Rapid Global Climate Shift and its socio-economic effects

[hoytedow]

New scientific method:
Gather data, or make it up; it really doesn't matter.
Make the numbers fit to match the desired outcome.
Hammer the propaganda drum and drown out all dissent.
Dupe people into buying carbon credits and line your own pockets with profits while still flying around in private jets, air conditioning whole mansions and driving suv's that you condemn others for driving.

[Boston]

Originally Posted by bntii

Boston- I am also noting recent thoughts on the 'real' short term risk as being one of precipitating the rapid phase whose extent may be postulated to raising temperatures to the normal epoch heights such as seen during the Eemian.

The key here is rapid as it is now demonstrated that these changes can occur over very short periods.

Causation is to my mind the area of interest as these changes have during each prior epoch. Rate as I have pointed out has ample precedent in the record so may be taken as a non-starter for 'evidence'.

I also hold some interest in the question over whether the AGW effect is sufficient to draw temperatures outside of the range constrained by the glacial/interglacial.

I will re-toss the postulate that carboniferous rock structures bear the majority of CO2 which was present in the atmosphere during the Cambrian similar 'hot house' periods.
As these sources cycle over millennial time frames, I would venture that the extent of AWG effect is potentially limited.

I'm not sure a definitive conclusion can be drawn from that one paper, on the contrary, the paper itself is quite careful to mention that the effects were not found in a global survey but instead seemed to be limited to specific geographies. We know that land mass shape and orientation to the oceans as well as its size and altitude tends to have tremendous bearing on its climate. So although the climate system may entail large areas it still might not represent a global norm. IE weather instead of climate. I have not finished the paper yet, so I should abbreviate my statements till I do.

on the issue of carboniferous rock I'd agree that much of the extreme levels of CO2 found in the carboniferous age found themselves bound up in other than fossil fuels strata it is equally as true that more than enough exists within the fossil fuels reserve to sufficiently screw up the atmospheric chemistry. My apologies for not providing the info you had requested earlier.

I think if we use the 4°C increase in temps of the High Permian event we can easily see that the forcing is easily attained with even just a rise to ~500ppm. Which is partly why that number was chosen as a target in the first place. Concerns of what might happen if we went over that 4°C mark. Thing is we're already seeing a dramatic increase in the organic carbon release.

While I'd have to agree that the effects of just our burning of fossil fuels must be limited, if for no other reason than that we'll eventually run out of the stuff. Its important to realize its a trigger. Pull the trigger and you shoot off the organic carbon. The wild card in the whole thing. If the methane hydrate goes, its game over. And that sink is far larger than the CO2 sink. So although it might be fair to argue that these sources are limited the real question is are they sufficiently limited to keep us from shooting ourselves in the foot.

[bntii]

Originally Posted by Boston

I'm not sure a definitive conclusion can be drawn from that one paper, on the contrary,

The conclusions of this paper are broadly supported in recent work.

Originally Posted by Boston

I think if we use the 4°C increase in temps of the High Permian event we can easily see that the forcing is easily attained with even just a rise to ~500ppm.

Supposition- not fact

[hoytedow]

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/forecast.html

[bntii]

got to run- back at you gents later...

[Boston]

That High Permian events been studied to death, Its a position derived from very robust data . Not sure anyone questions the series of events leading to the Permian extinction, some of the others sure but that ones pretty well understood. That 4°C is pretty well accepted as the magic number.

I've just got up and was working on some other stuff but I'll get through that paper today and then go read some comments and rebuttals if I can find any.

Cheers
B

[Leo Lazauskas]

Originally Posted by Boston

PS
Leo, you surprise me. Since when the change of heart?

There has been no change of heart.
Like you, I believe humans have affected the atmosphere and climate. To what extent, and with what ultimate consequences, I can't be sure.

I have always maintained:
1. Not much will be done about it. People will just have to try to adapt as best they can. It will be very tough on the 3rd world.
2. Natural events, in particular inevitable volcanic eruptions, will change the climate so that millions, perhaps billions, will die. (I'm thinking of another Year Without Summer.)
3. If not by "explosive" natural events, then climate change will cause famines that will have the same effect.
4. The over-population problem will be solved, one way or another, and the demands placed on the planet will reduce.

Sure, it's a bit of a grim outlook, but I believe it's realistic and I'm comfortable with it.

