http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/climate-change-gulf-stream-hollywood
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- Ulric Lyons on “Impossible Heatwaves”
- William on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- William on 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- czechlist on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- arn on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- GeologyJim on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- Peter Carroll on New BBC Climate Expert
- Peter Carroll on New BBC Climate Expert
- Greg in NZ on 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
In normal times all of this would of course be seen as evidence that climate changes are nothing new and unlikely to be linked to human activities but we are not living in normal times are we?
No we live in Disney Land times now, the laws of physics don’t exist anymore
Straw man. Nobody says that climate change is anything new. What’s new is its cause, not its existence.
Did you just say that climate change has been going on forever but the only change now is it’s cause? That ChrisD is the rub. Thanks for laying it bare in a simple sentence you can’t move goal posts in or twist around the words in.
It is simple, and there’s no need to move goalposts or twist words.
Climate has changed in the past and will continue to change in the future. The argument above was a pure straw man, because no one says otherwise.
What’s new is not the existence of climate change, but the primary cause of the current climate change: anthropogenic greenhouse gases. This was not the cause of any previous change in climate.
Your comment was the equivalent of, “So you admit that grass is green! Ha! There’ll be no squirming out of that one, buddy!”
ChrisD says:
What’s new is not the existence of climate change, but the primary cause of the current climate change: anthropogenic greenhouse gases. This was not the cause of any previous change in climate.
———————–
So either you are either claiming green house gases did not affect climate in the past or else you are claiming that they are behaving in a way they never have before? which is it and what is you scientific basis for those extrodinary claims?
ChrisD says:
October 26, 2010 at 11:59 am
It is simple, and there’s no need to move goalposts or twist words.
Speaking of moving goalposts……
So now you guys are saying the Medieval Warm Period could have happened?
Neither. Did you miss the word “anthropogenic”? I’ll repeat what I said for you, with extra highlighting:
Oh I see, the climate can detect CO2 that’s different then normal, then act and change the climate. But in the past CO2 never effected the climate. It’s just a marker of increased life as the temperature rose, why it lags temperature.
Good God, and you people think I’m thick. Or are you doing this on purpose? That would be trolling.
No, the climate doesn’t know the difference between natural and anthro CO2.
No, anthro CO2 doesn’t affect climate any differently than natural CO2.
What’s different now from any previous change is that the GHG levels are being artificially increased.
If you can’t understand this, there’s little hope.
ChrisD says:
Good God, and you people think I’m thick. Or are you doing this on purpose?
——————-
Well, the choice is, based on your postings to date, that you are either thick or doing this on purpose, which would make you the troll.
ChrisD says:
What’s new is not the existence of climate change, but the primary cause of the current climate change: anthropogenic greenhouse gases. This was not the cause of any previous change in climate.
———
The paleo record is quite clear that CO2 follows temperatures. Logically and scientificically It can’t both follow temps and drive temps (as you are claiming it does) because if that were the case the Earth would have burnt to a cinder long before man first drilled for oil: Increase in temps results in an increase in CO2, but since (according to AGW) CO2 increases temps, that would cause the temps to increase even more resulting in even more CO2 (CO2 follows temps as per the paleo record, remember) which would further increase temps (because according to AGW CO2 increases temps) and so on ever upwards all before man comes along. But there’s no proof that that has ever happened and since “the climate doesn’t know the difference between natural and anthro CO2” (your words) there’s no evidence that it’s reacting any different *NOW*.
If this is what you think, well, I’m sorry, but you seriously do not understand much about Earth’s climate. This is so thoroughly wrong that I don’t even know where to start.
I do suggest, however, that you start by studying mutual causation and negative feedbacks. They both exist, and not only in climate studies. And, by the way, study these things by reading something other than amateur climate blogs.
Again, you display your ignorance. Feedback is a loop. By definition it drives and follows. A feedback of of less than 1.0 will eventually converge.
ChrisD says:
you seriously do not understand much about Earth’s climate.
—–
That’s an accurate description of yourself. Not much more needs be said.
ChrisD says:
I do suggest, however, that you start by studying mutual causation and negative feedbacks. They both exist, and not only in climate studies.
————–
Indeed, and they operate the same way they’ve operated throughout history (as the paleo record attests). It’s the CAGW crowd (such as yourself) that insists “it’s different now” without any proof that it is so.
