Puzzle me this? Oceans COOLING?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Sep 7 2006, 04:38 PM) [snapback]315975[/snapback]</div>

First line, right back atcha.

One point was that there are systems that are too complex for humans to model with any degree of certainty above "wild-assed guess". The global climate is one of them. The analogy between local weather and global climate is valid (and it's only an analogy, don't put words into my mouth by implying that I equate the two) - both are driven by a massive, chaotic system that we only barely understand on the surface. Another point was that bad news sells best, and bad news gets by far the most attention. "Experts" may not go into it with the idea of making money, or being famous, but once the fame arrives they succumb to the lure of it just like "normal people".

My recommendation? Doubt everything you read, especially if it predicts the doom of the human race or the planet. Do your own research of existing data, correlate it yourself, draw your own conclusions. Don't drink anyone else's kool-aid. Energy research has its own rewards - saving money and slowing the use of resources being two of what I consider most important. Develop the alternative energies, so we can quit hearing about rolling blackouts in California. Develop any alternative sources we can, as quickly as we can, to as-near-as-possible and as-quickly-as-possible eliminate our dependence on anyone else for any kind of fuel.

 

Pardon me for interrupting, but I'd like to go back to the ocean currents and Europe for a moment. What happens when the route through the Canadian Arctic is free of ice for longer and longer periods of time? The fishing and shipping industries might be happy, but what are the predictions for the ocean's currents and their effect on climate?

 

Thanks for the advice glenhead... I will be paying that much less attention to Mr. Crichton! We only have on damn planet... let's f'n take care of it!

Good advice overall, but it doesn't work for global warming.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(glenhead @ Sep 7 2006, 01:07 PM) [snapback]315887[/snapback]</div>

I've read some articles that state that, but I'm not reading things on the level of others here who have studied the issue and are referring to journals. The Science Channel did have a show regarding ice ages, and laid out a very possible scenario (at least to me) where a "mini ice age" in northern areas could result from global warming.

Reading about the release of methane from the permafrost in Siberia that is melting, and promises to do more damage than 100 years of our current rate of release of CO2, makes me think that the cause is already lost.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Sep 8 2006, 02:11 AM) [snapback]316205[/snapback]</div>

Free speech is fine but climate change denial has a number of paid-for adherents whose job it is to spread doubt and manufacture confusion in the public. And, while you might think that my comments about the future health of the world are shallow, insulting or whatever, if you are purposefully trying to create doubt in what is clearly settled science (hence the consensus), then you are complicit in whatever consequences that may result from GW. I do believe that the American public needs to present a unified front to the polluters and their stooges in govt with regards to global warming: The time for action is now.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Sep 8 2006, 02:11 AM) [snapback]316205[/snapback]</div>

Consensus with regards to the flat earth belief was a matter of religious dogma and not scientific reasoning so is a completely specious example. Additionally the existence of a consensus among experts certainly does imply that the science is settled. Yes, there are issues on the sidelines that are not completely established but one merely has to look at any scientific area (dark matter, evolution, etc, etc) and see there are similar peripheral uncertainties that have yet to be incorporated into a coherent theoretical framework.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Sep 8 2006, 12:39 PM) [snapback]316410[/snapback]</div>

Of course there are some unanswered questions - there is no human endeavor free from questions and no one on this thread has doubted that (well, glenhead has repeated some of the tired, denialist refrains, but he presents no new data/research). The point is that the main thrust is agreed - there is GLOBAL WARMING and its caused (as far as the experts can tell) by GHGs. The next phase is what to do about it. We cannot always wait until every question is answered, every anomaly explained. If we do so in this case then we will be too late. Again, we can't wait for the deluge to start building the Ark.

By the way, it appears that the website you provided is more of general criticisms of theories or advances, rather than a scientific assessment. No one could argue, that in the first example, the New York Times represents a scientific constituency or has much standing in that field. It appears like it is merely a humorous reflection on challenges from the establishment to disruptive technologies.

Quit personalizing this - you are hypersensitive and I would like you point out where I am directly insulting *you*. No where did I say or even imply that you are part of a cast of adherents. I merely am very interested in the motivation of people who "seem" be arguing against GW or even action against GW. I think that is fair and quite reasonable.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(glenhead @ Sep 7 2006, 10:07 PM) [snapback]315887[/snapback]</div>

Yes thats what is predicted.

There is a good explination that Im sure you would understand at http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm

The results from a project I work on, Grace (Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment) suggest the freash water stored in the ice around the poles is already melting faster than expected, which means the salty water is being "diluted" and disturbing the "Great Conveyor Belt"

This may also interest you http://www.utexas.edu/features/archive/2002/grace.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(victor @ Sep 19 2006, 06:41 AM) [snapback]321548[/snapback]</div>

Thank you. That was informative, if somewhat scary. I understood the potential for the Gulf Stream shut down, I handn't realized the shutdown could be rapid, nor that the entire US eastern seaboard was at risk. (Well, Europe moreso, but I live in the US). Though , of course, once the mechanism is explained, that seems pretty obvious.

Given the speedup in melting of the Arctic ice cap, has anybody (can anybody) done the artithmetic to predict if and when the system will switch phase? I'm clearly out of my depth here in terms of ability to understand the underlying arithmetic. I'm just wondering if:


a) the north Atlantic system was sufficiently well understood that someone could make a quantitative statment like "if 5% of the Arctic ice melted in a year, that would stop the Gulf Stream", or, " 10 successive years of 3% Artic ice reduction would stop the Gulf Stream", or anything of the sort,

and second,

b) whether anybody is suggesting that the current projected rate of Arctic ice melt is or is not enough to flip off the Gulf Stream?

