@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: Researching warming climates. Researching are sampling Greenland ice to determine what the climate was like 130K-150K years ago when it was 3-5C warmer than today. A look at the Eemian period

And you only have to go back to MWP to find temperatures that was several degrees warmer there..
I wonder why there wasnt any so called catastrophic melting of ice then..

@Tomas

Quote:

And you only have to go back to MWP to find temperatures that was several degrees warmer there.. I wonder why there wasnt any so called catastrophic melting of ice then..

Did you actually read the article Brian linked you to? Here's the second sentence:
Quote:

Ice core samples from Eemian period 130,000 to 115,000 years ago -- the last time Earth's climate was a few degrees warmer than today -- could help forecast the impacts of current global warming, the researchers said.

Note they talk about global temperatures, between 2 and 3 degrees warmer than present, a different environment.

@BrianK

Have you caught this one?
Greenland Ice Caps melting at an accelerated rate

The team experienced a loss of about 6 metres thickness of ice in the area they were in, in one month.

The article also covers the effect of soot particles that drill down through the ice so that it becomes pockmarked with small melt holes.

It also notes this last winter no sea ice-tongue formed to lock in the Jakobshavn glacier so it may have been calving all year round. Between July 6 and July 7 it retreated a whole mile.

Noel

@NoelFuller
Quote:

Have you caught this one? Greenland Ice Caps melting at an accelerated rate The team experienced a loss of about 6 metres thickness of ice in the area they were in, in one month. The article also covers the effect of soot particles that drill down through the ice so that it becomes pockmarked with small melt holes. It also notes this last winter no sea ice-tongue formed to lock in the Jakobshavn glacier so it may have been calving all year round. Between July 6 and July 7 it retreated a whole mile. Noel

If it is melting faster than ever now, then it cannot be because of temperatures. It is a well known FACT that temperatures was much higher on greenland during the medieval warm period.
The article even talks about how it is soot, which has absolutely nothing to do with global warming.
But i guess it is better ignore facts that does not support the AGW agenda.

I can do some cherry picking as well: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

@NoelFuller
Quote:

Did you actually read the article Brian linked you to? Here's the second sentence

I must admit i never bothered to even click it.. The summary by briank was enough to convince me that it is nothing but cherry picked pseudoscience bull that isnt worth wasting time over.

@Noel,
Thanks for the info we'll get it checked out.

@Tomas
Soot reduction appears to be the only way to reduce Global Warming within the next couple of decades LINK There is LOTS of other work with soot and it's impact to Global Warming. Here's another one, recent work at Standford indicates soot is the 2nd largest contributing factor to Global Warming. The science seems to indicate opposite of your claim that soot has absoultely nothing to do with Global Warming.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/03/a-new-must-read-paper-mckitrick-on-ghcn-and-the-quality-of-climate-data/
Quote:

The overall conclusion of this report is that there are serious quality problems in the surface temperature data sets that call into question whether the global temperature history, especially over land, can be considered both continuous and precise. Users should be aware of these limitations, especially in policy sensitive applications.

Who would have known...

@BrianK
Or rather.. it has absolutely nothing to do with CO2.
Soot might indeed have some indirect effects like changing the albedo which might have some effects on temperatures.

I am all against dirty industry and coal plants that spew out dirty fumes as well.
Most of that comes from industry in countries like China anyways..

@Tomas

Quote:

Or rather.. it has absolutely nothing to do with CO2. Soot might indeed have some indirect effects like changing the albedo which might have some effects on temperatures.

Since soot isn't CO2 then certainly your first statement is true. Between this statement and your earlier one it reads as if you believe CO2 is the only global environmental effect. We want to be clear here that, CO2 is simply the present largest contributing factor in a myriad of possible factors.


Quote:

Most of that comes from industry in countries like China anyways

I'm against dirty factories too. Though one of the reasons why China can sell goods at dirt cheap prices is their dirty environmental policies. I think China sees the writing on the wall for the need for environmentally more friendly practices. Not only is China fast becoming the world's largest implementer of renewable energy, they are the world's largest manufacturer of solar generation and wind power.

@Tomas

Quote:

Quote: The overall conclusion of this report is that there are serious quality problems in the surface temperature data sets that call into question whether the global temperature history, especially over land, can be considered both continuous and precise. Users should be aware of these limitations, especially in policy sensitive applications. Who would have known...

