General Climate Change Discussion.......

[Admiral_Bobski]

Looks to me like both anom lines (from C.Today) are below the average?

I know C.T. are 3 or 4 days behind in their 'daily plots' d'ya think you may be looking at older data still?

We are both looking at the 'time of year plots ' as well aren't we?

Ah yes, of course - one can draw conclusions for 3 or 4 days' worth of data, can't one? The point is that, despite "catastrophic collapse of ice sheets", the SH still looks to be in pretty good shape - small variations above and below the average are what define the average.

CB

[VillagePlank]

Would that be the one that (with a black-body radiating into a perfect vacuum) depends on T⁴; and when adapted to heat flow (from one body to another) on T₁⁴-T₂⁴?

Yes, that's the one; but heat-flow, it seems to me, is a term best left to colloquial discussions rather than (pseudo) scientific ones. What you are describing is radiation loss where you must deduct the ambient energy of the environment from the energy of the body so that you get the net-loss effect. If you give me a while I'll chart something up.

Of that, I remain unconvinced...Just because the planet's never exceeded a certain temperature, doesn't make that certain temperature an unbreachable barrier?

Well, if we consider that the ice-core studies are the complete sample (they're not) then it holds true. I agree it makes uncomfortable reading because it implies many things that either haven't been shown to be the case, or, it seems, very unlikely to be the case - hence your rather natural scepticism. And, of course, the assertion that just because it has always proved to be the case it doesn't necessarily hold that it will always be the case. There are plenty of examples littered throughout science to verify that.

However, it is still a worthy question - why is it in all (so far) measurable history there seems to be a maximum temperature?

[Methuselah]

Yes, that's the one; but heat-flow, it seems to me, is a term best left to colloquial discussions rather than (pseudo) scientific ones. What you are describing is radiation loss where you must deduct the ambient energy of the environment from the energy of the body so that you get the net-loss effect. If you give me a while I'll chart something up.

Well, if we consider that the ice-core studies are the complete sample (they're not) then it holds true. I agree it makes uncomfortable reading because it implies many things that either haven't been shown to be the case, or, it seems, very unlikely to be the case - hence your rather natural scepticism. And, of course, the assertion that just because it has always proved to be the case it doesn't necessarily hold that it will always be the case. There are plenty of examples littered throughout science to verify that.

However, it is still a worthy question - why is it in all (so far) measurable history there seems to be a maximum temperature?

Thanks mate...

That's another good question...What if, at the time it was exceeded (I'm only assuming it was?) there was no ice at all on the planet, hence no ice-cores??

[VillagePlank]

Thanks mate...

That's another good question...What if, at the time it was exceeded (I'm only assuming it was?) there was no ice at all on the planet, hence no ice-cores??

If that was the case then the presumption that we have a continual history for the past 420,000 years would come into question. And, therefore, so would the CO₂ hypothesis which, although the theory was developed by Fourier and friends, the main observational evidence that corroborates it comes from ice-core analysis. Scary huh?

You've just reminded me - Gray-Wolf, where's the 55 million year temp/CO₂ paper you promised?

Edited November 7, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Methuselah]

If that was the case then the presumption that we have a continual history for the past 420,000 years would come into question. And, therefore, so would the CO₂ hypothesis which, although the theory was developed by Fourier and friends, the main observational evidence that corroborates it comes from ice-core analysis. Scary huh?

You've just reminded me - Gray-Wolf, where's the 55 million year temp/CO₂ paper you promised?

My bad, VP...I think I'm missing a point somewhere??

You're not referring to all of Earth's history, are you? Now I get it!

[Admiral_Bobski]

My bad, VP...I think I'm missing a point somewhere??

You're not referring to all of Earth's history, are you? Now I get it!

Although....!

According to the graph below, there is seemingly an upper limit on global average temperatures, at least over the past 600 million years or so. It's somewhere around 22C, and the apparent lower limit is around 12C.

On this basis we could, quite legitimately, continue to warm another 8C or so and still potentially be within the realms of natural variability.

CB

[Methuselah]

Thanks CB. Now that is interesting!

