Climate Change Banter

[AvantHiatus]

So, you're back to making things up. Stupid of me to expect otherwise.

Well my man, 250ft SLR rise takes time ya know no matter how much CO2 is discharged. It's not made up at all but may not be necessarily correct. Nobody is capable of predicting the future 100% using logic.

 

I think the middle road approach is the best option but it is the most risky economic/quality of living path because we risk simultaneously investing and collapsing in the short and long-term. The reward is a streamlined capitalistic transition to the new green economy without breaking the bank.

[Jonger]

Well my man, 250ft SLR rise takes time ya know no matter how much CO2 is discharged. It's not made up at all but may not be necessarily correct. Nobody is capable of predicting the future using logic.

 

I think the middle road approach is the best option but the most risky approach because we risk simultaneously investing and collapsing in the short and long-term.

 

250 feet of sea level rise isn't going to happen before the next glacial age begins. That would require melting Antarctica, it's still gaining ice in the interior -- the calving on the edges might be completely normal. 

[ORH_wxman]

Well at least the moonbat SLR scenarios are in the banter thread.

[AvantHiatus]

250 feet of sea level rise isn't going to happen before the next glacial age begins. That would require melting Antarctica, it's still gaining ice in the interior -- the calving on the edges might be completely normal. 

Well if we ever reach a certain SLR threshold, ice ages no longer become possible in a sense of the normal holocene cycle. There would be a massive delay of perhaps 500k to 3 million years if we ever reach CO2 levels of 600-800ppm+ due to feedback systems.

 

Like I said tho, the final outcome likely resides between Hansen and IPCC. A very PETM'ish world where algae blooms prevent runaway greenhouse Venus Earth from ever happening.

[ORH_wxman]

Well if we ever reach a certain SLR threshold, ice ages no longer become possible in a sense of the normal holocene cycle. There would be a massive delay of perhaps 500k to 3 million years if we ever reach CO2 levels of 600-800ppm+ due to feedback systems.

Like I said tho, the final outcome likely resides between Hansen and IPCC. A very PETM'ish world where algae blooms prevent runaway greenhouse Venus Earth from ever happening.

I'll have to find it but a paper was written just a few years ago showing that we won't stop the next ice age. We won't even delay it that long. Mostly because we can't sustain our CO2 input into the system. It decays down to negligible amounts within like a thousand years and the power of the weaker sun just overwhelms it pretty quickly.

[AvantHiatus]

I'll have to find it but a paper was written just a few years ago showing that we won't stop the next ice age. We won't even delay it that long. Mostly because we can't sustain our CO2 input into the system. It decays down to negligible amounts within like a thousand years and the power of the weaker sun just overwhelms it pretty quickly.

I thought the sun was getting stronger on longer timescales, but it's definitely a minor change in the timeframe being discussed above. Unless you're referring to the Milankovitch influence, not sure how potent that is when everything is already melted out.

 

We will have to agree to disagree here. Would be nice to see the paper but since there no paleo analogs for the anthropocene, we can't say for sure how it would play out.

[ORH_wxman]

I thought the sun was getting stronger on longer timescales, but it's definitely a minor change in the timeframe being discussed above. Unless you're referring to the Milankovitch influence, not sure how potent that is when everything is already melted out.

We will have to agree to disagree here. Would be nice to see the paper but since there no paleo analogs for the anthropocene, we can't say for sure how it would play out.

Milankovitch cycles are way more powerful than the paltry albedo feedback of ice caps. They will reignite the icecap expansion easily so it's not really a factor.

[AvantHiatus]

 

 

The transition problem[edit]

 

Variations of Cycle Times, curves determined from ocean sediments

The transition problem refers to the switch in the frequency of climate variations 1 million years ago. From 1–3 million years, climate had a dominant mode matching the 41 ka cycle in obliquity. After 1 million years ago, this switched to a 100 ka variation matching eccentricity, for which no reason has been established.^{[citation needed]}

 

Why didn't the Pliocene and earlier epochs exhibit Milankovitch signals in the climate? It's not about astronomy, it's more about CO2 being permanently sustained and only contained by weathering and geological processes. Positive feedbacks are underestimated in a carbon system sequestered to the rim in the Arctic.

 

The transition problem reveals why Milankovitch cycles are sensitive to small changes in internal climate forcings.

 

The effects of these variations are primarily believed to be due to variations in the intensity of solar radiation upon various parts of the globe. Observations show climate behavior is much more intense than the calculated variations. Various internal characteristics of climate systems are believed to be sensitive to the insolation changes, causing amplification (positive feedback) and damping responses (negative feedback).

