What Do We Think About Climate Change

[wardd]

one other possibility is the permafrost melting then abruptly releasing entrapped methane

co2 raises temp, melts permafrost, permafrost releases methane raising temp, melts more permafrost :::::::::::::::::

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

One unresolved question concerning rapid climate shifts in the past that may represent major feedback mechanisms, is in which way some minor forcing mechanisms result in significant changes in the Meridional Ocean Circulation (MOC). At present, a sudden change in the Thermohaline Circulation (THC) is the only well-developed theory for explaining abrupt climate changes.

http://folk.uib.no/ngfls/NOClim/english/ModuleB.htm


Final report here: http://folk.uib.no/ngfls/NOClim/Docu...rt06_final.pdf
Any of you could translate the conclusions? Knut?

For starters, there is no well-developed theory that explains abrupt climate changes by sudden changes in the Thermohaline Circulation, Dr. Gray's somewhat senile meanderings notwithstanding. He has no real explanation for how or why a change in the THC could cause overall temperature changes worldwide, or what causes change in the THC to begin with, and his musings barely add up to a hypothesis. They certainly don't qualify as a scientific theory.

[Guillermo]

One unresolved question concerning rapid climate shifts in the past that may represent major feedback mechanisms, is in which way some minor forcing mechanisms result in significant changes in the Meridional Ocean Circulation (MOC). At present, a sudden change in the Thermohaline Circulation (THC) is the only well-developed theory for explaining abrupt climate changes.

http://folk.uib.no/ngfls/NOClim/english/ModuleB.htm

(cretin...! )

[Guillermo]

Ladran, luego cabalgamos.

Let's go on...

These guys also predict no warming will happen till at least 2018, based only in SST analysis. And if the asumed anthropogenic warming comes to be not there, what is going to happen is a net and discernible cooling.

Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector
N. S. Keenlyside1, M. Latif1, J. Jungclaus2, L. Kornblueh2 & E. Roeckner2

1.-Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Düsternbrooker Weg 20, D-24105 Kiel, Germany
2.-Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Bundesstraße 53, 20146 Hamburg, Germany

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture06921.html


Abstract:

The climate of the North Atlantic region exhibits fluctuations on decadal timescales that have large societal consequences. Prominent examples include hurricane activity in the Atlantic1, and surface-temperature and rainfall variations over North America2, Europe3 and northern Africa4. Although these multidecadal variations are potentially predictable if the current state of the ocean is known5, 6, 7, the lack of subsurface ocean observations8 that constrain this state has been a limiting factor for realizing the full skill potential of such predictions9. Here we apply a simple approach—that uses only sea surface temperature (SST) observations—to partly overcome this difficulty and perform retrospective decadal predictions with a climate model. Skill is improved significantly relative to predictions made with incomplete knowledge of the ocean state10, particularly in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific oceans. Thus these results point towards the possibility of routine decadal climate predictions. Using this method, and by considering both internal natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing, we make the following forecast: over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.

[Guillermo]

North Atlantic climate and deep water variability since 600 AD
Helga Kleiven(1,2), IV Johansen(2), U Ninnemann(1,2)
(1) Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, Bergen, Norway
(2) University of Bergen, Norway

Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 6 (2009) 072036 doi:10.1088/1755-1307/6/7/072036


