Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Let's stay focused on the conditions which exist today which are polar regions being isolated from warmer marine currents and temperatures at or below the thresholds for extensive continental glaciation. Fair enough?
Yes and my point is that it is northern hemisphere glaciation which is responsible for the planet's increased climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty over the past 5 million years or so. So we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss natural causes for the recent warming trend
The occurrence of new records, new extremes, at BOTH poles has significance, particularly when overlain on the steady rise of global temperatures over the last century.
Hot poles: Antarctica, Arctic 70 and 50 degrees above normal
Parts of Antarctica Friday hit 70 degrees warmer than normal. At the same time parts of the Arctic were 50 degrees warmer than normal. Scientists are stunned.apnews.com
No worries. It's all good. My belief is that any conversation about earth's future climate should start with a conversation on what's is controlling earth's present climate. And that conversation has to begin with why the earth transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet. Understanding the conditions which led to Milankovich cycles triggering glacial cycles and understanding what drove climate fluctuations within glacial and interglacial cycles is relevant to today's conversation. The geologic record is littered with examples of warming trends following cooling trends within glacial cycles and cooling trends following warming trends within interglacial cycles. And not one of those instances was caused by atmospheric CO2 or orbital forcing. So it would be disingenuous to casually dismiss natural causes - such as solar output and albedo - as the reason for the recent warming trend. The planet is much much closer to extensive northern hemisphere glaciation than it is to a greenhouse planet.My apologies. I thought when you wanted to talk about Snowball Earth you wanted to talk about that topic.
Again... Milankovich cycles trigger glacial cycles because the conditions on earth - namely polar regions being isolated from warmer marine currents which determine the threshold for extensive glaciation at each pole and earth's present temperature. Within the cycles other factors - namely solar output and albedo - drive fluctuations within the cycles. Orbital forcing cannot be responsible for the up and down climate fluctuations within the cycles because those timescales are very short compared to the orbital forcing time scales.Again, my apologies, I'm not the one dismissing natural forcings for the recent warming. That's the professional scientists who work in this area. The data is pretty compelling that natural forcings alone cannot account for the warming, certainly not within the last half-century to about a 95% confidence.
The data shows this relationship. It is called the "Climate Sensitivity" of CO2. You can google it if you like. Here's a graphic showing both the estimated climate sensitivity and the means by which it was measured:
Actually that's a gross oversimplification. In some areas it will be warmer and wetter, in others it may very well get colder and drier.
In western Europe, for example, if the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet continues apace it may actually dump enough fresh water into the upper arch of the AMOC and the "Gulf Stream" that it shuts it down which will result in a catastrophic cooling in western Europe (I assume you know why Western Europe has a warmer climate than its latitude would normally have).
I'm shocked at how little you know about the overall topic.
You don't know anything about geology. That's clear enough. And if you think you know anything about meteorology and you have such a grossly oversimplified view of how climate and local weather work then you are likely quite mistaken on that front as well.
Yes I am. And given that plates move on average a few mm/year exactly how do you think that might have caused warming since the 1850's? Just curious.
Yes the earth's relationship to the sun impacted this (Milankovich Cycles).
Then please explain why a 180 to 280 ppm rise in carbon dioxide concentration (55% increase) gives us an 8ºC temperature rise ... your formula only allows for a maximum of 4.5ºC rise for 180 to 360 ppm ... your math is wrong if it doesn't provide any predictive ability ...
How does this square with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? ... global warming causes cooling ...
Wow ... I honestly can't believe you posted this ... a doctor of geology ... we have water, 200 km wide, 2,000 km long and (say) 20 m deep ... you expect us to believe a thin layer of fresh water over the top of this will slow down all this momentum? ... let's see the math ... I want to see how you slow down the entire North Atlantic Gyre ...
news.climate.columbia.edu
I've not made any geological claims ... now have I? ... I took a class in meteorology is all, which is more than you've taken ...
\If your argument is that I lack understanding in the matter at hand ... I would question your understanding ...
HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... which Milankovich Cycle? ... our period for this glacial/interglacial cycle is 125,000 years ... none of the Milankovich Cycles correlate to this ... and not all Milankovich Cycles effect average annual irradiation ...
climate.nasa.gov
Where? ... North America is moving at 30 mm/yr relative to the Pacific Plate ... Sydney, Australia, is moving 70 mm/yr with respect to the equator ... there's more to the world than the Eurasia/African convergence zone ...
Oceans are rising 3.5 mm/yr ... ha ha ha ha ha ...
There's a significant difference between EQUILIBRIUM and TRANSIENT. We are not yet at the equilibrium of the added CO2.
In chemistry if I add two reactants to a mixture they take a certain amount of time to react and then come to equilibrium. Same with added CO2.
