Unreliable sources to "balanced" approach to Climate Change

[The_Global_Warmer]

Looks quite high during the years where most of the warming occurred.

 

Looks quite high during the years where most of the warming occurred.

 

The warming is fast.  So from the 1950s on it slowly dropped with the big 1960s/1970s dip.

 

 

But since 1979 when we warmed fast.  TSI has been decreasing, and you can see the recent long sun dead period that isn't showing the same spike.

 

Between the dead sun, the PDO, and ENSO we should be losing heat fast. I mean since the late 90s we should of cooled big time.  Probably .2 to .3C by now on average.  But we obviously are not cooling at all.  Maybe have slowed to a crawl with OHC gains, Surface temp, atmosheric temp avg's.  But the GHG effect isn't gonna stop in other ways like the insane arctic changes, and global glacial ice loss continuing to get stronger. 

 

If the sun for some reasons stays this "dead" for 50 years it will slow AGW, but it's just going to slow it not stop it.

 

 

 

 

 

[skierinvermont]

Does the total solar irradiance graph account for aerosols? If it doesn't, we have been in a period of high solar irradiance and low aerosol solar blocking since around 1990.

 

 

Is this really the first graph of TSI you have ever seen? Yes TSI has been high but it has been decreasing, which should cause cooling (unless you invent magic lags like Snowlover does). 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Does the total solar irradiance graph account for aerosols? If it doesn't, we have been in a period of high solar irradiance and low aerosol solar blocking since around 1990.

 

 

 

High solar irradiance is irrelevant when it's consistent and peaked in the 1940s and 50s.  So basically very little change.

 

It has been slowly declining for a while and have plummeted the last decade.

 

We should have actually cooled a lot the last 15 years..mostly since 2005 or so.

 

Look at it this way the combo of PDO, ENSO, and Solar, and still high aerosol's have helped to cause this balancing act.

 

You are a pretty smart guy.  You notice how tight the global temps are?  Well it's pretty clear the recent solar dive bomb has tipped the scales to cause a decent energy balance in the short term. 

 

 

 

Look at the flatline in the top 700M OHC.  Of course though you notice how the "lowest" quarterlies are not dipping at all.

 

Essentially while GHG forcing grows stronger at a steady rate it's still in it's infancy so to speak when it comes to warming.  So natural factors if powerful enough can balance out .2 to .3C of warming in a decade or two.  But they are not strong enough to stop warming.  While ENSO/PDO changes have not allowed us to continually break records for global temps, we did just break it during 2010 or tied or near on some data sets.  Obviously it was a NINO year.  Right now if we had a NINO of that magnitude 2013 would beat the yearly records likely by .05 to .10. 

 

The thing is solar would need to keep dropping to levels it can't drop to without some sort of atmospheric or Sun changes inside the damn ball of fire that we haven't witnessed recently by any means.  Flat-lining with deep dead periods of no sunspots and weak peaks won't do much after the initial plummet.  This plummet might be for 10 years to fully max out or even 20.  I don't know but it's effect's will stop and the warming will continue abruptly and rather fast.

 

If we see solar return to prior levels we will see things pop off.  Combine with the soon plummet of aerosol's from now to 2030 and beyond with the coal cleaner or gone with solar becoming big time and possibly other clean sources we will probably see a rather stark rise.  Especially around 2020-2025 with PDO flip and Nino's.  Add methane clathrates being destroyed, permaforst, and permakarst melting at a much higher rate with the melting season expanding, methane will start rising faster as well, could be decently tame but strong or really bad, remains to be seen.  Co2 will likely stay around the current 2-2.5 PPM/YR increase and slowly rise to 3-4PPM/YR during the peak.  Possibly from pure emissions, the oceans/forests not being able to consume as much/methane conversions, same release mechanisms as the methane but not as strong.  Ice coverage will drop obviously, as well as Spring and Fall snow cover, Spring much faster than fall due to warmer oceans and direct solar influence, by 2030-2050 we are talking a total of 4-5 w/m2 globally and 5-7 w/m2 arctic forcing wise from GHG's, especially considering water vapor will become a bigger and bigger feedback.