[hoytedow]

d-d-d-dolt's all, Folks!

[Bamby]

Originally Posted by Boston

The effect is after all based on a charging of the upper atmosphere with massive amounts of ionized particles.

Finally maybe a point that actually could hold some potential. What is the effect of deliberately introducing barium particulates into the lower atmosphere, and the subsequent contribution to the global warming problem.

A study has been done to examine the role of the aerosol operations with respect to global warming. It has long been proposed1,2,3 that the aerosol operations have the effect of aggravating the heating condition of the planet, and that they show no prospect for cooling the earth as many have claimed. This is in direct contradiction to many of the popular notions that commonly circulate regarding the operations, i.e., that these operations are somehow intended for our benefit, but it is best that their true nature remain undisclosed and closed to fair examination by the public. Whether or not such popular theories are intended to mislead the public is open to question; the facts, however, speak of an opposite end result. The aerosols are being dispersed into the lower atmosphere, and it can be shown from this fact that they will indeed heat up the lower portion of the atmosphere. Global warming itself is defined as the heating of the lower atmosphere and earth4. The notion that the aerosols are in some way cooling the planet is contradictory to direct observation and the examinations of physics. To cool the planet, the intentionally dispersed aerosols would have to be in the upper regions of the atmosphere or in space; readers interested in that conclusion may wish to read more closely the proposals of Edward Teller that are often cited in the claims of supposed mitigation. It will be found that any claims of aerosols cooling the planet will usually require those materials to be at the upper reaches of the atmosphere to the boundaries of space; aerosols in the lower atmosphere will usually be shown to be heating the planet. These facts must be considered by any of those individuals that continue to promulgate claims of anonymous and beneficial mitigation in conjunction with the aerosol operations.

The current model examines the effects of deliberately introducing barium particulates into the lower atmosphere, and the subsequent contribution to the global warming problem. The results are not encouraging. The results indicate that these particulates, even at rather modest concentration levels, can contribute in a real and significant way to the heating of the lower atmosphere. The magnitude appears to be quite on par with any of the more popularly discussed contributions, such as carbon dioxide increase and greenhouse gases. It is recommended that the public be willing to consider some of the more direct, visible and palpable alterations to our planet and atmosphere within the pursuit of the global warming issue, namely the aerosol operations as they have been imposed upon the public without informed consent for more than 8 years now.

Source: http://www.carnicominstitute.org/articles/gwmodel.htm

So Maybe there is a real possibility that their could be huge contributing factors to any perceived "Global Warming" that may have been induced by sources other than the use of fossil fuels.

GLOBAL WARMING & AEROSOLS

LIFE IN THE TIME OF CHEMTRAILS 1997-2009: YOU ARE NOW BREATHING ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE, VIRALLY MUTATED MOLDS, NANO-PARTICULATES OF ALUMINUM AND BARIUM AND CATIONIC POLYMER FIBERS WITH UNIDENTIFIED BIO-ACTIVE MATERIAL: "We the people have not been warned, advised or consulted but are certainly vulnerable to the outcomes."

In Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Bases conclusion, the N.A.S. found that the most effective global warming mitigation turned out to be the spraying of reflective aerosol compounds into the atmosphere utilizing commercial, military and private aircraft. This preferred mitigation method is designed to create a global atmospheric shield which would increase the planet's albedo (reflectivity) using aerosol compounds of aluminum and barium oxides, and to introduce ozone generating chemicals into the atmosphere.

This method was the most cost effective, and yielded the largest benefits. It could also be conducted covertly to avoid the burdens of environmental protection and regulatory entanglements.

It is evident to anyone who cares to look up, that this mitigation is now being conducted worldwide and on a daily basis. It is certain that our leaders have already embarked on an immense geoengineering project; one in which they expect millions of human fatalities, and consider these to be acceptable losses.

This landmark study; the widespread experimentation and published papers of atmospheric theorists and scientists, combined with the visual evidence that atmospheric mitigations are being conducted in our skies, clearly shows that Chemtrail spraying has became a preferred solution to global warming mitigation.

The evidence is all around us. For example; this past week Boeing Aircraft received an enormous initial order from the Pentagon for 100 Boeing 767 tanker planes, to begin replacing the Air Force's aging fleet of KC-135s, the most commonly seen chemtrail spray plane. The final order will exceed 500 planes. There has been no mention of the usage of these aircraft.