Again, you display your ignorance. Feedback is a loop.
You bet, Steve. All cases of mutual causation inevitably lead to a runaway effect, no matter what. Nothing can stop them. They’re unstoppable.
Ohhhkayy…
It’s the CAGW crowd (such as yourself) that insists “it’s different now” without any proof that it is so.
I didn’t say, and nobody says, that the physics are different. I didn’t say, and nobody says, that climate works any differently than it ever did.
You still have not managed to grasp my point, have you?
ChrisD says:
You still have not managed to grasp my point, have you?
———-
You still haven’t managed to make one that stands up to scrutiny. you say claim that CO2 (antrhopogenic of course, though you also rightly state nature can’t tell the difference) is driving climate change but if the climate works the same way it always has (“nobody says that climate works any differently than it ever did”) well the record is quite clear on how it works: CO2 follows temps it doesn’t drive them.
And therein lies your fatal screwup. Not only is it not “quite clear,” it’s not even true.
Warming causes increased CO2.
Increased CO2 causes warming.
These are not mututally exclusive.
And they do not lead to runaway warming because the effect of each feedback cycle get smaller. You “skeptics” never tire of pointing out that the effect of increasing GHGs is logarithmic in nature. That’s one of the few things “skeptics” actually have right–but you’re conveniently ignoring it now, aren’t you?
You can’t have both of these:
1. The effect of increasing GHGs is logarithmic, so the increasing levels we’re causing don’t add much to warming.
2. If CO2 and warming are mutually causative, Earth would have “burned to a cinder” (as you put it) long ago.
One or the other. Not both.
ChrisD says:
And they do not lead to runaway warming because the effect of each feedback cycle get smaller.
———————–
Which is why contrary to your religious beliefs, CO2 does not and will not cause the CAGW that you hold so dear. CO2 didn’t in the past and there since the climate still works in the same way it always has, it doesn’t now nor will it in the future.
Oh, I see. The only options are runaway greenhouse effect and no greeenhouse effect. Nice try, but no.
And, inicdentally, the ones with religious beliefs are the ones who cling to amateur bloggers, oil-state politicians, political pundits, retired TV weathermen, and a minute handful of actual scientists. The irony in such people saying that the ones who agree with the vast majority of real scientists are the ones with religion is rich indeed.
My understanding is that the Younger Dryas event did begin extremely rapidly, but this was likely caused by the draining of Lake Agassiz into the Arctic Ocean. Since we don’t have any enormous glacial lakes about to burst their banks, it’s not going to happen anytime soon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Agassiz Agree, even wikipedia agrees and the climate deleter guy hasn’t even deleted that entry, amazing, he’ll probably get round to it soon, just like the Medieval warming, soon Lake Agassiz causing a few metres sea level rise will have to be deleted too as it may confuse current debate hey… 😛
Geologists have come to a CONSENSUS on the likely geological history of Lake Agassiz.
It was not deleted because it contains the magic word
Oh I see, the Consensus like the results of the recent Scientific America survey on global warming, looks like nobody believes the things it publishes LOL 😛
Hey does anyone get if the ship can go through the middle of the arctic how will the soot land on the ice? http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2011/oct/arctic-shipping-climate102510.html HAHAHA since it’s not there anymore? Helllllllllllllllllllllooooooooooooooooo
They’ll have to wait for all that soot that will melt all artic ice to disappear first.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/25/soot-ahoy-ship-traffic-in-the-arctic/#more-26967
Can’t see how this works. Ice ages start when snow fails to melt in summer. This happens when the Earth’s orbital parameters are favourable, causing a reduced amount of solar radiation above 65N.
The line of unmelted snow marches south due to the higher albedo (even if the non-albedo forcing changes).
The high albedo of an Ice age is a very strong forcing (40w/m2 compared with CO2 doubling of 3w/m2). This is why Ice Ages typically last 10 times as long as inter-glacials.
Anyway a regional change (Gulf stream switches off) is not going to start an Ice Age,unless the orbital parameters are right.
Any thoughts on the relative positioning of the continents vis-à-vis ocean currents and the “destabilisation” of the global climate?
Earth has been a snowball, when the continents were one.
Earth has been “normal” while the sun was in a 20% off sale.
Tropical plants have flourished in northern climes back in the dino-days.
Maybe continental drift reached a tipping point a few mya and has sent us into this glacial tailspin.