Perhaps all the climate scientists whose work includes error boundaries? Just guessing.

@NoelFuller

Quote:

Greenland Ice Caps melting at an accelerated rate The team experienced a loss of about 6 metres thickness of ice in the area they were in, in one month. The article also covers the effect of soot particles that drill down through the ice so that it becomes pockmarked with small melt holes.

Thanks I got a chance to read your link. Wouldn't the soot have a dual effect. First, it melts the ice directly by absorbing more solar energy. Second, it melts the ice indirectly as the pathways produce a larger surface area of glacier exposed to the environment.

Expanding a bit I see the effects here as comparable to other thermal transfer applications. Various things we deal with daily use fins to increase the surface area and improve the thermal transfer. Air cooled engines, for example, have fins to increase the surface area which in turn produces better transfer of heat to the cool. Wouldn't these holes increase the surface area and enhance thermal transfer resulting in melting, compared to a non-holed glacier?

I'd think an experiment testing this postulate would be fairly simple to conduct. Take 1 square ice cube and drill holes in it. Weigh the result. Take a second ice cube and trim one side down a bit to where the weights match. Then leave both in the same hot environment and measure weights intermittently to determine the rate of melting. And of course the final observation would be to see which one completely melts first. I'd start with some ice cubes then repeat with a block of ice.

@NoelFuller

Maybe less worry about ice and more on the Sun?

"Until recently, the sun was in a phase with few storms."


Sun storms may bring northern lights farther southLink

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@All
Update: Amazingly Fast Eruption on the Sun Photographed
Link

Quote:

One of the fastest big solar eruptions in years has been observed streaking away from the sun at more than 2.2 million mph by two NASA spacecraft. The flare occurred Aug. 1 and created a massive sun eruption called a coronal mass ejection that struck Earth's magnetic field Tuesday, creating dazzling aurora displays. NASA's twin STEREO spacecraft recorded the eruption and beamed images of the sun storm back to Earth. [Photo of the sun eruption.] The material ejected from the sun was seen speeding toward Earth at more than 1,000 kilometers per second, or just over 2.2 million mph (3.6 million kph). Another wave from the event was expected to hit Earth's magnetic field on Wednesday. NASA's two STEREO spacecraft, which monitor the sun's weather in 3-D, also recorded a video of the sun eruption. "These kinds of eruptions are one of the first signs that the sun is waking up and heading toward another solar maximum expected in the 2013 time frame," NASA officials said in a statement. The sun goes through a regular 11-year activity cycle. The last solar maximum occurred in 2001 and its recent extreme solar minimum was particularly weak and long-lasting, the space agency added. Coronal mass ejections are eruptions of charged particles from the sun that stream out over several hours. They can contain several billion tons of plasma and expand away from the sun at speeds of up to 1 million mph (1.6 million kph). At such speeds, they can cross the 93 million-mile (150 million-km) gulf between the Earth and sun in two to four days. The material belched from the sun during the Aug. 1 flare is not expected to cause any disturbances on Earth other than creating spectacular auroras. Auroras are created when charged particles are caught by Earth's magnetic field and interact with the atmosphere above the poles. The Aug. 1 solar flare was a moderate C-class flare. The coronal mass ejection it set off created a strong so-called geomagnetic storm that lasted nearly 12 hours – enough time for auroras to spread from Europe to North America, NASA officials said in a statement. Stronger solar storms could cause adverse impacts to space-based assets and technological infrastructure on Earth.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

Within this discussion is, of course, is a variety of conspiracy theories, such as a claim of 1 world government, a cabal of scientists, the gaians plan to overtake the world, and of course as number of others. A short but good read on The psychology of conspiracy theories

40% of phytoplankton gone in the last 60 years. Primary cause believed to be Global warming. Article

Last edited by BrianK on 07-Aug-2010 at 05:22 PM.

@Tomas

Quote:

If it is melting faster than ever now, then it cannot be because of temperatures.

Your grasp of elementary physics is stunning :) Perhaps you can detail ways in which melting can take place other than through heat that can be shown to apply to this camp area on the top of a glacier.?