Or whether we the current melt rate is so far from the rate required to turn off the Gulf Stream that I can take this off my list of things to worry about.

Not asking for a dissertation, just asking that if you can direct me to an internet reference. Thanks for any help you can give.,

 

My ha'porth:

If the gulf stream switches off, it might be the only thing that checks runaway global warming. More ice = more reflection of the sun's radiation back into space, so lower temperatures. At least, that's a theory of why the ice ages happened. However, there's always been some kind of negative feedback that curtailed the positive feedback caused by growing icecaps and kept the planet alive.

People are saying that once certain tipping points are reached, runaway warming will occur. I'm wondering what negative feedback might stop this happening...

1) If the Siberian tundra melts then huge amounts of CO2 and/or methane could be released. On the other hand, this uncultivated land could soon turn to gigantic forests which might use up a lot of CO2. The same would be true of any currently barren areas that are too cold for vegetation...?
2) the above mentioned increase in North Atlantic Ice caused by the lack of North Atlantic Drift
3) more snow in Antarctica due to more evaporation with warmer atmosphere.

Any more?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(molgrips @ Oct 13 2006, 07:59 AM) [snapback]332207[/snapback]</div>

Well, rising sea levels would submerge more land so there would be less land to heat up. What about increased vegetation in more equitorial regions? It seems that the Earth would be a wetter place if it heats up and drier if it gets colder. Warmer and drier doesn't seem possible (on a global scale, of course, your moisture may vary ).

Of course, during the Cretaceous period if was a LOT hotter and there was considerably less land mass. CO2 levels appear to have been much higher as well. It is thought that there were no polar ice caps.

 

For an interpretation of the Ocean cooling data by climatologists:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...latest-numbers/

I think realclimate is an excellent resource.

Dennis

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(maineprius947 @ Nov 4 2006, 07:58 AM) [snapback]343748[/snapback]</div>

Of particular interest is the comments section where Josh Willis (one of the paper's authors) responds to the author of the blog article. (Comment #16)

 

I'm envolved in a project that supplies generator sets for Antarctica. We have to have locator devices on them, now, to dig them out because the ices is growing so fast. We're talking ground ice not storm snow. Our cycle times to run these generators to keep them warm and for testing has trippled three times in length, over 10 years. We've gone from using 5w-20 oil to 0w-20, to 0w-10, to 0w-5, and finally, now to 0w-2 synthetic oil. We've doubled the battery size four times. We have had to change alloys in the frames because, otherwise they break, now. I can't speak for anyone else but if there is global warming down south, we've missed it.

A group did come down here to measure the decreasing ice, a couple of years ago. When they arrived no one could look at them with a straight face. Their grant was worded as if to tie future funding to the successful measurements of the shrinking ice pack. We showd them the roofs of several powerhouses. We walked on them. We handed them a pick so they could find the foundation. We got the pick back. We think the egg heads should do their studies in places where the weather won't kill them.

 

It sounds like you either work for an oil company or are trying to get a job with one.

Your point that we don't know what's going on, or can't know, flys in the face of simple common sense and logic. We are removing carbon sequested in the Earth's crust over hundreds of millions of years and transferring it to the atmosphere. The first law of thermodynamics says matter can neither be created or destroyed. All the carbon we pull from under the ground is still here. It's mostly in the sky now.

To take the default position that this might be OK, or we shouldn't act until we know more, is grossly irresponsible to our children. There isn't one peer reviewed scientific study that says human's aren't causing climate change.

You don't need a PhD to know that taking hundreds of millions of years of carbon out of the ground and putting it in the sky is a bad thing. We know CO2 is a potent heat trapping atmospheric gas. We've increased carbon in the atmosphere to a point that's more than 30% higher than it's been in the past 400,000 years. Ice core samples from around the world show atmospheric carbon concentrations almost exactly track average global temperature. We've already caused far greater carbon shifts (in the opposite direction) than were needed to cause large climate shifts, such as ice ages. It seems inevitable that we've already set in motion a large climate shift that will hurt humanity. With fossil fuel demand increasing rapidly, this could get worse before better.

The logical and responsible assumption is that we're causing major climate problems and we should act aggressively to reduce them.

There is another key issue. Who decided that our generation and the few around it have the right to all the fossil fuels? Don't people 1,000 years from now have as much right to the fuel as we do? Or perhaps you subsribe to the ridiculous notion that it's OK for us to use up all the fossil fuels and turn it into pollution in the biosphere because our billiant children will figure out a new energy source as well as ways to clean the land, air and water. This may have been true in the past at a smaller scale. But we are having unprecedented impacts on our life support systems and we have never faced problems of this scale. It is illogical to assume we'll be able to figure out a cost-effective way to clean the atmosphere for example. The far simpler and more responsible solution is don't pollute it in the first place.

Our generation is suffering from massive myopia. We don't understand the impacts of the technologies and industrial society we've rapidly developed over the past 150 years. If we cannot become smart enough to live within the laws of nature, we will be forced to comply. This will be very painful for our children. I hope we can become smart enough to do the right thing.

I advise Wal-Mart on their environmental strategy. The largest firms in the world understand that we're causing climate change. That's why Lee Scott, the CEO of Wal-Mart, committed Wal-Mart to using 100% renewable energy (as well as making zero waste and selling sustainable products). These goals cannot be achieved without changes in our systems and fundamental ideas about the rights and obligations of humans living on this planet. If you'd like more info on this see www.globalsystemchange.com as well as the attached article.

 

For discussion of global warming by scientists in appropriate fields see http://realclimate.org