What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Guillermo]

New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool:

"A new 2,000-year-long reconstruction of sea surface temperatures (SST) from the Indo-Pacific warm pool (IPWP) suggests that temperatures in the region may have been as warm during the Medieval Warm Period as they are today."

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545...d=59106&ct=162


Cheers.

[Guillermo]

[b]Amplifying the Pacific Climate System Response to a Small 11-Year Solar Cycle Forcing./[b]
Gerald A. Meehl, Julie M. Arblaster, Katja Matthes, Fabrizio Sassi, Harry van Loon. 28 Aug 2009

"One of the mysteries regarding Earth’s climate system response to variations in solar output is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific associated with such solar variability. Two mechanisms, the top-down stratospheric response of ozone to fluctuations of shortwave solar forcing and the bottom-up coupled ocean-atmosphere surface response, are included in versions of three global climate models, with either mechanism acting alone or both acting together. We show that the two mechanisms act together to enhance the climatological off-equatorial tropical precipitation maxima in the Pacific, lower the eastern equatorial Pacific sea surface temperatures during peaks in the 11-year solar cycle, and reduce low-latitude clouds to amplify the solar forcing at the surface."

[hoytedow]

When my iced lemonade got warm , the meniscus did not rise. Please explain why the boatyards would go under water with icebergs melting.

I believe that, in theory, the south polar ice cap could actually melt and that land based ice would raise sea levels.
In 1978, Argentina set up a post office and flew a pregnant woman to a wall tent at Esperanza, where Emilio Marcos Palma was born and promptly declared an Argentine citizen. Poor Emilio is still there but plans, one day, to visit another of Argentina's territories, the Falklands, where he'll actually (seasonally) be able to touch dirt.

Emilio getting a little sun in an
unseasonably warm antarctic summer.
Emilio wishes to correspond. With anybody.

Guillermo and Jimbo, how would you address these people and this part of their agenda? http://www.akmarine.org/our-work/add...-acidification - Thanks.

[Guillermo]

I would tell them corals bloomed in the past when CO2 levels were several times higher than today.

I would tell them shells do not dissolve, otherwise there would be no shelly fossils.

I would tell them oceans are saturated with calcium carbonate to a depth of 4.8 km, so all excesses of dissolved CO2 make calcium carbonate to precipitate.

I would tell them also, an additional small amount of CO2 would have precipitated gypsum from the oceans instead of calcium carbonate. This has not been found. If the CO2 content were extremely high, dolomite would have precipitated from the oceans. This has not been found except for inmediately after Neoproterozoic glaciations. In the Neoproterozoic when athmospheric CO2 was farter greater than 1%, huge volumes of dolomite were precipitated in the Neoproterozoic seas. This means that the balance of CO2 between the oceans and atmosphere we see today has not changed for thousands of millions of years. This balance has not changed during times of of intense sudden release of CO2 from volcanoes. Increased volcanic production of CO2 correlates well with increased sedimentation of calcium carbonate from the oceans. This geological process that has taken place for billions of years is ignored in the computer climate models of the IPCC.

But most surely I will not have the opportunity of saying a word to that people....

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by mark775

I believe that, in theory, the south polar ice cap could actually melt and that land based ice would raise sea levels.

If it happens we would have nothing to do with that.

Polar ice caps have melted in the past and will do it again in the future. Sea levels have been hundreds of meters over and under present level, with humans hoving nothing to do with that.

IPCC's 2007 projection of sea level rise for 2100 is between 18 and 59 cm (they have been changing their projections at every subsequent report!).

I want to note the mean of this projection (and I remark it's only that: a projection based on computer models) is in the range of 4 mm per year. When sea levels rose from the end of the last glaciation, rising rate reached up to 4 cm per year. Rate has stabilized in around 1.5 mm/year since 8000 years ago aprox. We have had nothing to do with all of that. Neither has had atmospheric CO2.

Cheers.

[fasteddy106]

Interestingly Boston continues to rant about those who won't swallow the KoolAid as being oil industry hacks who have surrendered their ethics for cash. Yet being a government grant whore and a parasite on the taxpayers seems to be ok. Hmmm, why is that?

[hoytedow]

So true, so true I am beside myself.

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by mark775

Guillermo and Jimbo, how would you address these people and this part of their agenda? http://www.akmarine.org/our-work/add...-acidification - Thanks.

From the first paragraph on that site:

"In the past 200 years the oceans have absorbed about 525 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), almost half of the CO2 produced by human activities like fossil fuel burning. As CO2 dissolves in seawater, it acts to make the water more acidic. "


Setting aside for a moment the fact that climatologically significant anthropogenic CO2 emissions have only a ~60 rather than a 200 year history, the first thing I would point out is this (and I know I'm going to sound repetitive at this point):

We know with a high degree of certainty the source of the recent atmospheric CO2 increase because we can accurately measure and determine the fraction of the CO2 in our present atmosphere which is sourced from fossil fuels, and therefore anthropogenic.