An increasing number of paleoclimate archives provide evidence that there is significant natural climate
variability on multi-decadal to millennial timescales. Understanding the source and expression of these low
frequency modes of natural climate variability is crucial for determining their role in current and future
climate changes. The most recently recorded climate oscillations such as the Little Ice Age (LIA) are
particularly well described and thus offer a natural starting point for understanding how they come about.
Low frequency climate oscillations are often postulated to result from changes in the ocean's meridional
overturning circulation (MOC). Testing this hypothesis for historically recorded climate changes such as the
LIA requires decadally resolved constraints on the state of ocean circulation spanning these events.
.......
The foraminiferal oxygen isotopic
results reveal significant centennial-scale variability in the near-surface and the deep water masses over the
past 1400 years, suggesting a large magnitude natural variability similar to that found in many of the more
sensitive climate models. Superimposed on the centennial variations are higher frequency oscillations, which
are similar in duration and amplitude to those of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). The oxygen
isotope records resolve several distinct cooling episodes, the most pronounced being an abrupt cooling
around 1400 AD in both surface and deep water records. Thus, there is evidence for persistent deep water
circulation and temperature (or salinity) changes over the past 1400 years, suggesting an active role for deep
water - surface coupling in shaping our climate on multidecadal to centennial timescales. In particular, the
results of this study highlight that the convergence of both internal (MOC) and external (solar & volcanic)
forcing around 1400 AD may have triggered the particularly widespread and severe cooling initiating the
Little Ice Age.

(bolded is mine)

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

One unresolved question concerning rapid climate shifts in the past that may represent major feedback mechanisms, is in which way some minor forcing mechanisms result in significant changes in the Meridional Ocean Circulation (MOC). At present, a sudden change in the Thermohaline Circulation (THC) is the only well-developed theory for explaining abrupt climate changes.

http://folk.uib.no/ngfls/NOClim/english/ModuleB.htm

(cretin...! )

Nothing in there that explains sudden changes in the THC, either. Despite the authors' ungrounded claim, there is no 'well-developed theory.' it's simply ungrounded, unsupported conjecture.

The link is to a proposal to investigate and study any connection between THC and climate change, not to the results of any such research or study. And since they proposed to conduct their study from 2003 through 2006, it's safe to conclude that either nothing significant came of it, or they never conducted it.

Be careful who you call a cretin, pendejo. At least I read things and understand them, before I cut and paste them or provide links to them. And tell me: what ever happened to your promise not to insult people and call them names?

[Guillermo]

A model study of the Little Ice Age and beyond: changes in ocean heat content, hydrography and circulation since 1500

Sedláček Jan (1 2) ; Mysak Lawrence A. (1) ;
(1) Earth System Modelling Group, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, McGill University, QC, Montreal, Canada
(2) Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, 8092, Zurich, Switzerland

Climate dynamics ISSN 1432-0894
2009, vol. 33, no4, pp. 461-475 [15 page(s) (article)]

Résumé / Abstract
The Earth System Climate Model from the University of Victoria is used to investigate changes in ocean properties such as heat content, temperature, salinity, density and circulation during 1500 to 2000, the time period which includes the Little Ice Age (LIA) (1500-1850) and the industrial era (1850-2000). We force the model with two different wind-stress fields which take into account the North Atlantic Oscillation. Furthermore, temporally varying radiative forcings due to volcanic activity, insolation changes and greenhouse gas changes are also implemented. We find that changes in the upper ocean (0-300 m) heat content are mainly driven by changes in radiative forcing, except in the polar regions where the varying wind-stress induces changes in ocean heat content. In the full ocean (0-3,000 m) the wind-driven effects tend to reduce, prior to 1700, the downward trend in the ocean heat content caused by the radiative forcing. Afterwards no dynamical effect is visible. The colder ocean temperatures in the top 600 m during the LIA are caused by changes in radiative forcing, while the cooling at the bottom is wind-driven. The changes in salinity are small except in the Arctic Ocean. The reduced salinity content in the subsurface Arctic Ocean during the LIA is a result from reduced wind-driven inflow of saline water from the North Atlantic. At the surface of the Arctic Ocean the changes in salinity are caused by changes in sea-ice thickness. The changes in density are a composite picture of the temperature and salinity changes. Furthermore, changes in the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) are caused mainly by a varying wind-stress forcing; the additional buoyancy driven changes due to the radiative forcings are small. The simulated MOC is reduced during the LIA as compared to the industrial era. On the other hand, the ventilation rate in the Southern Ocean is increased during the LIA.

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by troy2000

.... it's safe to conclude that either nothing significant came of it, or they never conducted it.