 

This doesn't end the world by any means, I believe humans by 2070-2100 will be 100 percent clean energy and stop this madness, but Co2 PPM will be 600+ by then and Methane probably double that it is now 3000-4000PPB. 

 

 

So, the thing is this...Sea Level's will rise a few meters, Greenland will skinny up quite a bit, Antarctica all over will start melting fast as well.  The Earth will warm 2.5-4C by the time it's all said and done if we get off the sauce by 2070 or completely. 

 

We can manage, migrate, innovate ways to have a 10 billion or so population and be like we are now or more likely even better humanity's better side in the midst of this ugliness is also growing leaps and bounds at a rapid rate.  We are quickly becoming ONE HOMO SAPIENS SPECIES.  Not held back by the fears and limits of race, religion, pride, culture, it may not really flourish in our lifetimes, maybe when you and I are 80 years old and it's 2062.   Ending global poverty will be the mission of humanity, but if not its coming if we can hold it together long enough to get there.  The only way outside of a huge volcano, asteroids(preventable though at this point, so unless it's the size of the moon, we could probably deal with destroying it with a year or two lead time if not more), The sun just lowering to a much lower level or much higher we have the control to weather this storm and deal with the peak and with sea ice at both poles coming back in winter with some of Greenland and Antarctica in tact we will see the Earth start cooling.  Ice will gain again, but it will be a longer process until methane starts to drop quickly, but Co2 will take time, exp with methane converting over helping keep it higher for longer.  But it will eventually cool back to something close today in theory but maybe not back lower with so much ice lost and feedback's prolonging the warmth, but it will at least be stopped and on a cooling slope.

 

However....when the methane clathrates go boom and massive methane spikes take place only seen during prior extinction level events. Or if the Greenland and Antarctica ice starts to crack horizontally into gigantic slabs and we see Antarctica say drop a deuce of 100,000km3 which would be 277MM or 27CM at one time instantly raises sea levels either near that much or that much, but would also cause the ice to keep melting faster and faster exposing dark dirty layers where volcanic debris like dust, ash, dirt, and so on will be caked in that antarctic ice over the last few million years.  It's gonna be some horrible news if Greenland and Antarctica accumulate "blackness" and those particles keep dropping into the mushy snow/ice while melting keeping albedo complete crap instead of flowing off the with the water.  So far Greenland even with water rush events down streams and slopes and melt ponds most of the "dirty" material just keep's being embedded in soft "ice" so basically stuck while water flows over it or flushes down cracks nearby.  If a melt pond forms and has a caked layer of dirty material at the bottom it flushed and that caked material is there the next Sunny moment or any moment really in Solar times to keep that melt at full peddle till the next one forms.  Enough of this material and heat can stay trapped well into cooling melting ice or stopping any sort of recovery.  In some ways it's like the Warm top layer of salty heat under the arctic sea ice.  So rapid unexpected ice melt from far lower albedo than expected could be horrible, ice calving on a grand scale, imagine a weak Greenland with cracks forming down a hundred or deeper crevasse a hundred miles up the slope to the rocks with another one sprawling from the apex out 30-50 degrees away but semi parallel to the other one. Then a big Earthquake that might cause the entire slab to be shaken like a large piece of ice pie because the large areas where the crack is smashes into a heavy more stable part of the entire ice sheet and would put insane energy through that somewhere easily causing weaker ice if the jolts are strong enough to possibly dislodge and start sliding if sloping enough out to sea.  Some worry of warm water falling into those cracks then and lubricating a nice slip N slide down.  

 

 

I don't want to see horrible stuff happen to life on this planet because we messed it up, but at this point let's call regular AGW an unfortunate circumstance to progress.  But a CAGW event from something as simple as methane clathrates going "boom" would be just ugly and hideous.  We need 7-12C of global warming like we need thermo-nuclear war or advanced aliens showing up and making us their kitty kats, or the grand designers, creators, or whatever caused this existence/universe to decide to pull the plug without letting us and the trillions of other intelligent species out there speak on the behalf of all life and our version of the kitty kat why you don't need to do that and it might be cool if you contract space safely, take out the traveling fast stuff and time distortion and move us closer together in perfect order so we don't collide and all that non-sense.  But also tell us what is the point of this horrible trick called consciousness that allows kitty's to be conscious in a 100M box, apes in a jungle area, and humans fully aware of billion of galaxies and their inevitable tiny lifespan and inevitable death as they are no more than the most advanced smartest and hairless ape of them all, good grief.