 

Over the past 65 Ma, since the beginning of the Cenozoic when temperatures in polar regions were in the neighborhood of 100C, the Earth experienced the erratic global cooling shown in fig. 1(a). This was a consequence primarily of the drifting of the continents with which is associated changes in ocean-basin geometry, mountain-building, volcanic eruptions and other phenomena that affect the two factors that mainly determine globally averaged surface temperatures: the albedo of the planet, and the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. Superimposed on the global cooling were periodic climate cycles in response to Milankovitch forcing. This term refers to modest, perfectly periodic variations in the distribution of sunlight because of periodic variations 3 in orbital parameters such as the tilt (obliquity) of the Earth’s axis. Although this forcing has been relatively constant over the past several million years, the amplitude of the climatic response has changed because, at different times, the long-term global cooling introduced different climate feedbacks

 

The Pliocene Paradox

http://www.aos.princeton.edu/WWWPUBLIC/gphlder/pliopar.pdf

A. Fedorov1, A. C. Ravelo2, P. S. Dekens2, P. deMenocal3 M. Barreiro4, R. Pacanowski5, S.G. Philander4

[Jonger]

I thought the sun was getting stronger on longer timescales, but it's definitely a minor change in the timeframe being discussed above. Unless you're referring to the Milankovitch influence, not sure how potent that is when everything is already melted out.

 

We will have to agree to disagree here. Would be nice to see the paper but since there no paleo analogs for the anthropocene, we can't say for sure how it would play out.

 

At present, it is increasing in brightness by about 1% every 100 million years. = Wikipedia

[AvantHiatus]

No, an ice free arctic is permanent in the summer when you have this much CO2. We are still bleeding off the holocene inertia via albedo/ice sheets and ocean absorption.

 

We would have to geo-engineer and go carbon negative to prevent an ice free arctic.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I'll have to find it but a paper was written just a few years ago showing that we won't stop the next ice age. We won't even delay it that long. Mostly because we can't sustain our CO2 input into the system. It decays down to negligible amounts within like a thousand years and the power of the weaker sun just overwhelms it pretty quickly.

That's correct. We'll probably delay it by a few thousands years at most.

[AvantHiatus]

That's correct. We'll probably delay it by a few thousands years at most.

Where is the paper? How can you make such strong claims without circumstantial evidence or analog examples?

 

For all we know, the holocene world might be more prone to overheating beyond certain GHG and Albedo thresholds. We've never had the carbon injection into the atmosphere that we have now.

 

I know you are trying to emotionally cope with having wrecked the Earth for millions of years but this is a science forum.

 

 

Why didn't the Pliocene and earlier epochs exhibit Milankovitch signals in the climate? It's not about astronomy, it's more about CO2 being permanently sustained and only contained by weathering and geological processes. Positive feedbacks are underestimated in a carbon system sequestered to the rim in the Arctic.

 

The transition problem reveals why Milankovitch cycles are sensitive to small changes in internal climate forcings.

 

The effects of these variations are primarily believed to be due to variations in the intensity of solar radiation upon various parts of the globe. Observations show climate behavior is much more intense than the calculated variations. Various internal characteristics of climate systems are believed to be sensitive to the insolation changes, causing amplification (positive feedback) and damping responses (negative feedback).

 

Over the past 65 Ma, since the beginning of the Cenozoic when temperatures in polar regions were in the neighborhood of 100C, the Earth experienced the erratic global cooling shown in fig. 1(a). This was a consequence primarily of the drifting of the continents with which is associated changes in ocean-basin geometry, mountain-building, volcanic eruptions and other phenomena that affect the two factors that mainly determine globally averaged surface temperatures: the albedo of the planet, and the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. Superimposed on the global cooling were periodic climate cycles in response to Milankovitch forcing. This term refers to modest, perfectly periodic variations in the distribution of sunlight because of periodic variations 3 in orbital parameters such as the tilt (obliquity) of the Earth’s axis. Although this forcing has been relatively constant over the past several million years, the amplitude of the climatic response has changed because, at different times, the long-term global cooling introduced different climate feedbacks

 

The Pliocene Paradox

http://www.aos.princ...der/pliopar.pdf

A. Fedorov1, A. C. Ravelo2, P. S. Dekens2, P. deMenocal3 M. Barreiro4, R. Pacanowski5, S.G. Philander4

[stadiumwave]

No, an ice free arctic is permanent in the summer when you have this much CO2. We are still bleeding off the holocene inertia via albedo/ice sheets and ocean absorption.