Recent attempts to quantify ocean current heat transfer (thermohaline conveyor conjecture) has come up against the role of eddies in the oceans as well as undersea vents. The GS fluctuates substantially over time in its various operational parameters IIRC.
PJB – position of the continents is central to Earths climate.
So for recent geological past (last 40m years)
Onset of Ice Ages:-
Ice Ages are cyclical in the Earth’s recent (last 30m years) past.
Original cause:-
Continental Drift of Antartica over the south pole 40m years ago. Ice pack at first formed over mountainous regions. This caused a positive temperature feedback due to the increased albedo, eventually the entire continent was covered with ice. This permanently reduced the surface temperature of the earth.
Cyclical Ice Ages – Why?
Once the surface temperature is lowered, the variability of the Earth’s orbit around the sun which causes a variation in the balance of solar radiation NH/SH summer/winter leads to summers cold enough to allow snow to remain unmelted and to accumulate.
Prior to the Antarctic moving over the South Pole, this would not happen as the earth’s surface would have been too warm.
The 3 parameters and periodicity is as follows:-
Orbital eccentricity varies between 0 (a perfect circle, sun always 93m miles away) and 0.1 ( min 88m miles max 98m miles) , period 100,000 years.
Axial tilt varies between 22.5 and 24.5 degrees , period 41,000 years.
Precession of the equinox , period 26,000 years. This parameter determines which month the summer solstice occurs, and impacts on the first 2 variables.
To start an Ice Age, the above parameters cause a lowering of solar radiation in the NH in summer. Snow does not melt from the previous winter and a positive temperature feedback driven by increased albedo sets in. The Ice marches south. Typically all of Canada, the Northern part of USA all of Scandinavia and most of Northern Europe have permanent Ice sheets. Obviously, Greenland and Antartica remain Ice covered.
To end an Ice, the opposite to the above. i.e. increased solar radiation in NH summer.
As Ice ages typically last 10 times longer then the inter-glacials, it seems clear that Ice Ages are easier to start then to end.
If the conditions are right, a run of cold winters caused by something like a Maunder minimum solar event could be enough to tip the climate into an Ice Age. This might be less than 100 years from interglacial to Ice Age, though of course this is hard to prove.
Current orbital parameters would sustain an Ice Age, all that is needed (possibly) is a Maunder minimum to push the climate over.
Something else to ponder, at the moment the Sun has entered a long period of quiet. This is not a Maunder minimum, yet.
CO2 is also part of this. As the Earth gets colder , the ocean absorbs CO2. In the ice age CO2 drops to 180 PPMV. This acts as a positive feedback to temp, reducing the temp by another 1C.
So of the total 5C drop , 4C is Ice/Albedo the other 1C is CO2 positive feedback lagging the intial temp drop.
Prior to that the Earth was hot.
Reason – no permanent ice caps.
Reason for that – no land at the poles.
When the Earth is in it’s hot climate mode, the albedo is much lower probably around 0.25 compared with 0.30 now and 0.33 in an Ice Age.
As I stated before this is a very large forcing. Over 50w/m2. Yet the climate is stable. Why is this?
Simple , a planet covered mostly with water will have a stable climate over a wide range of solar radiation.
If the Earth cools there are less clouds, so more solar radiation is absorbed. And if the Earth warms there are more clouds, relecting away the solar radiation.
The Earth’s climate has been stable for several billion years whilst the Sun’s output has steadily increased by around 30%.
John Endicott writes:
“So either you are either claiming green house gases did not affect climate in the past or else you are claiming that they are behaving in a way they never have before? which is it and what is you scientific basis for those extrodinary claims?”
What Chris wrote is absurd.
CO2 is too rare to cause that much increase.Not only that most of the IR that is moving at least 135,000 miles per second,never gets caught by CO2 at all.After all most of the IR spectrum falls outside of the teeny weeny bands that CO2 does inhabit.
Here is a chart worth a look:
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-188-post-3342.html#pid3342
Yet by their AGW alchemy,it can make the massively big bully Water Vapor be pulled around by the nose.It is so stupid that I wonder if they are mentally ill.
Say what? If you drive really, really fast will you not hit what’s in front of you?
Talk about “absurd.”
“In other words, all life in the lake had been extinguished in less than three months” (from article).