The heat sources and mediums and mechanisms of delivery are another matter. Thinning due to the recent acceleration of flow of the Greenland glaciers obviously is not applicable to this case as the report reveals.

Quote:

It is a well known FACT that temperatures was much higher on greenland during the medieval warm period.

Such a loose statement invites automatic scepticism. Much higher than where when? Near as I can discover temperatures during the MWP at their warmest were comparable with mid-20th century northern hemisphere temperatures, and SW Greenland, the area of Norse settlement, was comparable in warmth, to say, Finland today.

Quote:

The article even talks about how it is soot, which has absolutely nothing to do with global warming.

This is a misrepresentation. The article does not discuss it as the cause, even if most of the soot is produced by the same fossil fuels combustion that also produces anthropogenic global warming. Greenhouse gasses have warmed up the nights globally even more than the days according to science studies on the matter, but by your own admission you know nothing of the huge weight of evidence that has already accrued on such matters.

The effect of soot. i.e. heat absorption of solar and IR radiation rather than ice reflection, has long been discussed. Soot, due to vehicle and power station emmissions may be a contributing factor to melting. Has anyone done the experiment BrianK suggests above.

Of course the article under discussion is a "gee whizz" TV news report so we have yet to see the paper these scientists will eventually present.

Noel

Last edited by NoelFuller on 08-Aug-2010 at 12:15 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

40% of phytoplankton gone in the last 60 years. Primary cause believed to be Global warming.

I have been getting onto this recently and seen reports of a 1% reduction per year of plankton, a poleward shift of plankton and a 6% reduction in productivity of the oceans globally over the last 40 years with model predictions of crunch time for the ocean food chain from about 2050 onwards depending on what exactly is being discussed . The article linked is a bit truncated on attribution.

A direct effect of warming is layering of the water. Perhaps you have gone swimming in a rocky tidal basin into which a cool river is flowing? While the tide is low the sun has heated the rocks. These heat the water as the tide rises producing a very warm surface layer under which the cold river water flows, the division is metaphorically as sharp as a knife.

The article mentions exclusion of nutients from the phytoplankton due to thermal layering. The phenomenon has been studied in lakes for example. The article concludes: Quote:

They believe that rising sea temperatures are driving the decline. As surface water warms, it tends to form a distinct layer that does not mix well with cooler, nutrient-rich water below, depriving phytoplankton of some of the materials they need to turn CO2 and sunlight into energy.

From the comments some people do not realise that the advent of satellite measurment did not mean the use of secchi disks stopped. Overlap enables comparison so the much older system can be drawn on. The disks and satellites give much the same readings.

To add to the general theme,
Plankton is basic to the oceanic food web. Many plankton form shells.

CO2 in water forms carbonic acid and is cited elsewhere as acidifying or souring the oceans in that ph has dropped about 0.1 units meaning an increase in corrosive H+ ions of about 30%. The sea is still not acid - "acidifying or acidification" are terms refering to change in that direction due to increase in acid. The significant matter is that a large variety of creatures form shells. They require super saturation of calcium carbonate (CACO³) to form their shells. The calcium carbonate comes in two forms, calcite and aragonite (the latter used by corals and the more susceptible to acidification). In general surface waters are super saturated but there is a sharp threshhold below which there is no longer saturation. Shells cannot be formed or dissolve if they enter this region. Marine biologists refer to the saturation line. Because the oceans are everywhere taking on more CO2 than they give out acidification is increasing and the saturation line is moving up. It may be 3400 metres in the north Atlantic but only 200 metres in the high latitudes, the southern ocean being the most prominent example. This matter alone is considered by the researchers to provide a compelling reason for curtailment of CO2 emmissions quite apart from the issues of climate change.

Noel

@NoelFuller

Some interesting stuff thanks.

Also, thanks for the explaination of acidification. It's good to repeat this. A few threads back I had the experience of trying to explain to someone, who claims to have a scientific background and fully understands what pH means, that acidification is what you have stated here. Their statement, in short, was it can't be 'acidification' if the net result is still a basic solution. For example, they claimed that using the term 'more acidic' was incorrect while changing a solution from a pH of 13 to that of 9 because the net result is you still have a base. UGH! It's important that people agree on what scientific terminology means in these discussions. It makes the discussion so so easier.

