Son of Mulder.

quote:

And don't forget the chaos part as well ie the positions of climate equilibrium will change so warmer here, colder there, oscillations and resonances altered etc.

The 'chaos part' is weather. That's why it's necessary to filter out the 'weather' so you can see 'climate' from the correct perspective (relativity-ly speaking). The changing 'resonance' in established 'oscillations' still looks like a 'pump hunt' dynamic to me.

BTW. I googled "earth centrifuge" (with the quotes) on the net and the only relative link was our discussion, here, on C4. We're famous (or should that be infamous). It really doesn't seem to have been researched very much!

quote:

I saw a nice article on the beeb yesterday

Well I thought that 'reef bleaching' was caused by UV and not temperature. Is the beeb accurate with this?

Also, I've read that the 'magic temperature' was 27 centigrade? That's supposed to be the temperature that WV (water vapour) abundance at the ocean surface generates an atmospheric 'up draught', coriolis effect and the resulting typhoon/hurricane (I'm not implying that ocean temp can't rise above 27C, only that 27C is where the ocean cooling by evaporation starts). However, they may be giving reference to shallow waters near to a large coastal area where coral is being 'pasteurised'? Though I believe they indicate the 'warm water pool' to the east of Indonesia.

quote:

I've seen no serious scientific paper on what the effects of aerosol relocation and O3 will have been both in reality and in the model predictions. As far as I understand it these are simply parametrised in the models and not functionally modelled in the equations.

If the data 'was' there, I think they'd need to network super computers for any timely result. Any papers I've seen that give any hint in this direction can't be posted here.

quote:

Hence jury on causes of temperature rise in 20th century is still out round my way.

My jury came back with a verdict!

quote:

I gather it's been a bit cold in China this winter. Must be the CO2.

Ha, ha! I can't see how, and China isn't 'global'. Though solar UV is still fairly quiescent, and that is 'global'.

Best regards, suricat.

Steve_M.

Any idea if the models take account of UVb and O3 interactions in the troposphere (upper 'and' lower)?

Best regards, suricat.

Suricat

quote:

The 'chaos part' is weather.

What I describe is equivalent to moving the positions of the magnets in the chaos analogy we discussed a few months ago. The collective weather resulting from that presents itself as climate change

Son of Mulder.

This is getting a bit off thread. See my reply in 'The Great Green Debate'.

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

The 'chaos part' is weather. That's why it's necessary to filter out the 'weather' so you can see 'climate' from the correct perspective (relativity-ly speaking).

That's an interesting insight. I have read with interest much of the science debate on this forum about AGW and also about the subject from other sources, and as a layperson it seems to me that the AGW science is peerless. However, I find it difficult to accept that long-term predictions of for eaxample, runaway warming of 6 deg and more and 'tipping points' can be be relied upon when the system is so complex and essentially chaotic. It is difficult to forecast the weather accurately for next month (apart from general patterns). How far into the future can the models reliably predict?

jameella.

quote:

quote:
The 'chaos part' is weather. That's why it's necessary to filter out the 'weather' so you can see 'climate' from the correct perspective (relativity-ly speaking).

This is a quote from one of my postings. Thus, I feel obliged to respond.

quote:

I have read with interest much of the science debate on this forum about AGW and also about the subject from other sources, and as a layperson it seems to me that the AGW science is peerless.

I concur. The IPCC (AGW body that 'oversees' AGW) doesn't seem to have any 'peers' that can dispute their findings.

quote:

However, I find it difficult to accept that long-term predictions of for eaxample, runaway warming of 6 deg and more and 'tipping points' can be be relied upon when the system is so complex and essentially chaotic.

Again, I concur. More data and scientific understanding is needed before these comments can be made with true conviction.

quote:

It is difficult to forecast the weather accurately for next month (apart from general patterns).

Weather is one thing, but the weather you can expect as an average is yet another thing.

'Climate' is defined by the average weather that a region is given, 'on average', of the weather that has been encountered by the region in historical memory. A 'forecast' of climate should be the change in weather that can be expected as an average for the region.

quote:

How far into the future can the models reliably predict?

Steve_M is the nearest connection for this advice in this forum. I'll supplicate to his response (at least in the first instance).

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:
We've had less than half a degree of warming in our life-times, so a bit of cold weather every now and then is still to be expected.

This half a degree is why I tend to be sceptical of the whole hype surrounding GW. The sceptic in me sees an industry being built on sand (as one possibility).

I'll keep this brief, as I don't think the AGW people here actually take any factual information in. So I'll stick to just correcting errors.

quote:

You're not wrong there! It is also the case that the organisms on this planet have, to varying degrees, been responsible for such changes over Earth's long history. Some have been advantageous, but other changes have led to massive extinctions.

Please state which organisms have ever driven climate on this planet besides plant life?

None of the earths 6 mass extinctions happened as a result of an increase in temperatures in fact all 6 where a result of dropping temperatures. So again the fact, there has been NO mass extinction in earths history which was caused my increases in temperature.

quote:

Given that we now have some evidence that we might be responsible for at least some of these changes, and that we might be able to do something about it, wouldn't it be sensible to try? Or would you rather leave it all down to "fate", and await our eventual demise along with that of many other species?

Again read the above comment, the assumption that the Earths temperature should remain static is really the main error here. I would just like to point out that we have just come out of an ice age and we WILL continue to rise to a sate of no northern ice sheets etc just like the earth has done 1000's of time in the past. Before trying to help the word, help yourselves to a science book people.

quote:

I'll keep this brief, as I don't think the AGW people here actually take any factual information in. So I'll stick to just correcting errors.

Get with it Geowizard! The post you replied to was made over two months ago. And why should plants be excluded as organisms? What provides the oxygen? And why should you assume that all "AGW people" would agree with the point you are disagreeing with anyway?

