ocean conditions are changing due to Rapid Global Climate Shift

No, I'm not a bigot or a xenophobe. And it's rather rude of you to accuse me of being one, just because I don't trust the cited source of your little graph. I've spent a lot of time in grocery store check-out lines over the years, reading headlines on tabloids and gossip sheets. And one of their favorite ploys has always been to attribute whatever ridiculous nonsense they're peddling this month to 'Russian scientists.' Said scientists are conveniently on the other side of the world in a rather closed society, which makes it hard to argue with them...

Do you have a problem with me noticing and commenting on that simple fact?

And on a more basic level, why should I trust a graph that documents a cycle being repeated over and over for at least two hundred and fifty years - then suddenly adds an unexplained 'projection' that mysteriously flat-lines?

To survive on today's internet, I've developed a strong bs-screening protocol in sheer self defense. And I'm sorry to inform you that your graph didn't make it past the initial screening process. Therefore I see no need to waste more of my limited time on it.

 

Petros.

Here is a graph of global temperature trends. It doesn't take a genius to see that the trend is generally up.

 

I agree that temperatures have held somewhat constant for the last decade or so. Earlier in this thread we discussed possible reasons for why that is so. Possible causes are large amounts of sulfur dioxide from volcanic eruptions or from the huge increase in coal burning in China. If I remember correctly some climate scientists are now suggesting that temperatures may not rise too much for the next decade or so before they resume rising.

This is a strange-looking graph to me. For one thing, there is no temperature scale on it.

Second, in comparing the Harris-Mann graph with the temperature graph below I see some similarity in location of the 'humps' and 'valleys', but little agreement with their amplitudes. While I agree that volcanoes can and have caused global cooling, I don't understand why Harris&Mann think that volcanic eruptions which occur while the climate is warming bolster their argument? (volcanic eruptions are shown @1500BC, @50BC, @900AD, and a whole string of eruptions during the 1700s and 1800s, all while the climate was warming??) If Harris-Mann were correct, I would expect the volcanic eruptions to have occurred while the temperatures were near their peaks, thus causing the temperatures to fall.

Also note that they are projecting temperatures to drop through 2019, then resume climbing to far above recent high temperatures by 2038, resulting in what they call a "Hot/Dry Period".

This is what they have to say about Hot/Dry Periods. Pretty scary, if you believe their analysis. Historical Worldwide Climate and Weather

I also disagree with the Harris-Mann graph showing that higher temperatures than present occurred relatively recently (1300AD & 1100BC). The graph below suggests that the temperatures we are experiencing now haven't occurred in perhaps the last 150,000 years. (Note that the time scale is not linear)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

 

Alan,

that chart covers much too small a time period to be relevant to my earlier posts, I always talk about long term trends, on a geologic scale. short clips of time are used to falsify an issue, it is called data selection. But even in that short chart you can see the trend has flattened out, it is not rising for the last decade. this would be consistent with what the Russian scientists claim.

I think the chart without the scale is just to show it graphically, temperatures are all related to current temp.

That last chart that Imaginnarynumber posted is rather interesting, I have not seen one go back that far. From about 5 million years ago and past, it shows we are still in a very long term cooling tread. Clearly within the last 500,000 years it has both been much warmer and much colder than the current temps. Just as I have been saying. It would be difficult to draw any conclusions about future treads by looking at these LONG TERM charts.

 

When it comes to chart-length you're a hard man to please. Here's a few more.

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

 

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

Figure 2: The three main orbital variations. Eccentricity: changes in the shape of the Earth’s orbit.Obliquity: changes in the tilt of the Earth’s rotational axis. Precession: wobbles in the Earth’s rotational axis.

The combined effect of these orbital cycles causes long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, the orbital cycles triggered warming at high latitutdes approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water. This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres (Shakun 2012). The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999).

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.

CO2 from the Southern Ocean also mixes through the atmosphere, spreading the warming north (Cuffey 2001). Tropical marine sediments record warming in the tropics around 1000 years after Antarctic warming, around the same time as the CO2 rise (Stott 2007). Ice cores in Greenland find that warming in the Northern Hemisphere lags the Antarctic CO2 rise (Caillon 2003).

To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

• Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
• CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
• CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet

Overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurs after the atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 3).


Figure 3: The global proxy temperature stack (blue) as deviations from the early Holocene (11.5–6.5 kyr ago) mean, an Antarctic ice-core composite temperature record (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots). The Holocene, Younger Dryas (YD), Bølling–Allerød (B–A), Oldest Dryas (OD) and Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) intervals are indicated. Error bars, 1-sigma; p.p.m.v. = parts per million by volume. Shakun et al. Figure 2a.

 

Here we go AGAIN!
Everybody is locked into their perception of AGW as a fact or a swindle. (I think it's a swindle! )
Nobody convinces anybody to switch sides.
And we'll all be dead before events play out as to who was right.

PS:
WE AIN"T CHANGING USA TO SUIT YOU!

 

Plenty of people have changed their mind when presented with compelling evidence. Just because you can't/won't change your mind doesn't mean that other reasonable folks can't have a thoughtful discussion.

 

Any chance of you coming to YOUR senses?

 

no doubt human activity has an impact. The question is to what extent? we are clueless as to the causes of the past dramatic changes, and just as clueless of the current "forcing" agents. that bit of sophistry trying to explain how CO2 causes warming when it only rises decades after the temp warms is one of the most entertainment essays of self delusion I have ever read.

A 40 percent increase in burning of hydrocarbon fuels resulted in a 1 deg C rise in temp? where is the connection? That one deg is well within the normal scatter of the normal cycle. I seen no proof. Just speculation on some rather thin data.

 

Actually you are right about that. You are clueless about these matters.

 

Very astute. Couldn't have said it better.

 

"Very astute. Couldn't have said it better. " Yobarnacle

(I'm sure the world needs more sycophants )

 

You didn't give me credit, yet quoted me verbatim!
5 yard penalty!

Or better yet, go stand with your nose in the corner for an indeterminate time. You can let yourself out, AFTER you get your mind right! (penalty I used to give my kids for fractious behavior).

 

Sounds like a message the CO posted on our bulletin board one time: "There will be no liberty until morale improves."

But he was joking.... I think.

I don't know if it has anything to do with long-term climate change, but it feels like the monsoon got here early this year. It's overcast, hot and sticky, more like Florida than like the desert. Hopefully a storm will break, and put an end to it. I've resorted to desperate measures, and I'm doing something I've rarely done in the years since I left the Philippines: I'm drinking iced beer. As in pouring my beer into a glass of ice before drinking it....