 

Alright now being serious, if we avoid a real world beating catastrophe climate shift which we have a very good shot do if we end this madness quickly which is very very likely to happen faster than most probably think around 2020-2040 when solar becomes extremely efficient and very cheap and easy to mass produce and can quickly become half the energy supply we can end this and move on from this stupidity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[blizzard1024]

High solar irradiance is irrelevant when it's consistent and peaked in the 1940s and 50s.  So basically very little change.

 

It has been slowly declining for a while and have plummeted the last decade.

 

We should have actually cooled a lot the last 15 years..mostly since 2005 or so.

 

Look at it this way the combo of PDO, ENSO, and Solar, and still high aerosol's have helped to cause this balancing act.

 

You are a pretty smart guy.  You notice how tight the global temps are?  Well it's pretty clear the recent solar dive bomb has tipped the scales to cause a decent energy balance in the short term. 

 

 

 

Look at the flatline in the top 700M OHC.  Of course though you notice how the "lowest" quarterlies are not dipping at all.

 

Essentially while GHG forcing grows stronger at a steady rate it's still in it's infancy so to speak when it comes to warming.  So natural factors if powerful enough can balance out .2 to .3C of warming in a decade or two.  But they are not strong enough to stop warming.  While ENSO/PDO changes have not allowed us to continually break records for global temps, we did just break it during 2010 or tied or near on some data sets.  Obviously it was a NINO year.  Right now if we had a NINO of that magnitude 2013 would beat the yearly records likely by .05 to .10. 

 

The thing is solar would need to keep dropping to levels it can't drop to without some sort of atmospheric or Sun changes inside the damn ball of fire that we haven't witnessed recently by any means.  Flat-lining with deep dead periods of no sunspots and weak peaks won't do much after the initial plummet.  This plummet might be for 10 years to fully max out or even 20.  I don't know but it's effect's will stop and the warming will continue abruptly and rather fast.

 

If we see solar return to prior levels we will see things pop off.  Combine with the soon plummet of aerosol's from now to 2030 and beyond with the coal cleaner or gone with solar becoming big time and possibly other clean sources we will probably see a rather stark rise.  Especially around 2020-2025 with PDO flip and Nino's.  Add methane clathrates being destroyed, permaforst, and permakarst melting at a much higher rate with the melting season expanding, methane will start rising faster as well, could be decently tame but strong or really bad, remains to be seen.  Co2 will likely stay around the current 2-2.5 PPM/YR increase and slowly rise to 3-4PPM/YR during the peak.  Possibly from pure emissions, the oceans/forests not being able to consume as much/methane conversions, same release mechanisms as the methane but not as strong.  Ice coverage will drop obviously, as well as Spring and Fall snow cover, Spring much faster than fall due to warmer oceans and direct solar influence, by 2030-2050 we are talking a total of 4-5 w/m2 globally and 5-7 w/m2 arctic forcing wise from GHG's, especially considering water vapor will become a bigger and bigger feedback.

 

This doesn't end the world by any means, I believe humans by 2070-2100 will be 100 percent clean energy and stop this madness, but Co2 PPM will be 600+ by then and Methane probably double that it is now 3000-4000PPB. 

 

 

So, the thing is this...Sea Level's will rise a few meters, Greenland will skinny up quite a bit, Antarctica all over will start melting fast as well.  The Earth will warm 2.5-4C by the time it's all said and done if we get off the sauce by 2070 or completely. 