RIght now on earth there are a variety of climates. Some hot, some cold, some wet, some dry. Climate change means that the overall average temperature of the globe can increase while locally climate can cool.
The occurrence of new records, new extremes, at BOTH poles has significance, particularly when overlain on the steady rise of global temperatures over the last century.
Hot poles: Antarctica, Arctic 70 and 50 degrees above normal
Parts of Antarctica Friday hit 70 degrees warmer than normal. At the same time parts of the Arctic were 50 degrees warmer than normal. Scientists are stunned.
IPCC starts with "Wheeze awl gunny dyeeee!" from man madeup Global Climate Warming Change and works back from there.Yes, the IPCC conducts no research. They do, however, conduct very thorough reviews of the Assessment Report sections before they are published. I stand by my answer, though, as you point out, there are mountains of other published studies of climate issues with very close to unanimously support for the conclusions of the IPCC, which certainly makse sense since that is where the IPCC's conclusions come from.
Wait. Is it a "complex system" or are you able to isolate ALL variables except a demininus change in an atmospheric trace element as THE CAUSE of all manmadeup Global Climate Warming Change because the two are mutually exclusiveThere's a significant difference between EQUILIBRIUM and TRANSIENT. We are not yet at the equilibrium of the added CO2.
In chemistry if I add two reactants to a mixture they take a certain amount of time to react and then come to equilibrium. Same with added CO2.
RIght now on earth there are a variety of climates. Some hot, some cold, some wet, some dry. Climate change means that the overall average temperature of the globe can increase while locally climate can cool.
The example I gave of the shutdown of the Thermohaline Circulation in the North Atlantic is a great example. As the globe warms ice on Greenland starts to melt and pump a bunch of fresh water into the upper part of that circulation. The density differential vs salt water can cause the current to slow down or even stop. Right now the climate of England or other western European countries is warmer than it would normally be at that latitude. That's because the gulf stream pulls warmth up to higher latitudes and that keeps western Europe warmer than it would be without the circulation.
Does that start to make sense? It's a complex system with a lot of moving parts that interact.
You don't have to believe me, you can take the word of actual professional researchers at Columbia University:
Could Climate Change Shut Down the Gulf Stream?
In the 2004 disaster movie “The Day After Tomorrow,", global warming accelerated the melting of polar ice, disrupting circulation in the North Atlantic Ocean and triggering violent changes in the weather. Could climate change shut down the Gulf Stream?
The key here is that the ocean is not, even close, to a some static tub of water. It has currents within it that move up and down and transport north and south and east and west. I was fortunate once to take part in a research cruise in the North Atlantic tracing packets of water as they moved through the ocean water's water column. We were looking at what is called the NADW or North Atlantic Deep Water formation in which water in a "stream" if you will, travels up through the water column, contacts the atmosphere and then cools and sinks to the bottom of the Atlantic and then turns around and rises back up. It's a pretty cool effect but its' basically how the ocean works. It's a complex 3-dimensional system. Not a static bathtub. We were able to find packets of water deep in the Atlantic that contained gases that were human-made in a ratio that existed in the atmosphere maybe 5 or so years ago. Meaning that water was once at the surface.
I did not take a meteorlogy course but I did get to work in the measurement of atmospheric gases interacting with oceans and estuaries.
Which is why I support my points with actual citations.
Wait. Is it a "complex system" or are you able to isolate ALL variables
except a demininus change in an atmospheric trace element as THE CAUSE of all manmadeup Global Climate Warming Change because the two are mutually exclusive
The occurrence of new records, new extremes, at BOTH poles has significance, particularly when overlain on the steady rise of global temperatures over the last century.
Hot poles: Antarctica, Arctic 70 and 50 degrees above normal
Parts of Antarctica Friday hit 70 degrees warmer than normal. At the same time parts of the Arctic were 50 degrees warmer than normal. Scientists are stunned.
I don't know why anyone would assume that all variables can be isolated. I assume there's a significant amount of cross-correlation between various of the variables.
Well, of course, NO ONE thinks it's just due to CO2. I mean someone who has no clue what they are talking about in this topic might assume that, but that isn't what the science says. There are a number of positive and negative forcings. Indeed peeling out the forcing due to CO2 alone shows it is likely the largest single forcing but it's not the only one, and it's not even the only human-caused forcing.
Earlier I posted a link to a paper that summarizes the CLIMATE SENSITIVITY of CO2 and it included a lot of detailed explanation of how those numbers are estimated. I will post it again so you can ignore it as well.
Make sure to ignore Figure #3 since it summarizes both the estimates as well as the techniques used to measure/estimate this value.
Hope this helps!
So you can't say for sure what effect, if any CO2 has at these low levels.