Be careful who you call a cretin, pendejo. At least I read things and understand them, before I cut and paste them or provide links to them.

Post 9707:

Final report here: http://folk.uib.no/ngfls/NOClim/Docu...rt06_final.pdf
Any of you could translate the conclusions? Knut?

cretin...!

[Guillermo]

No hay peor pendejo que el pendejo esférico: es pendejo lo mires por donde lo mires.

Are you spheric, my dear "understanding what I read" Troy?

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

Post 9707:

Final report here: http://folk.uib.no/ngfls/NOClim/Docu...rt06_final.pdf
Any of you could translate the conclusions? Knut?

cretin...!

"The requested URL /ngfls/NOClim/Docu...rt06_final.pdf was not found on this server."

A bad link is their final report? Wow. I'm impressed....

But tell me: if you have access to their conclusions, why didn't you link to those instead of their proposal to begin with?

You know, I'm not Boston; I get tired of your crap pretty quick. Either start making sense, or shut up for a while.

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by troy2000

You know, I'm not Boston; I get tired of your crap pretty quick. Either start making sense, or shut up for a while.

Look how shocked and afraid of you I am:



You are the one who needs to begin to make sense. Your "true believer" attitude is so blind, full of furious frustration and lack of clear understanding, that you did not realize the paragraph:
"One unresolved question concerning rapid climate shifts in the past that may represent major feedback mechanisms, is in which way some minor forcing mechanisms result in significant changes in the Meridional Ocean Circulation (MOC). At present, a sudden change in the Thermohaline Circulation (THC) is the only well-developed theory for explaining abrupt climate changes."
was not from Prof. Gray, to whom you was scorning as you use to do when you do not have arguments, but from the norwegian page (just because you had not taken the time to read it).

Then you did not realized, once again because of your blind fury, I had posted the link to the final norwegian paper asking for a translation (it doesn't matter if it worked or not to the purpose of showing your blindness. Anyway I'll fix that: http://folk.uib.no/ngfls/NOClim/Docu...rt06_final.pdf).

Why the hell do you think you are superior to Boston, or to whoever here? You are just a ludricous bag of preconceived ideas, whithout the lesser ability to think outside your well stablished "faith" as you yourself have stated. The most conspicuous case of "global warmist" -as defined a few posts ago- in this whole thread.

You should be the one to shut up and make things much more useful and easygoing for all of us here, I'm afraid.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

Look how shocked and afraid of you I am:



You are the one who needs to begin to make sense. Your "true believer" attitude is so blind, full of furious frustration and lack of clear understanding, that you did not realize the paragraph:
"One unresolved question concerning rapid climate shifts in the past that may represent major feedback mechanisms, is in which way some minor forcing mechanisms result in significant changes in the Meridional Ocean Circulation (MOC). At present, a sudden change in the Thermohaline Circulation (THC) is the only well-developed theory for explaining abrupt climate changes."
was not from Prof. Gray, to whom you was scorning as you use to do when you do not have arguments, but from the norwegian page (just because you had not taken the time to read it).

Then you did not realized, once again because of your blind fury, I had posted the link to the final norwegian paper asking for a translation (it doesn't matter if it worked or not to the purpose of showing your blindness. Anyway I'll fix that: http://folk.uib.no/ngfls/NOClim/Docu...rt06_final.pdf).

Why the hell do you think you are superior to Boston, or to whoever here? You are just a ludricous bag of preconceived ideas, whithout the lesser ability to think outside your well stablished "faith" as you yourself have stated. The most conspicuous case of "global warmist" -as defined a few posts ago- in this whole thread.

You should be the one to shut up and make things much more useful and easygoing for all of us here, I'm afraid.

You're the 'true believer,' Guillermo. You spend your life scrabbling around the internet, desperately looking for something, anything that will let you claim that almost all the scientists in the world are liars, charlatans or completely incompetent. You bounce from solar radiation to ocean currents, from 'no causes at all because the world is actually cooling instead of warming,' to whatever else will let you avoid reality.