 

We can manage, migrate, innovate ways to have a 10 billion or so population and be like we are now or more likely even better humanity's better side in the midst of this ugliness is also growing leaps and bounds at a rapid rate.  We are quickly becoming ONE HOMO SAPIENS SPECIES.  Not held back by the fears and limits of race, religion, pride, culture, it may not really flourish in our lifetimes, maybe when you and I are 80 years old and it's 2062.   Ending global poverty will be the mission of humanity, but if not its coming if we can hold it together long enough to get there.  The only way outside of a huge volcano, asteroids(preventable though at this point, so unless it's the size of the moon, we could probably deal with destroying it with a year or two lead time if not more), The sun just lowering to a much lower level or much higher we have the control to weather this storm and deal with the peak and with sea ice at both poles coming back in winter with some of Greenland and Antarctica in tact we will see the Earth start cooling.  Ice will gain again, but it will be a longer process until methane starts to drop quickly, but Co2 will take time, exp with methane converting over helping keep it higher for longer.  But it will eventually cool back to something close today in theory but maybe not back lower with so much ice lost and feedback's prolonging the warmth, but it will at least be stopped and on a cooling slope.

 

However....when the methane clathrates go boom and massive methane spikes take place only seen during prior extinction level events. Or if the Greenland and Antarctica ice starts to crack horizontally into gigantic slabs and we see Antarctica say drop a deuce of 100,000km3 which would be 277MM or 27CM at one time instantly raises sea levels either near that much or that much, but would also cause the ice to keep melting faster and faster exposing dark dirty layers where volcanic debris like dust, ash, dirt, and so on will be caked in that antarctic ice over the last few million years.  It's gonna be some horrible news if Greenland and Antarctica accumulate "blackness" and those particles keep dropping into the mushy snow/ice while melting keeping albedo complete crap instead of flowing off the with the water.  So far Greenland even with water rush events down streams and slopes and melt ponds most of the "dirty" material just keep's being embedded in soft "ice" so basically stuck while water flows over it or flushes down cracks nearby.  If a melt pond forms and has a caked layer of dirty material at the bottom it flushed and that caked material is there the next Sunny moment or any moment really in Solar times to keep that melt at full peddle till the next one forms.  Enough of this material and heat can stay trapped well into cooling melting ice or stopping any sort of recovery.  In some ways it's like the Warm top layer of salty heat under the arctic sea ice.  So rapid unexpected ice melt from far lower albedo than expected could be horrible, ice calving on a grand scale, imagine a weak Greenland with cracks forming down a hundred or deeper crevasse a hundred miles up the slope to the rocks with another one sprawling from the apex out 30-50 degrees away but semi parallel to the other one. Then a big Earthquake that might cause the entire slab to be shaken like a large piece of ice pie because the large areas where the crack is smashes into a heavy more stable part of the entire ice sheet and would put insane energy through that somewhere easily causing weaker ice if the jolts are strong enough to possibly dislodge and start sliding if sloping enough out to sea.  Some worry of warm water falling into those cracks then and lubricating a nice slip N slide down.  

 

 

I don't want to see horrible stuff happen to life on this planet because we messed it up, but at this point let's call regular AGW an unfortunate circumstance to progress.  But a CAGW event from something as simple as methane clathrates going "boom" would be just ugly and hideous.  We need 7-12C of global warming like we need thermo-nuclear war or advanced aliens showing up and making us their kitty kats, or the grand designers, creators, or whatever caused this existence/universe to decide to pull the plug without letting us and the trillions of other intelligent species out there speak on the behalf of all life and our version of the kitty kat why you don't need to do that and it might be cool if you contract space safely, take out the traveling fast stuff and time distortion and move us closer together in perfect order so we don't collide and all that non-sense.  But also tell us what is the point of this horrible trick called consciousness that allows kitty's to be conscious in a 100M box, apes in a jungle area, and humans fully aware of billion of galaxies and their inevitable tiny lifespan and inevitable death as they are no more than the most advanced smartest and hairless ape of them all, good grief.

 

Alright now being serious, if we avoid a real world beating catastrophe climate shift which we have a very good shot do if we end this madness quickly which is very very likely to happen faster than most probably think around 2020-2040 when solar becomes extremely efficient and very cheap and easy to mass produce and can quickly become half the energy supply we can end this and move on from this stupidity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wow. you're a pretty passionate person. I think everyone on this forum would agree we don't want to see this doomsday scenario. I still am having

a hard time understanding the methane issue. When the Earth warmed rapidly out of the ice age and was 2-4C warming in the Arctic summer 6 to 8K

years ago, how come there was not any significant spikes to methane?  Arctic sea ice likely was seasonal disappearing in the late summer according

to paleo studies. Polar bears did not go extinct. This warming was natural and related to Orbital parameters. However, the pace of climate change during

the transitions was higher than today's pace and methane never spiraled out of control. I will admit I am not up on methane and I know climate scientists

who really don't think it is much of a problem vs CO2/water vapor feedback. Point is these guys believe in the 2 to 4.5C warming like many of you. 