Geoengineering is being carried on Earth on a staggering scale, without the impediment of environmental laws or regulatory constraints. This grand experiment is being conducted in full view, while being concealed in plain sight.

[hoytedow]

Crises, real or imagined, are over-stated so government can gain more control over our lives.

[Boston]

Originally Posted by bntii

"Until a few decades ago it was generally thought that all large-scale global and regional climate changes occurred gradually over a timescale of many centuries or millennia, scarcely perceptible during a human lifetime. The tendency of climate to change relatively suddenly has been one of the most suprising outcomes of the study of earth history, specifically the last 150,000 years (e.g., Taylor et al., 1993). Some and possibly most large climate changes (involving, for example, a regional change in mean annual temperature of several degrees celsius) occurred at most on a timescale of a few centuries, sometimes decades, and perhaps even just a few years."

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html


Have you read this yet Boston?
Interesting stuff..

To note- all of this research is dealing with glacial/interglacial variability. It does not address the longer term, greater amplitude shifts.

This paper hasn't been published yet as far as I can see. Also this time period has had numerous reviews so it will be interesting to see how this stacks up. One thing I'm noticing is as far as I've read thus far is its careful to note that the aligning of the interglacial oscillation from region to region is uncertain at best. Lots of variations from region to region. Its a great read and I'm sure will stir a lot of interest.

I'm still looking for where you might have found that reverence to temp in F rather than C which seems a bit odd. So far they are using ambiguous terms like large and small short and long, and leaving the specifics to the cited work. Some of which is pay per view so if its not on my CU account its not going to get read.

oh well still working my way through it

cheers
B

[Boston]

got a bird in the oven so I had a little more time to review some more of this article

At least in the North Atlantic region, these changes seem to have been paced according to approximately the same 1500-year rhythm as that found for the last glacial and earlier glacial periods, according to Atlantic sediment records (Bond et al. 1997; Campbell et al., 1998). Generally, at the coldest point of each 1500-year cycle surface temperatures of the North Atlantic were about 2 deg.C cooler than at the warmest part, representing a fairly substantial change in climate. Regional or global fluctuations of this order would be major events if they were to suddenly affect the present-day world with its high population and finely balanced food production. It is uncertain whether these climate cycles indeed extended around the world or were generally confined to the region around the North Atlantic, but the 8,200 ka event (see below) (which fits in as one of the more extreme cold events of this 1500-year pattern) does seem to have been widespread. Other veents might be recognizable as variations in monsoonal intensity in the Indian Ocean, but there is still uncertainty in exact time correlations (Sirocko et al., 1993).

Seems like they are referring to a 2°C rise as being generally the largest oscillation in each 1500 year cycle. Which puts our 2°C shift of todays ~200 year period of the industrial revolution on the edge of surpassing what is "normal" in terms of total temp shift and far surpassing the typical oscillation period in rate of change

Still got lots more to read and references to cross

cheers
and thanks
very entertaining

[bntii]

Who knew?:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesape..._impact_crater


Pesky bolide


"The rocks are subjected to stresses hundreds of times their failure strengths. This means that the rocks effectively behave as if they were water. The stresses are so far beyond the strength of rocks that the impacted rocks behave as if they had no strength whatever. They flow plastically as if they were fluids."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNJel...eature=related

If anyone figures out how to travel back in time, I would put in a request for a decent video of the impact..

[Boston]

yup there's likely a lot of little episodes in the past that have effected climate to a greater or lesser degree. However unlike today those events were not preventable. Whats happening today is entirely preventable, thats not to say we're going to actually do anything about it, but we can watch the atmospheric chemistry slowly going south on us and rest assured that we know exactly whats causing it. Increasing CO2 due to the burning of fossil fuels. an increase in greenhouse gasses can only result in an increase in temp.

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by bntii

Who knew?:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesape..._impact_crater


Pesky bolide


"The rocks are subjected to stresses hundreds of times their failure strengths. This means that the rocks effectively behave as if they were water. The stresses are so far beyond the strength of rocks that the impacted rocks behave as if they had no strength whatever. They flow plastically as if they were fluids."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNJel...eature=related

If anyone figures out how to travel back in time, I would put in a request for a decent video of the impact..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTMesu7ioRY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYgEw...eature=related