I may be imagining things, but the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic limits seem to differ from one another; plate tectonics, perhaps? Which suggests to me, that the present-day limit may be different again??

[Admiral_Bobski]

Thanks CB. Now that is interesting!

I may be imagining things, but the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic limits seem to differ from one another; plate tectonics, perhaps? Which suggests to me, that the present-day limit may be different again??

There does indeed appear to be a slight difference in maximum temperature - it's not a huge difference; probably less that 1C, which is not a huge deal when one looks at the difference between minimum and maximum being 10C, but it would certainly be interesting to see whether there is an explanation for this discrepancy. I would wager that you are right and it's something plate tectonics-related.

Here, by the way, is the source of the temperature information on that graph I posted above:

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

An interesting website with a lot of paleoclimate information on it. I must give it a good read

CB

[Methuselah]

Thanks again...I've already spent nearly an hour there!

[Admiral_Bobski]

Thanks again...I've already spent nearly an hour there!

No problem I'll catch up on it tomorrow!

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks again...I've already spent nearly an hour there!

Hallelujah!

Our examinations can move into paleo-climatic proxy's (using the Ballantine-Gray brush size of course ) and allowing ourselves to access (in a meaningful way) the 'deep past' as a way to explore if there is any relationship between earth generated GHG excessive and temp (or not).

Were it not for my computing inadequacy you'd have your 'graph ' V.P. , I just can't seem to capture it from a 'pdf' document?

Anyhow how , if I can get that far then I know others will be well beyond in their exploration of paleo climates so I persevere in my efforts eh?

The non graphic descriptions of both our climate and planet ,since the KT boundary event, drives me on in my reluctance to abandon the notion that our GHG's atmospheric concentrations effect global temps with a positive 'hike', when abnormally high, and at 'squishing' temps when abnormally low (when compared to our recent ice core values).

Edited November 7, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

Were it not for my computing inadequacy you'd have your 'graph ' V.P. , I just can't seem to capture it from a 'pdf' document?

Just post a link to the paper?

[Methuselah]

I did read somewhere (in one of my courses?) that the climatic deterioration since the K-T boundary has been (at least partially) explained by the CO₂ 'scrubbing' associated with the uplift of the Hamalayas and the establishment of the Asian monsoon???

I will see what I dig out of my 'archives.'

[Gray-Wolf]

I did read somewhere (in one of my courses?) that the climatic deterioration since the K-T boundary has been (at least partially) explained by the CO₂ 'scrubbing' associated with the uplift of the Himalayas and the establishment of the Asian monsoon???

I will see what I dig out of my 'archives.'

Yes Pete, I've been doing a little back 'revision' from 'L/T ' through the Tertiary and the CO2 burden is central to our understanding of the ranges of global climate.

Once I'm back I'll link to the papers that both explain events ,epoch by epoch and the (at least) one paper that does us the service of plotting temp/ CO2 reconstruction since the K.T. event.

I think we'd already touched upon the initial glaciation of Antarctica/Greenland being facilitated by CO2 being removed from the atmosphere by sequestration by the weathering of exposed minerals in the America's.

[Gray-Wolf]

You've just reminded me - Gray-Wolf, where's the 55 million year temp/CO₂ paper you promised?

http://www.thaindian...go_1009521.html

The above paper would have us believe that 'pre-warming' led to massive releases of GHG's which forced the 9c (above the already elevated temps) rise begining the PETM.(sound familiar?)

http://books.google....ertiary&f=false

The above contains an important paragraph (IMHO) 21.2.3 'Current and future trends' which may alter my thinking a little and may allow others to understand why we do not see the 'instant responses' to increasing CO2/other GHG's that some would seem to expect.The fact that we are forcing things so rapidly is ,apparently, new to the planet and so past 'responses' (primarily plant life in this paper) cannot keep up with the rate of change and alter quickly enough to accommodate the change in atmospheric CO2.

http://books.google....page&q=&f=false

Page 89 has a useful graph underlain by the CO2 reconstruction from the K.T. boundary to present

Another extract of the exploration of the 'hothouse' and GHG's;

http://earth.geology...ani.Science.pdf

For those looking in here's an article focusing on the end of the 'hothouse period' and the establishment of ice sheets on Antarctica and Greenland;

http://esciencenews....rctic.formation

and this overview of the same period;

http://news.softpedi...en-121553.shtml

and as an anologue to todays GHG levels we have 15 million years ago;

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/co2-levels-on-earth-15-mln-yrs-ago-were-as-high-as-they-are-today_100258191.html

More to follow (lot's to read through first!)