What gives on this methane? Why would it now be a problem when it wasn't 8000 years ago. I am being sincere and really don't have time to dig

through the literature. Thanks and if you are correct. God help us. Because NOTHING is going to be done in the next 10-20 years until technology 

can find cheaper cleaner sources of energy. Natural gas would be great until they develop solar but the environmental lobby is against hydrofracking. 

anyway I hope you don't lay up at night and worry about this stuff. 

[Mallow]

wow. you're a pretty passionate person. I think everyone on this forum would agree we don't want to see this doomsday scenario. I still am having

a hard time understanding the methane issue. When the Earth warmed rapidly out of the ice age and was 2-4C warming in the Arctic summer 6 to 8K

years ago, how come there was not any significant spikes to methane?  Arctic sea ice likely was seasonal disappearing in the late summer according

to paleo studies. Polar bears did not go extinct. This warming was natural and related to Orbital parameters. However, the pace of climate change during

the transitions was higher than today's pace and methane never spiraled out of control. I will admit I am not up on methane and I know climate scientists

who really don't think it is much of a problem vs CO2/water vapor feedback. Point is these guys believe in the 2 to 4.5C warming like many of you. 

What gives on this methane? Why would it now be a problem when it wasn't 8000 years ago. I am being sincere and really don't have time to dig

through the literature. Thanks and if you are correct. God help us. Because NOTHING is going to be done in the next 10-20 years until technology 

can find cheaper cleaner sources of energy. Natural gas would be great until they develop solar but the environmental lobby is against hydrofracking. 

anyway I hope you don't lay up at night and worry about this stuff. 

 

Huh?

[blizzard1024]

Huh?

This is basic paleoclimatology. The current rate change of climate per century is well within the bounds

of the holocene (+/- 2.5C per century) and certainly a lot less than during the full glaciations. (+/- 5C per century).

 

During the holocene climatic optimum due to orbital parameters, NH summers were approximately 2-4C

warmer than present NH summers and there is evidence that the arctic sea ice was seasonal back then. 

 

My question is that if this occurred in the past, then why was there no methane "explosion" into the

atmosphere?  what is different now? I also like to point out that polar bears which are now

endangered with extinction because of global warming obviously survived through periods of low

or non-existent summer sea ice. What is different now? These are just legitimate questions. I am

not the one who insults people on this forum. I get insulted for asking questions. remember that. 

[skierinvermont]

This is basic paleoclimatology. The current rate change of climate per century is well within the bounds

of the holocene (+/- 2.5C per century) and certainly a lot less than during the full glaciations. (+/- 5C per century).

 

During the holocene climatic optimum due to orbital parameters, NH summers were approximately 2-4C

warmer than present NH summers and there is evidence that the arctic sea ice was seasonal back then. 

 

My question is that if this occurred in the past, then why was there no methane "explosion" into the

atmosphere?  what is different now? I also like to point out that polar bears which are now

endangered with extinction because of global warming obviously survived through periods of low

or non-existent summer sea ice. What is different now? These are just legitimate questions. I am

not the one who insults people on this forum. I get insulted for asking questions. remember that. 

 

I have wondered about how polar bears survived and why no methane explosion as well. Methane may have to do with there being new deposits that were created in the last 5-8k years. Sea level was much lower back then.

[TerryM]

Bliz

 

Have you any links for the rapidity of the warming during the HCM buildup? The Bolling-Allerod was certainly more rapid than what we're now experiencing, but after recovery from the Younger Dryas my recollection is that things warmed up at a relatively sedate rate.

 

You had once taken a class on paleo climate as I recall. Think about ocean levels & you'll have figured out the answer to your question regarding methane outgassing.

 

Terry

[Mallow]

This is basic paleoclimatology. The current rate change of climate per century is well within the bounds

of the holocene (+/- 2.5C per century) and certainly a lot less than during the full glaciations. (+/- 5C per century).