They got a resolution of less than a year from a 12,500-year-old sediment? Archaeologists would be very interested in the technique – with a little more refinement it should be possible to deduce the day of the week Joshua demolished the walls of Jericho, and whether he stopped for lunch.
They got a resolution of less than a year from a 12,500-year-old sediment?
Yes. They used a robotic scalpel to obtain layers of about 0.5mm. Each layer represented up to three months of sediment, which is why he said “less than” three months.
with a little more refinement it should be possible to deduce the day of the week Joshua demolished the walls of Jericho,
No. The precision isn’t in when something happened, it’s in how long it took. And note that the more layers are involved in an event, the less precision there is. This kind of accuracy is possible only for something that only takes a single layer.
“Say what? If you drive really, really fast will you not hit what’s in front of you?”
It is irrelevant when you are not driving in the main CO2 Frequency band.The chart make it clear that CO2 absorbs very little outgoing IR.Not when the CO2 frequency bands occupies around 6% of the IR spectrum.The main one has to contend with a significant Water Vapor absorption range as well.
The high speed indicates that even with many collisions with the atmosphere.It would leave it within seconds.IR photons does not hang around for more than a few seconds at best.
You are the one who is being ignorant and absurd.
The high speed indicates that even with many collisions with the atmosphere.It would leave it within seconds.
This is totally and utterly wrong. Speed has absolutely nothing to do with it. Outgoing radiation that is absorbed and reradiated downward does not leave the atmosphere “within seconds.” It doesn’t leave the atmosphere at all.
You have got to be joking. You are proposing a fundamental violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
You are proposing a fundamental violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
Nope.
It’s your opinion that all of the outgoing IR escapes the atmosphere “in seconds” because it’s it’s going real fast?
Really?
You said “It doesn’t leave the atmosphere at all.”
You have no idea what you are talking about.
I was trying to get at the point that outgoing radiation that is absorbed and reradiated downard doesn’t escape into space “in seconds,” which appears to be what ST is trying to claim.
I agree that this was casually phrased and imprecise. (Unlike you, I am capable of admitting to an error.)
Now, would you care to address the real point? Does all outgoing IR escape the atmosphere in seconds because it’s going really fast? Or are you simply unable to bring yourself to point out that one of your supporters is incorrect about something?
Guess not.
LOL,
the speed is around 135,000 miles per second.
Even with several “backradiation” events,it still takes just a few seconds to finally leave orbit.
Most outgoing IR photons never meet a rare CO2 molecule.Why not accept this obvious fact?
Even with several “backradiation” events,it still takes just a few seconds to finally leave orbit. Most outgoing IR photons never meet a rare CO2 molecule.
OK, I’m going to have to cut this short cuz I’ve got to run out to Eddie Bauer and get some warmer clothing, since what you’re saying is that there’s essentially no greenhouse effect. That being the case, Earth’s average temp should be dropping by about 33C right soon.
Bit of a mystery why it hasn’t done that yet, but since this is so obvious you must be right.
(PS: You’ll want to talk with the satellite guys and straighten them out about the energy budget. They seem to think they’ve measured a difference between incoming and outgoing radiation, which you’ve pointed out is impossible.)
“OK, I’m going to have to cut this short cuz I’ve got to run out to Eddie Bauer and get some warmer clothing, since what you’re saying is that there’s essentially no greenhouse effect. That being the case, Earth’s average temp should be dropping by about 33C right soon.”
Ha ha…,
In your desperation.You try putting words into my mouth.I did not argue against any greenhouse effect at all.Not only that I did allow for the possibility of “backradiation”:
“Even with several “backradiation” events,it still takes just a few seconds to finally leave orbit.”
You read too fast?
What I am pointing out to YOU is that IR photons goes from one molecules (that can absorb it) to another almost instantly.That is why it can be absorbed and emitted,a thousand time in a second.Since CO2 is too rare a gas and almost in continual saturation state.They can not absorb all of the available outgoing IR in their frequency range.
The Troposphere is only 7-17 KM high (23,000-56,000 feet) That means in just one second that IR photon can travel from the surface to the top and back Hundreds of times in a second.That is a lot of travel!
“Bit of a mystery why it hasn’t done that yet, but since this is so obvious you must be right.”
It is a bit of mystery on why you are that stupid.Since I am on the subject of IR photon speed and the subsequent short residence time in the atmosphere.You go adding something else that has nothing to do with what I am talking about,and try to stick it one me.