That's why I generally don't even bother to read your posts anymore, much less answer them. How many hours of your life do you spend on your self-appointed crusade to blindly cut and paste things you don't even understand, in order to annoy me for five minutes a day? There's something seriously wrong with your priorities....

You need to pick a story and stick to it, son; you can't tell a different whopper every day of the week and expect anyone to keep believing you. Global warming can't be caused by the sun yesterday, by the ocean today, and not be happening at all tomorrow.

[Guillermo]

...sigh!

OK, let's go back to work, as we have still a lot to do:

Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model

Holger Braun1, Marcus Christl1, Stefan Rahmstorf2, Andrey Ganopolski2, Augusto Mangini1, Claudia Kubatzki3, Kurt Roth4 & Bernd Kromer1

1.-Heidelberg Academy of Sciences, c/o Institute of Environmental Physics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 229, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
2.-Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, PO Box 601203, 14412 Potsdam, Germany
3.-Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bussestrasse 24, 27570 Bremerhaven, Germany
4.-Institute of Environmental Physics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 229, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany

Nature 438, 208-211 (10 November 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature04121; Received 26 May 2005; Accepted 10 August 2005

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture04121.html
and
http://www.awi.de/fileadmin/user_upl...sibleSolar.pdf

Abstract,
Many palaeoclimate records from the North Atlantic region show a pattern of rapid climate oscillations, the so-called Dansgaard–Oeschger events, with a quasi-periodicity of ~1,470 years for the late glacial period. Various hypotheses have been suggested to explain these rapid temperature shifts, including internal oscillations in the climate system and external forcing, possibly from the Sun. But whereas pronounced solar cycles of ~87 and ~210 years are well known a ~1,470-year solar cycle has not been detected. Here we show that an intermediate-complexity climate model with glacial climate conditions simulates rapid climate shifts similar to the Dansgaard–Oeschger events with a spacing of 1,470 years when forced by periodic freshwater input into the North Atlantic Ocean in cycles of ~87 and ~210 years. We attribute the robust 1,470-year response time to the superposition of the two shorter cycles, together with strongly nonlinear dynamics and the long characteristic timescale of the thermohaline circulation. For Holocene conditions, similar events do not occur. We conclude that the glacial 1,470-year climate cycles could have been triggered by solar forcing despite the absence of a 1,470-year solar cycle.

[Guillermo]

Variability of the Thermohaline Circulation (THC)

J. Meincke1*, D. Quadfasel2, W.H. Berger3, K. Brander4, R.R. Dickson5,
P.M. Haugan6, M. Latif7, J. Marotzke8, J. Marshall9, J.F. Minster10, J. Pätzold11, G. Parilla12, W. de Ruijter13 and F. Schott14

1 University of Hamburg, Institute of Oceanography, Troplowitzstr. 7,
D-22529 Hamburg, Germany
2 Niels Bohr Institute for Astronomy, Physics and Geophysics, Juliane Maries Vej 30
DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
3 Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCLA, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0215, USA
4 ICES/GLOBEC Secretary, ICES, Palaegade 2-4, DK-1261 Copenhagen K, Denmark
5 Centre of Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, The Laboratory,
Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk NR 33 OHT, United Kingdom
6 University of Bergen, Geophysical Institute, Allegaten 70, N-5007 Bergen, Norway
7 Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie, Bundesstr. 55, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany
8 University of Southampton, School of Ocean and Earth Science,
Southampton SO14 3 ZH, United Kingdom
9 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Earth,
Atmospheric and Planetary Science, 77 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139 /USA
10IFREMER, 155 rue Jean-Jaques Rousseau, 92138 Issy-les-Moulineaux Cedex, France
11 University of Bremen, FB 5, Klagenfurter Straße, D-28359 Bremen, Germany
12 Instituto Español de Oceanografia, Corazón de Maria 8, E-28002 Madrid, Spain
13 Utrecht University, Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, PO Box 80005,
NL-3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands
14 University of Kiel, Institute of Oceanography, Düsternbrooker Weg 24,
D-24105 Kiel, Germany