 

During the holocene climatic optimum due to orbital parameters, NH summers were approximately 2-4C

warmer than present NH summers and there is evidence that the arctic sea ice was seasonal back then. 

 

My question is that if this occurred in the past, then why was there no methane "explosion" into the

atmosphere?  what is different now? I also like to point out that polar bears which are now

endangered with extinction because of global warming obviously survived through periods of low

or non-existent summer sea ice. What is different now? These are just legitimate questions. I am

not the one who insults people on this forum. I get insulted for asking questions. remember that. 

 

Re: the Holocene Maximum, I knew it existed, but didn't realize that at Arctic sites it was likely warmer than present. Not sure about your 2-4C values for NH summer, but it does appear as if the Arctic region specifically was generally about 0.8-2.4C warmer, with a couple areas in northern Alaska likely 2-3C warmer. The reason I didn't know about this comparison to the present is because it was mostly localized to the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, and indeed (as I had remembered), the globe as a whole was likely cooler than present.

 

Re: rate of change of global temperatures, I was under the impression that theories that suggested very rapid (5C/century) global temperature changes were either extremely preliminary, or disproven. Can you point me to something that suggests otherwise?

[TerryM]

Skier

 

Relying on my memory:

 

Polar Bears differentiated from Brown Bears ~150k BP

 

Polar Bears require sea ice as a habitat

 

If the above are true, we've had Arctic sea ice for at least 150k yrs.

 

The HCM occurred at different times in different locations. When Northern Greenland was at it's maximum Elliesmere was cold - same for the Russian side. Polar Bears are capable of roaming huge distances and a number of them were always able to find an area cold enough to support them.

 

This may not be true in the coming decades.

Terry

[skierinvermont]

Skier

 

Relying on my memory:

 

Polar Bears differentiated from Brown Bears ~150k BP

 

Polar Bears require sea ice as a habitat

 

If the above are true, we've had Arctic sea ice for at least 150k yrs.

 

The HCM occurred at different times in different locations. When Northern Greenland was at it's maximum Elliesmere was cold - same for the Russian side. Polar Bears are capable of roaming huge distances and a number of them were always able to find an area cold enough to support them.

 

This may not be true in the coming decades.

Terry

 

 

With arctic temps 1-3C above the present, it seems unlikely there was any ice during the summer.

[blizzard1024]

Bliz

 

Have you any links for the rapidity of the warming during the HCM buildup? The Bolling-Allerod was certainly more rapid than what we're now experiencing, but after recovery from the Younger Dryas my recollection is that things warmed up at a relatively sedate rate.

 

You had once taken a class on paleo climate as I recall. Think about ocean levels & you'll have figured out the answer to your question regarding methane outgassing.

 

Terry

I will dig out some of my notes and references. I need to read more on methane outgassing, we never covered it and I basically have just read about it on this forum. 

I also have to dig out about the higher arctic summer temperatures. I believe they were just summer temperatures because of enhanced seasonality. again, I will have to

look this up. I also read somewhere (not a "denier" site either) in the peer review literature that there is evidence that arctic sea ice vanished by the end of summer 6-8K years

ago. I need to find this study. Very interesting stuff...maybe it is even an outdated study. I appreciate the discussion on this stuff and I am glad they are cracking down

on this forum. I want to learn as much as the rest of you do. thanks Terry. 

[blizzard1024]

I will dig out some of my notes and references. I need to read more on methane outgassing, we never covered it and I basically have just read about it on this forum. 

I also have to dig out about the higher arctic summer temperatures. I believe they were just summer temperatures because of enhanced seasonality. again, I will have to

look this up. I also read somewhere (not a "denier" site either) in the peer review literature that there is evidence that arctic sea ice vanished by the end of summer 6-8K years

ago. I need to find this study. Very interesting stuff...maybe it is even an outdated study. I appreciate the discussion on this stuff and I am glad they are cracking down

on this forum. I want to learn as much as the rest of you do. thanks Terry. 

 

 

This paper was published in science. You can't read it unless you have a subscription. I don't. Here is a link

from a website (not sure what kind it is)   http://www.bitsofscience.org/arctic-sea-ice-holocene-2614/

that describes some of the findings. I can't fin the older one...