We would have to geo-engineer and go carbon negative to prevent an ice free arctic.

Yea...you would know better. I mean...you can be wrong. Experts are often wrong & you're no expert. So....

[Weather.St]

I created a 30 minute audio program on Climate change and seeing it from both sides. posted it on my website a few weeks back. You can check it out here.

 

http://weather.st/blog/scifixm-special-climate-change/

 

I am not saying I know the whole truth, but I did want to look at it from both perspectives.

[chrisf97212]

If there's one thing to be worried about, in my opinion, it's the relative dampening of the equator-to-pole thermal gradient. This is what drives keeps the circulatory network stabilized (Hadley/Ferrel/Polar). The paleoclimate data suggests that before we entered the Pleistocene era, the NH was dominated by a single Hadley cell for the majority of the solar year. A broad Hadley Cell is a weak Hadley Cell, so tropical convection and wind speeds are significantly reduced in this scenario (we can already easily this in modern day observations, including ENSO).

 

 

How much dampening are you talking about?  Any ideas on what the CO2-Hadley Cell link would be?

[AvantHiatus]

No model updates today?

The models are perfectly aligned between the two camps right now. Getting concerned about Greenland.

[AvantHiatus]

What is a mute point?? Does that mean we don't have to listen to you anymore?

You are a tool.

[AvantHiatus]

[AvantHiatus]

More BS!

Keep telling yourself that. The el nino heat engine coming online will push us ever closer to the Pliocene Earth. You don't understand system hysteresis and you should go back to school.

 

The Eemian period already has colder tropics than now and this aspect will help push us ahead into new global regimes on longer timescales. One has to account for temporal lag in the system.

 

The overall thermal budget is rapidly growing in the oceans worldwide.

[LakeEffectKing]

Keep telling yourself that. The el nino heat engine coming online will push us ever closer to the Pliocene Earth. You don't understand system hysteresis and you should go back to school.

 

The Eemian period already has colder tropics than now and this aspect will help push us ahead into new global regimes on longer timescales. One has to account for temporal lag in the system.

 

The overall thermal budget is rapidly growing in the oceans worldwide.

We will not have ice free summers in the arctic by 2025....there is no "sealing the deal"....it's BS! Sorry, you live in the dizzying world of positive feedback of confirmation bias...that has snowballed into insanity.

[AvantHiatus]

We will not have ice free summers in the arctic by 2025

No chance at all? Why?

 

When do people expect AGW to kick into high gear? To reach the IPCC scenarios, effects will have to ramp up this decade. By the way, they already have ramped up unless you are living in a cave. What about the Alaskan wildfires covering 50% of the state? and the newly forming west coast Sahara Desert? Why are the sub-tropcial deserts expanding globally? This is what happened during the Pliocene.

 

We aren't living in 2004 anymore. SLR is starting to accelerate. You (as an individual) live to seek out the most pleasurable outcome regardless if it's backed by science.

 

It's simple logic. Once you go into Pliocene mode, an ice free Arctic is not far away. Your ability to think holistically has been destroyed by socialization. You will be that guy who blames everything on ozone depletion.

[LakeEffectKing]

No chance at all? Why?

 

When do people expect AGW to kick into high gear? To reach the IPCC scenarios, effects will have to ramp up this decade. By the way, they already have ramped up unless you are living in a cave. What about the Alaskan wildfires covering 50% of the state? and the newly forming west coast Sahara Desert? Why are the sub-tropcial deserts expanding globally? This is what happened during the Pliocene.

 

We aren't living in 2004 anymore. SLR is starting to accelerate. You (as an individual) live to seek out the most pleasurable outcome regardless if it's backed by science.

 

It's simple logic. Once you go into Pliocene mode, an ice free Arctic is not far away. Your ability to think holistically has been destroyed by socialization. You will be that guy who blames everything on ozone depletion.

No, I'll be that guy that calls BS at every turn when your histrionic prognostications fall flat on their face, while you come up with new ones. Your opinions on the subject are polarized via confirmation bias....not the scientific method....ie....subjective BS!

[AvantHiatus]

I have lived through it. You still haven't responded to the real life events that are now occuring. Apparently Liverpool, NY is some magical place where AGW doesn't happen.

[ORH_wxman]

No chance at all? Why?