“(PS: You’ll want to talk with the satellite guys and straighten them out about the energy budget. They seem to think they’ve measured a difference between incoming and outgoing radiation, which you’ve pointed out is impossible.)”
This beyond absurd since I am not even arguing with the “satellite guys” and their energy budget.If fact all I ever stated was that it takes just seconds for the outgoing IR to leave the planet.Nothing more.
Here are two charts that shows just how minimal CO2 really is in keeping the planet warm:
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-188-post-3757.html#pid3757
and,
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-188-post-4157.html#pid4157
You are pathetic.
So, I was sure I was right, but just to be safe I checked with an actual scientist. Here is part of the reply:
If what you said was correct, essentially all of the outgoing radiation would quickly escape despite backradiation. We know that this is not happening because outgoing energy is less than incoming energy. And the speed’s got absolutely nothing to do with it.
So, you can take your “pathetic” and … well … you know …
You are again attempting to defy the laws of thermodynamics.
Unfortunately, an actual scientist (a scientist in this field, by the way, not a pediatrician) agrees with me and not with you.
Are you denying that incoming radiation exceeds outgoing radiation, or what?
Sigh,
“The evidence that CO2 traps IR is shown by satellite observations of measurements in IR that show less energy escaping to space at wavelengths that CO2 absorbs at. The most recent observations are coming from the AURA satellite.”
What made you think I am disputing,that CO2 absorbs IR photons?
“You also have surface observations showing more downward IR reaching the surface (but of course you also need to look at changes with cloud cover and water vapor when attributing changes in downwelling IR to CO2).”
The change is very very small.
Again what made you think I am disputing,that CO2 absorbs IR photons and emits them isotropically?
“It was sometime back in the 1800s that laboratory results showed that CO2 absorbs longwave radiation, and this has been proven again and again by repeated laboratory measurements.”
I knew this years ago.
Chris writes this puce,since he never seems to notice that I HAVE ALLOWED for CO2 absorption,emission and Back Radiation.When I apparently successfully pointed out that IR photons does indeed move at about 135,000 miles per second (you never dispute this).Indicating that after a number of absorptions and emissions,they leave orbit.
“If what you said was correct, essentially all of the outgoing radiation would quickly escape despite backradiation.”
LOL,
You do not seem to realize that incoming Visible light (moves at the same speed as IR photons) brings in FAR MORE ENERGY per photon than IR photons does.
I say you are being stupid.
Enjoy your fantasy universe.
ROFLMAO!
You quickly run out of absurd replies.
That is a good idea.
It is plain you can not answer my questions:
“What made you think I am disputing,that CO2 absorbs IR photons?”
AND,
“Again what made you think I am disputing,that CO2 absorbs IR photons and emits them isotropically?”
It is amusing that you fail to see why using the word “Trap” is absurd,when the fact is known that photons go in and out of CO2 molecules at about 135,000 miles per second.
That is FAST!
Anyone who thinks CO2 “TRAPS” IR photons are demonstrating irrational thinking.
“If what you said was correct, essentially all of the outgoing radiation would quickly escape despite backradiation.”
Leaving out Water Vapor CO2 and it’s GHG’s cousins absorbs about 7% of the outgoing IR.Most IR photons ALREADY quickly escape the clutches of your feared CO2 and CH4 molecules.
That means the other 93% of the IR spectrum never gets absorbed by CO2 and CH4 at all.Of course Water Vapor does absorb a nice portion of the 93%.
I have posted the charts and STILL you ignore the minimal CO2’s participation in the IR absorption game.
Sad really.
All this is ego massaging & pointless rantings, as far as we can tell our solar system has only completed 4 or maybe 5 rotations of our Milky Way galaxy & considering the billions of years the Earth has existed mankind does NOT have a clue what to expect as we have ONLY witnessed a fraction of a rotation & therefore the results that occur as we travel through the unknown.
I agree it’s nice to think we have all the answers however we literally haven’t even scratched the surface yet on what is ahead of all of us, besides mankind will probably destroy itself before any natural effect will but do we seriously try to fix that, of course not we’d prefer to fight & argue about things we know very little about.
One can only hope that something profound will happen to change mankinds mindset & wake it up but I doubt it.
The next ice age would bring about the end of Britain as a nation. People would have to move south to warmer regions of the world and leave Britain uninhabited.