 

Below is the rate change of climate in C/century from GISP2 core.

 

[TerryM]

Bliz

 

Local Greenland ice core temperatures don't correlate well to arctic temperatures. From the article you linked to:

 

“Our studies also show that when the ice disappears in one area, it may accumulate in another. We have discovered this by comparing our results with observations from northern Canada. While the amount of sea ice decreased in northern Greenland, it increased in Canada"

 

In the Western Arctic

 

"At the 16 terrestrial sites where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures (primarily summer estimates) were on average 1.6±0.8°C higher than present (approximate average of the 20th century)" 

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379103002956

 

Temperatures that we have probably already surpassed in the 21st Century.

 

Your original question seems to be asking why methane should be a concern now when there's little evidence for Arctic outgassing 8lyrs ago. SLR is the short answer to your question, but you threw out a lot of figures and data while posing the question that I can't find any justification for. If things really were as you claimed then polar bears obviously could not have survived. Since they did survive I have to conclude that some or all of your claims aren't valid.

 

If you wan't to get up to date regarding ESAS methane try any of S&S's presentations possibly starting with

 

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:YE1J2Z7aaPsJ:neespi.org/web-content/meetings/JPGU2011/Sergienko.pdf+%22Leifer+et+al.,+in+preparation%22&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjp7_SYvRbwK__aCCr5Hdofpn6_nmq7G-_K05sbEtgn2qQPimBls-0hm5i_1Ffri2oampbV4_2hppjW9jqRYqmPO6BsZuKVDI4LHGkp9LbRl2xG41HYyxWFdJcneKS7pINIa0bW&sig=AHIEtbRkbh5d5gfeW6TpjrX2v_1jDAIZyw&pli=1

 

For the nebulous nature of Holocene Thermal Maximum I'd recommend anything by John England

 

http://cgrg.geog.uvic.ca/abstracts/EnglandHoloceneThe.html

 

 

Lately you seem to have been putting a Gish Gallop in the form of a question. I assume you're aware of the difficulties this poses for anyone attempting a reply, Should each misrepresentation be dealt with individually or should I just skip to the end and answer the question posed. If you are interested in methane, or the HTM or the rapidity of Arctic temperature rise, why not ask each question separately providing links to any data that you present.

If anyone attempts to follow the thread this format allows each subject to be dealt with individually rather than as a hodge-podge of often disconnected fragments leaving the reader more confused than enlightened.

 

Terry

[Mallow]

This paper was published in science. You can't read it unless you have a subscription. I don't. Here is a link

from a website (not sure what kind it is)   http://www.bitsofscience.org/arctic-sea-ice-holocene-2614/

that describes some of the findings. I can't fin the older one...

 

Below is the rate change of climate in C/century from GISP2 core.

 

GISP2.png

 

The study does seem tentative, and the graph you posted is for one location. I am certain there are plenty of times over the past 100k years where any given location has seen larger century-scale temperature fluctuations. It's the global mean temperatures I'm not convinced about.

 

Also, as Terry noted, the authors themselves stated that while ice was low in that specific location, it was high on the other side of the Arctic.

[skierinvermont]

From what I've read, summer ice (presumably JJA) was about half of the 2007 min on average during the HTM. That would suggest to me there were almost definitely ice free periods. Possibly by July some years.

[blizzard1024]

Bliz

 

Local Greenland ice core temperatures don't correlate well to arctic temperatures. From the article you linked to:

 

“Our studies also show that when the ice disappears in one area, it may accumulate in another. We have discovered this by comparing our results with observations from northern Canada. While the amount of sea ice decreased in northern Greenland, it increased in Canada"

 

In the Western Arctic

 

"At the 16 terrestrial sites where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures (primarily summer estimates) were on average 1.6±0.8°C higher than present (approximate average of the 20th century)" 

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379103002956

 

Temperatures that we have probably already surpassed in the 21st Century.

 

Your original question seems to be asking why methane should be a concern now when there's little evidence for Arctic outgassing 8lyrs ago. SLR is the short answer to your question, but you threw out a lot of figures and data while posing the question that I can't find any justification for. If things really were as you claimed then polar bears obviously could not have survived. Since they did survive I have to conclude that some or all of your claims aren't valid.