 

When do people expect AGW to kick into high gear? To reach the IPCC scenarios, effects will have to ramp up this decade. By the way, they already have ramped up unless you are living in a cave. What about the Alaskan wildfires covering 50% of the state? and the newly forming west coast Sahara Desert? Why are the sub-tropcial deserts expanding globally? This is what happened during the Pliocene.

 

We aren't living in 2004 anymore. SLR is starting to accelerate. You (as an individual) live to seek out the most pleasurable outcome regardless if it's backed by science.

 

It's simple logic. Once you go into Pliocene mode, an ice free Arctic is not far away. Your ability to think holistically has been destroyed by socialization. You will be that guy who blames everything on ozone depletion.

 

 

You keep spouting anecdotes...wildfires in Alaska are proof we are catching up to IPCC higher end scenarios?

 

Using the Pliocene as an example of arctic sea ice disappearing by 2025 is flawed in so many ways it is hard to know where to begin. First off, what part of the Pliocene are you even talking about? There were sustained periods that were significantly warmer than present. Secondly, the process of heat transport was different than today with the Panama Isthmus not closing until approximately 3 million years ago. So a good chunk of the Pliocene had different ocean circulation than today. Thirdly, even if we assumed that the pliocene was exactly like today, the resolution of any proxy data in there does not come remotely close to giving us any type of information on how fast the arctic would change over the next 10 years. You probably need to read up on proxy data from that long ago if you are using it to help predict ice free before 2025.

[stadiumwave]

Wildfires are dependant on patterns. A blind fool could see this would be a bad year for fires in Alaska with the monster ridges.

It's happened before, it will happen again.

[AvantHiatus]

Ask Student of Climatology. He will tell you all about the expanding hadley cells. Things will change, it's only a question of when, which is where the debate resides. Anyone who disagrees with this sentiment is a climate denier.

[CAD_Wedge_NC]

I have lived through it. You still haven't responded to the real life events that are now occuring. Apparently Liverpool, NY is some magical place where AGW doesn't happen.

   You'll be that guy that quietly fades into the bushes in a couple of years when your outlandish scenarios don't play out as you would have wished. You'll make some kind of excuse, and then change your screen name and come back for more. I have seen your kind through the years. No one is arguing that the earth hasn't warmed, the argument is how much is natural and how much is man-made. Most of us on this forum know the science (we can read), but we try to temper our thoughts about what will happen next, and use some common sense. Ice-free in 10 years is wish-casting. You have no scientific facts to base that on, other than extrapolation (which doesn't always work) just ask any Met about that.

[AvantHiatus]

My predictions will take decades to completely come to fruition. Not sure where you got the idea that it would happen overnight.

 

The whole point of alarmism is not to wait until the last minute because then it is too late and sh** starts blending in towards the end game such that no normal can be established and people just brush aside extreme events. We're probably already there.

 

http://art-sheep.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Edvard-Munch-927566.jpg

 

10 years is an eternity when we speak about the ongoing geological scale changes in CO2 concentrations almost overnight and related feedbacks.

 

BTW. The records in Alaska were crushed by landslides. Some daily highs deep into the 100s, and those were broken by 6-9 degrees. AGW at work for sure.

 

You can try to put a spin on it but it doesn't change facts. Saying that it's just a monster ridge that comes around every 30 years is just as bad as attributing 100% to AGW.

[stadiumwave]

My predictions will take decades to completely come to fruition. Not sure where you got the idea that it would happen overnight.

The whole point of alarmism is not to wait until the last minute because then it is too late and sh** starts blending in towards the end game such that no normal can be established and people just brush aside extreme events. We're probably already there.

http://art-sheep.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Edvard-Munch-927566.jpg

10 years is an eternity when we speak about the ongoing geological scale changes in CO2 concentrations almost overnight and related feedbacks.

BTW. The records in Alaska were crushed by landslides. Some daily highs deep into the 100s, and those were broken by 6-9 degrees. AGW at work for sure.

You can try to put a spin on it but it doesn't change facts. Saying that it's just a monster ridge that comes around every 30 years is just as bad as attributing 100% to AGW.

You're exactly what's wrong with climate science...sensationalism at its best. You're the type that will continue to be hog wild during a strong El Nino.

[AvantHiatus]

You're exactly what's wrong with climate science...sensationalism at its best. You're the type that will continue to be hog wild during a strong El Nino.

Take a look at the conus visible. It's full of smoke, the most i've ever seen.

 

Extreme events won't stop after the strong el nino is gone.