WEFER G, LAMY F, MANTOURA F (eds), 2003, Marine Science Frontiers for Europe. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokyo, pp 39-60

http://www.ifm.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fil...fE_meincke.pdf

From there:
The existing data sets indicate a global cooling of about one degree Celsius during the "Little Ice Age", the most significant climate event of the past
1,000 years for the northern hemisphere. This phenomenon lasted from the 15th to the beginning of the 19th century (Bradley and Jones 1995). The
subsequent period of natural global warming overlaps with the effects of increased industrial carbon dioxide emission and is used to study in detail the
anthropogenic influence on the carbon cycle over the past 200 years. The natural and anthropogenic influences on the climate trend of the past 100 years are not easily distinguished. The "Little Ice Age" will be at the center of future Holocene climate research because it can be applied as a natural climate experiment, acting as a background upon which to interpret the anthropogenic influence on climate (Broecker 2000).

[Guillermo]

Essay
Climate Change: Sources of Warming in the Late 20th Century
Gerald E. Marsh, 2009
Argonne National Laboratory (Ret)
5433 East View Park
Chicago, IL 60615

http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/up...scillation.pdf

Some excerpts:

The Visbeck, et at. argument that “anthropogenic climate change might influence modes
of natural variability, perhaps making it more likely that one phase of the NAO is
preferred over the other” cannot be decided by correlation over the limited period
available. Most of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide was put into the atmosphere after
~1940. The period from ~1940 to 1976-1977 was dominated by a large negative NAO—
see Fig. 1—followed by a large positive NAO. Since similar positive NAOs have
occurred in the past, it cannot be said that the latest is due to human activity simply
because it correlates with rising carbon dioxide concentrations.

.......................................
The Arctic is purported to be the region of the earth most sensitive to radiative forcing by
rising carbon dioxide concentrations. The temperature rise there is often cited, usually
without consideration being given to the PDO shift in 1976-1977, as proof of the climate
impact of rising anthropogenic concentrations of greenhouse gases. But other factors,
even if one excludes the PDO shift, may be responsible for most if not all of the
temperature rise.
................................
Shindell and Faluvegi12 have looked at the impact of aerosols on Arctic climate and
concluded that “decreasing concentrations of sulphate aerosols and increasing
concentrations of black carbon have substantially contributed to rapid Arctic warming
during the past three decades.” They estimate that some 45% of the warming during this
period was due to this change in both types of aerosol concentrations. What this means is
that rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are not responsible for almost half of arctic
warming.

................................
the very strong correlation between galactic cosmic rays, solar
irradiance, and low cloud cover: When solar activity decreases, with a consequent small
decrease in irradiance, the number of galactic cosmic rays entering the earth’s
atmosphere increases as does the amount of low cloud cover. This increase in cloud
cover results in an increase in the earth’s albedo, thereby lowering the average
temperature. The sun’s 11 year cycle is therefore not only associated with changes in
irradiance, but also with changes in the solar wind, which in turn affect cloud cover by
modulating the cosmic ray flux. This, it is argued, constitutes the strong positive
feedback needed to explain the significant impact of small changes in solar activity on
climate.
............................
One thing that should be clear at this point, however, is that the recent rise in global
temperature is probably not due to rising carbon dioxide concentrations as is generally
assumed. Given the uncertainties outlined above, even this basic assumption behind the
findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is probably incorrect.
And while rising carbon dioxide concentrations are likely to be responsible for a small
portion of the warming since the mid-1970s, the IPCC has been using far too high an
estimate for climate sensitivity to a doubling of carbon dioxide in its projections.
..................................
SUMMARY
The conclusion of this essay can be stated in a single sentence: Much, if not all, of the
warming during the late 20th century was most likely due to natural rather than
anthropogenic causes.