 

If you wan't to get up to date regarding ESAS methane try any of S&S's presentations possibly starting with

 

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:YE1J2Z7aaPsJ:neespi.org/web-content/meetings/JPGU2011/Sergienko.pdf+%22Leifer+et+al.,+in+preparation%22&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjp7_SYvRbwK__aCCr5Hdofpn6_nmq7G-_K05sbEtgn2qQPimBls-0hm5i_1Ffri2oampbV4_2hppjW9jqRYqmPO6BsZuKVDI4LHGkp9LbRl2xG41HYyxWFdJcneKS7pINIa0bW&sig=AHIEtbRkbh5d5gfeW6TpjrX2v_1jDAIZyw&pli=1

 

For the nebulous nature of Holocene Thermal Maximum I'd recommend anything by John England

 

http://cgrg.geog.uvic.ca/abstracts/EnglandHoloceneThe.html

 

 

Lately you seem to have been putting a Gish Gallop in the form of a question. I assume you're aware of the difficulties this poses for anyone attempting a reply, Should each misrepresentation be dealt with individually or should I just skip to the end and answer the question posed. If you are interested in methane, or the HTM or the rapidity of Arctic temperature rise, why not ask each question separately providing links to any data that you present.

If anyone attempts to follow the thread this format allows each subject to be dealt with individually rather than as a hodge-podge of often disconnected fragments leaving the reader more confused than enlightened.

 

Terry

Terry,

 

This thread is so off topic by now not sure what you even mean by "Gish Gallop". I respond to different posters at different times. sorry for the confusion. I started a methane one specifically. 

thanks for the advice. 

 

Bliz

[blizzard1024]

The study does seem tentative, and the graph you posted is for one location. I am certain there are plenty of times over the past 100k years where any given location has seen larger century-scale temperature fluctuations. It's the global mean temperatures I'm not convinced about.

 

Also, as Terry noted, the authors themselves stated that while ice was low in that specific location, it was high on the other side of the Arctic.

The graph shows how rapidly climate can change especially when there are ice sheets. Since Greenland is on the northern edge of the North Atlantic

drift current I think it attests to a more global change in climate. Maybe not to the extent of 5-10C/century but it is a good macroscopic view

of the great ocean conveyor belt which distributes heat worldwide and in turn affects the global climate especially on a  century-timescale.  

[TerryM]

From what I've read, summer ice (presumably JJA) was about half of the 2007 min on average during the HTM. That would suggest to me there were almost definitely ice free periods. Possibly by July some years.

Skier

 

It was a fairly recent Danish study primarily working with the beach lines in North East Greenland. IIRC their contention was that summer minimum may have dipped as low as 50% of 2007 levels. They did take Ellesmere with it's different dating into consideration but not Alaskan or Siberian coastlines.

 

Bliz's wildest claim is that Arctic temps moved more rapidly during one of the HTM periods than at present. This was challenged within the past week and the original author admitted to having no data on which to make the assumption (Riley I believe).

 

Sorry I can't provide links today but I've actually got some important stuff to look after. - The rapid temp fluctuation debunking was from one of the contributors at Planet 3.

 

Terry

[blizzard1024]

Gonna have to take a break from these great discussions. Thanks to all...

even those who I don't see eye to eye with. I respect your opinions. I really

do. I have so much work to do in the next few weeks with my real job that

I just have to shed this for a while.

[Mallow]

The graph shows how rapidly climate can change especially when there are ice sheets. Since Greenland is on the northern edge of the North Atlantic

drift current I think it attests to a more global change in climate. Maybe not to the extent of 5-10C/century but it is a good macroscopic view

of the great ocean conveyor belt which distributes heat worldwide and in turn affects the global climate especially on a  century-timescale.  

 

I don't agree. In principle, there is probably a slightly better-than-average correlation between long-term temperature trends at that location and the global long-term temperature trends than would be the case at other locations, for the reasons you mentioned. But to what extent, exactly? Is it that a 5-10C/century change in Greenland implies a 0.5-1C/century change in global temperatures? Or a 2-4C/century change? Any estimate of global temperature trends based on the temperature swings at that one location would be speculation at best.