Whenever ANYONE analyzes this data, they find out that only a small fraction of the CO2 in today's atmosphere is sourced from fossil fuels, about 4% specifically. The IPCC asserts that this fraction is 21%. That represented (that assertion was made back in 1991 when we had 360ppm) an "all or nearly all" attribution as it represents ~75ppm; 360 - 75 = 285 ppm, very close to the pre-industrial baseline. Of course as I've pointed out numerous times, NO mass-balance study is ever offered in support of this '21%' figure; it is taken a a matter of faith among the AGW alarmists.

Remember these absolute numbers and you can make your own assessment whenever you run across a paper on a 'isotopic mass-balance' analysis:

-7 per mil pdb = naturally sourced, recent terrestrial and pelagic CO2; the 'virgin' atmosphere before any coal, oil and natural gas were ever burned.

-11 per mil pdb = the expected signature if ~21% of the CO2 in the present atmosphere were fossil fuel sourced

-26 per mil pdb = the isotopic signature of fossil fuel carbon

-7.5 to -7.8 per mil pdb = the signature of the CO2 in today's atmosphere, only very slightly shifted toward fossil CO2.

While our atmosphere is no longer a pristine virgin 0f -7.0, her -7.5 to -7.8, is nowhere near the dirty whore that the IPCC accuses her to be at -11. The numbers are just not there to support these assertions.

Jimbo

[Guillermo]

It seems reasonable to think Arctic sea ice extension is bouncing back from its minimum in september 2007.
The latest value : 5,379,844 km2 (September 3, 2009)
Data from IARC-JASA Information System.

Cheers.

[Pericles]

Fewer than 14 days until the upturn and the so-called melting ceases, In my opinion, winds have caused the ice to compact and thicken, so that although the physical area of Arctic ice appears to have reduced. the ice is still there. That means there is a large body of "Cold" just waiting to freeze the NH this winter. The central northern states of the USA (and Canada, of course) are facing dry and bitter temperatures, as El Nino will weaken and disappear in the next six months.

In 700 days, any clown who suggests AGW is real will probably be strung up by the cojones with piano wire. Soylent Green anyone?

Respectfully,

Perry

http://www.solarcycle24.com/index2.htm

[Guillermo]

Fred Pearce reports from the 3rd World Climate Conference in Geneva:


"Forecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter. One of the world's top climate modellers said Thursday we could be about to enter "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.

"People will say this is global warming disappearing," he told more than 1500 of the world's top climate scientists gathering in Geneva at the UN's World Climate Conference.

"I am not one of the sceptics," insisted Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany. "However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it."

Few climate scientists go as far as Latif, an author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But more and more agree that the short-term prognosis for climate change is much less certain than once thought.

Latif predicted that in the next few years a natural cooling trend would dominate over warming caused by humans. The cooling would be down to cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the North Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).

Breaking with climate-change orthodoxy, he said NAO cycles were probably responsible for some of the strong global warming seen in the past three decades. "But how much? The jury is still out," he told the conference. The NAO is now moving into a colder phase.

Latif said NAO cycles also explained the recent recovery of the Sahel region of Africa from the droughts of the 1970s and 1980s. James Murphy, head of climate prediction at the Met Office, agreed and linked the NAO to Indian monsoons, Atlantic hurricanes and sea ice in the Arctic. "The oceans are key to decadal natural variability," he said.

Another favourite climate nostrum was upturned when Pope warned that the dramatic Arctic ice loss in recent summers was partly a product of natural cycles rather than global warming. Preliminary reports suggest there has been much less melting this year than in 2007 or 2008.

In candid mood, climate scientists avoided blaming nature for their faltering predictions, however. "Model biases are also still a serious problem. We have a long way to go to get them right. They are hurting our forecasts," said Tim Stockdale of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading, UK.

The world may badly want reliable forecasts of future climate. But such predictions are proving as elusive as the perfect weather forecast."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ef=online-news

Cheers

[Guillermo]

Conclusions of the 200 speakers and 1500 participants in the Expert Segment at the Conference (Boston is going to love this):

- that present capabilities to provide effective climate services fall far short of
meeting present, and future needs and benefits, particularly in developing
countries;
- that the most urgent need is for much closer partnerships between the
providers and users of climate services;
- that great scientific progress has been made especially by the World Climate
Programme and its associated activities over the past 30 years, which provides
already a firm basis for the delivery of a wide range of climate services; and
- that major new and strengthened research efforts are required to increase the
time-range and skill of climate prediction through new research and modelling
initiatives; and to improve the observational basis for climate prediction and
services, and the availability and quality control of climate data;

Cheers (LOL)

Thank-you. I have local battles to maintain, and tho I don't have the time to study, it helps to have a response for those on the ignis fatuus side of the demarcation.