure wears down.

 

How about record crests that frequently continue to be not only broken by a foot or so....but smashed by 10 feet or more.  The weekend storms in Texas / Ok were just a sample.

[Jonger]

The types and severity of them are.. 

 

We have no way to verify this.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

We have no way to verify this.

 

 

typical denier talk.

 

It's ok, most here already know how the place operates.. 

[Jonger]

typical denier talk.

 

It's ok, most here already know how the place operates.. 

 

You can't fling these claims out there with no possible way to verify the claim.

[ORH_wxman]

typical denier talk.

 

It's ok, most here already know how the place operates.. 

 

There's no empirical evidence for your claim. That is actually how science works. The actual research done (rather than just a belief) on this has shown there has been no detectable link between floods and AGW.

 

 

Read the literature for yourself. the IPCC SREX reports conlcuded based on the literature:

 

“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”

 

 

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/

 

 

 

 

This doesn't mean that some spots won't see increases in flooding. But other spots may see decreases in flooding as well....and it is possible that in the future, we may see more flooding overall. However, empirical evidence so far does not show a link so far between AGW and floods.

 

 

You can read a recent study that is centered on the U.S. and flooding:

 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02626667.2011.621895

[ORH_wxman]

I think people are talking about two different elements here. While it has been shown

that daily rainfall extremes increase in a warming climate, the data related to floods

includes land use changes which make trends harder to detect. You can also

see the US regional daily heavy rainfall extremes increasing on the CEI index.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130201100036.htm

 

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/heavy-downpours-increasing

 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/us/4/01-12

 

 

The study I linked for the U.S. in the post above tries to filter out land use by choosing river basins that have had little to no development or interference along them. They still concluded that no detectable trends in floods were found.

[ORH_wxman]

That's why it's probably more reliable to look at changes in daily rainfall extremes since the land use changes will have

such a great impact on flood potential.

 

 

They did find a statistically insignificant positive flood trend in the northeast where we've seen an increase in extreme rainfall events...the latter is statistically significant while the former is not.

 

The only statisically significant trend on floods vs CO2 they found was the southwest U.S. where the trend was negative.

 

 

They noted that spatial distribution of heavy precip could be a problem in predicting future trends because we have little to no skill in predicting regional trends.

[AvantHiatus]

The empirical evidence shows no detectable link between floods and AGW. It is in the IPCC SREX report.

Yet you cannot disprove it. It's a poor choice if you want to make an argument for sure. Everyone remember the Colorado floods?

 

Could be a case of indirect system forcing from AGW leading to heavy rains. Strictly speaking, it's still not caused by AGW if this is true.

[ORH_wxman]

Yet you cannot disprove it. It's a poor choice if you want to make an argument for sure. Everyone remember the Colorado floods?

 

Could be a case of indirect system forcing from AGW leading to heavy rains. Strictly speaking, it's still not caused by AGW if this is true.

 

There's a ton of things that cannot be disproved. But yet we try and not to make statements about them as if they were fact. We can't disprove that aliens have landed on earth...but most of us do not go around stating that is as fact just because it cannot be disproved. The fact that nobody can prove they landed on earth is good enough to be skeptical.

 

Extreme weather has happened long before AGW existed. So the goal of attribution studies is to try and figure out if AGW has changed the frequency of extreme weather. For some instances, we get good empirical evidence such as increased frequency of heat waves. For others, we do not have empirical evidence that there are changes in frequency or that changes are not as a result of AGW since there are known cyclical patterns to certain types of extreme events. (drought in North America has long been linked to -PDO/+AMO couplet) It is not always an easy task of isolating natural variability.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

There's no empirical evidence for your claim. That is actually how science works. The actual research done (rather than just a belief) on this has shown there has been no detectable link between floods and AGW.

 

 

Read the literature for yourself. the IPCC SREX reports conlcuded based on the literature:

 

“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”

 

 

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/

 

 

There are times when you need to throw out whatever your college professor has taught you over the years, and look at things full scope.

 

Or whoever (or whatever) sources you allow yourself to be guided by.

 

 

 

You can read a recent study that is centered on the U.S. and flooding:

 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02626667.2011.621895

 

A site nobody's heard of before.    I wonder if they've accepted donations over the years.

[AvantHiatus]

^ (in a sense)

 

Given we are entering a new climate era, everything from now on is pretty much causative of a different background state. Even if it happens to be like it was in the 20th century, it will still arrive differently.

 

I am disappointed because climate change is perfectly wired to beat us across the board.