Edited November 8, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[DAVID SNOW]

The conquistadors ,,, its them that done it

[jethro]

New papers which I think may interest some of you, apologies for the source of the over-view, I don't have free access to Science - links for the abstracts are included if anyone wants to track down the full papers.

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/global-warming-predictions-invalidated

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/326/5953/716

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/326/5953/672

[jethro]

Al Gore now says only 40% of the warming we have experienced can be attributed to CO2.

http://worldbbnews.com/2009/11/gores-spiritual-argument-on-climate/

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi 'J' !

Didn't we touch upon the impacts of aerosols and other pollutants (and their interactions) last week with a paper showing the logarithmic increases in potential heating from such 'novel combinations'? (esp. CO if I recall correctly?).

The first link seems to ignore these positive impacts completely and looks only at the minority impacts of the negative forcings they discovered?

I'm sure that we must be looking at the same paper just a different emphasis?

Edited November 8, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

Hey GW, I don't know, can't remember. After a manic weekend, I'm way too brain dead to even contemplate figuring anything out.

Maybe tomorrow, if I get time - can I have 48 hours in a day for the next few weeks please?

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.scienceda...91030100022.htm

and on the back of the aerosol phenomena we have 'lightning'.

If a warmer world produces more storms then their lightning produces more NOx's and further accelerates the warming...........

Then we have this from the Gaurdian;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/08/humans-sixth-extinction

I think we touched upon our fuelling the sixth great extinction event.

Are we at odds in accepting the facts science brings us on current rates of species loss even if we disagree on AGW's part in it or are we just being duped (yet again) by folk who want to generate funding to visit exotic parts of our globe?

Edited November 9, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[laserguy]

Are we at odds in accepting the facts science brings us on current rates of species loss even if we disagree on AGW's part in it or are we just being duped (yet again) by folk who want to generate funding to visit exotic parts of our globe?

Yes,looks that way! If this lot came lecturing me about carbon footprints etc I wouldn't hear a word,but I dare say they'd have my undivided attention !

http://www.telegraph...t.html?image=10

[jethro]

I found this interesting, thought some of you might too:

http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/the-climate-engine/

I haven't studied it in great detail, neither the time nor brain capacity at the moment.

[Coast]

Are you happy to pay the 'carbon capture levy'?

Government impose carbon capture levy to fund coal-fired power plants

Families will pay a new levy on electricity bills for at least the next 20 years to fund technology designed to capture the carbon from coal-fired power stations. The Government is planning to raise £9.5 billion from the levy to subsidise up to four carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration plants. Details of the first plant will be announced early next year. The Department for Energy and Climate Change said yesterday that uncertainty over the commercial viability of CCS meant that public support might have to continue beyond 2030.

The Government is promoting CCS to justify approving new coal plants to replace the eight due to close by 2015 under European rules on air pollution. Burning coal produces far more carbon than burning gas for the same amount of electricity but ministers want to build new coal plants to reduce Britains dependence on imported gas.

The department said the CCS levy, likely to start in 2011, would be about £17 a year per household. It said that the cost could be higher if its assumptions about the cost of CCS proved too optimistic.The initial levy, which will be imposed on electricity suppliers but passed on to consumers, will run for 15 years. This will pay for the first phase of CCS, under which new coal plants will have to capture the carbon from only about a quarter of their generating capacity.

www.timesonline.co.uk

[laserguy]

Are you happy to pay the 'carbon capture levy'?

Yes,delighted....not. I expect those who believe in/promote the great global warming climate change scam will be ecstatic. They should be - they've been begging for it long enough.