Last edited by BrianK on 08-Aug-2010 at 05:46 PM.

@NoelFuller

Quote:

NoelFuller wrote: @Tomas ... Quote: It is a well known FACT that temperatures was much higher on greenland during the medieval warm period. Such a loose statement invites automatic scepticism. Much higher than where when? Near as I can discover temperatures during the MWP at their warmest were comparable with mid-20th century northern hemisphere temperatures, and SW Greenland, the area of Norse settlement, was comparable in warmth, to say, Finland today. ...

Most scientists contradict Tomas's original statement and confirm your statement.
Here are two examples:

Nature.com:

"...
Here we splice together fossil-coral oxygen isotopic records from Palmyra Island in the tropical Pacific Ocean to provide 30–150-year windows of tropical Pacific climate variability within the last 1,100 years. The records indicate mean climate conditions in the central tropical Pacific ranging from relatively cool and dry during the tenth century to increasingly warmer and wetter climate in the twentieth century.
..."


ScieneDirect.com:

"Abstract
The precisely dated isotopic composition of a stalagmite from Spannagel Cave in the Central Alps is translated into a highly resolved record of temperature at high elevation during the past 2000 yr. Temperature maxima during the Medieval Warm Period between 800 and 1300 AD are in average about 1.7 °C higher than the minima in the Little Ice Age and similar to present-day values. The high correlation of this record to Δ^14 C suggests that solar variability was a major driver of climate in Central Europe during the past 2 millennia."

EDIT:
fixed Greek letter and added the exponent symbol

Last edited by Dandy on 11-Aug-2010 at 09:29 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@BrianK

Here is annother interesting article:

State of the Science: Beyond the Worst Case Climate Change Scenario

IMO the last sentence on page 3 is quite indicative:

"We are 25 years too late," Schneider says. "If the object is to avoid dangerous change, we've already had it. The object now is to avoid really dangerous change."

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@BrianK

Quote:

It's important that people agree on what scientific terminology means in these discussions. It makes the discussion so so easier.

I suspect it was Plato who said, something like "before beginning a discussion, define your terms." Even so it only works if done in good faith. Even then the cooperation of thought is a rare and precious jewel. Very few are the people I've known who can pick up on an idea, or some evidence, and follow it wherever it leads. Most have walls of beliefs and fears that limit them to their familiar description of the world, the one they call reality, though it appear absurd to another. This world view is of course a model, like any other model but little researched. I suspect that questioning one's own belief, a mark of a real sceptic, is the hardest thing in the world to do. Then what? The unknown where people otherwise project their fears and hopes and imagine entities to embody them, is the place of exploration and testing. I read once a remark that the mainspring of both science and religion is fear of the unknown!

To get back down off that pyramid there are people who do not discuss in good faith. Their principals are the "merchants of doubt" as Naomi Oreskes calls them in her just released book and we know them. I described what I call the "bought men" to a medical doctor a short while back, adding that " for all their posturing they know they cannot deceive the real climate scientists and those who know their work. If they attempt to publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal they know it will not stand up. They do not mind lying or using any deceit so long as it can be used to create doubt in the public. They use the news media to make their impact. They know a response from a scientist comes too late and does not get public attention. The web is filled with their traps and a genuine enquirer has to be pretty savvy to see beyond the FUD." The doctor then commented that "we have the bought men in our profession too." He also told me of his brother, a marine biologist who tells him, with reference to that rising saturation line earlier discussed, "We tell them it is happening but they won't believe us."

I suspect I will buy "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M Conway. See review here. The reviewer describes the book as the runaway best science book of the year - Oreskes is a Professor of History. Note the profound ignorance of the first comment to the article and the responses. While following it I came upon a link to a lecture on youtube by Naomi Oreskes in 2007 on "The American Denial of Global Warming". It is quite long but her clarity of thought is a joy. The first half of the lecture recounts the history of the science with respect to the role of greenhouse gasses and climate change, including accurate climate predictions made decades before the events. She tells very clearly why scientists are sure of their ground. The second half of the lecture goes into the effort to cut that ground away from them in the public mind and some of its ideological mainsprings. It is worth watching.

Oreskes Lecture here

Noel

Spelling mistake fixed

Last edited by NoelFuller on 12-Aug-2010 at 12:55 PM.