The reason why no "mass" extinctions have taken place due to warming is probably because there haven't been many times when rapid warming has taken place. The Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum is one example that had a severe impact on some species but even that isn't relevant since once again you are missing the point that the climate we have is well suited to our civilisation, and a warmer climate will severely impact it in the relative short term.

You have this strange idea that only geologists can comprehend the vast scales of deep time, but you seem to have a problem understanding potential short term impacts on individual species.

I concur with geowizard. Steve_M, I think that you would like it if we were back in the little ice age (incidently, caused by low solar activity) when everything was just great.

The last interglacial period was warmer than the current climate and most species seemed to survive that, otherwise they would not be here today. That even includes the polar bears! Have a look at the vostok data and tell me that the spike of the last interglacial was not rapid warming. Shows tha 0.6 degs over 100years (large proportion natural) is hardly something to get worked up about.

Also worth noting that although the last interglacial was warmer than the present, no tipping points were reached. (i.e. there is no mystical 6 degrees tipping point described by mr Lovelock).

quote:

Also worth noting that although the last interglacial was warmer than the present, no tipping points were reached.

err... maybe because the polar bears weren't burning huge amounts of fossil fuels?

Lucibee, tipping points are not caused by CO2. They are (supposedly) caused by increases in temperature. It should not matter what caused the temperature increase. In the last interglacial the temperatures were higher than today and no tipping points were reached.

quote:

The last interglacial period was warmer than the current climate and most species seemed to survive that, otherwise they would not be here today.

There is a problem with your logic circuits if you think that statement makes sense. Even if the first half of your statement is true you can't assess the number of species that failed to survive by using the number of species that currently exist!

quote:

That even includes the polar bears! Have a look at the vostok data and tell me that the spike of the last interglacial was not rapid warming. Shows tha 0.6 degs over 100years (large proportion natural) is hardly something to get worked up about.

I don't give a stuff about polar bears (well I do, but it's not high on my list of things to worry about).

Sea levels were about 6 metres higher during the last interglacial. That's not really something for most species to get worked up about, but it's something for humans to get worked up about because we live in expensive fixed buildings near the sea that are supposed to last for hundreds of years.

Temperatures *may* have been warmer during the last interglacial. But we're pretty close and will probably exceed them well within the next couple of hundred years.

I still don't understand why some people think that digging up and burning large quantities of coal and oil in a short space of time won't make things get hotter. Is it just cos they failed physics at school? ;-)

quote:

Lucibee, tipping points are not caused by CO2. They are (supposedly) caused by increases in temperature. It should not matter what caused the temperature increase. In the last interglacial the temperatures were higher than today and no tipping points were reached.

How do you know this?

quote:

Corals from the Huon Peninsula constrain sea level at -80+/-10 m at 131+/-2 ka, and from Barbados, at -30+/-5 m at 129+/-1 ka. Combined with constraints from stable sites, these observations require an exceedingly rapid rise in sea level of 30-50 m per 1000 years at 130+/-1 ka. This indicates that large-scale catastrophic melting of the once massive continental ice sheets occurred in phase with the rapidly increasing northern hemisphere (NH) summer insolation,

The coral record of last interglacial sea levels and sea surface temperatures
Authors: McCulloch M.T.1; Esat T.
Source: Chemical Geology, Volume 169, Number 1, 15 August 2000 , pp. 107-129(23)

quote:

we use a combination of a continuous high-resolution sea-level record, based on the stable oxygen isotopes of planktonic foraminifera from the central Red Sea15, 16, 17, 18, and age constraints from coral data to estimate rates of sea-level change during MIS-5e. We find average rates of sea-level rise of 1.6 m per century.

High rates of sea-level rise during the last interglacial period
E. J. Rohling et al
Nature Geoscience 1, 38 - 42 (2008)
Published online: 16 December 2007 | doi:10.1038/ngeo.2007.28

quote:

Our results suggest that the Greenland ice sheet was considerably smaller and steeper during the Eemian, and plausibly contributed 4-5.5 m to the sea-level highstand during that period. We conclude that the high sea level during the last interglacial period most probably included a large contribution from Greenland meltwater and therefore should not be interpreted as evidence for a significant reduction of the West Antarctic ice sheet.

Substantial contribution to sea-level rise during the last interglacial from the Greenland ice sheet
Cuffey KM, Marshall SJ.
Nature. 2000 Apr 6;404(6778):591-4

quote:

It is inferred that sea level for most of the interval remained near +2 m, restraining reef growth, and that the notch at +6 m represents a rapid and brief excursion just before the close of the substage. The subsequent fall must have been rapid in order to leave the notch profile intact and mobilize windward lagoon ooids into dunes before cementation could anchor them. In order to explain the rapid rise to +6 m, glacial surging is invoked. The subsequent fall, also rapid, may be a consequence of the surge flooding high latitudes and providing enough moisture to initiate reglaciation and drawdown.

Rapid sea-level changes at the close of the last interglacial (Substage 5e) recorded in Bahamian island geology
A. Conrad Neumann, and Paul J. Hearty
Geology; September 1996; v. 24; no. 9; p. 775-778

Lucibee

quote:

Is it just cos they failed physics at school?

Perhaps they did well and can see through the CO2 hypothesis.

Geoman.

quote:

Perhaps they did well and can see through the CO2 hypothesis.

Your cynicism is both undue, and well noted, to me.

Regards, suricat.

Coal + burning = energy (mostly heat) + CO2 + H20 + lots of tarry stuff

I see this as making things getting hotter and putting more CO2 (which should be buried for another million years or so) into the atmosphere. Unless burning coal can directly produce ice and absorb CO2(I missed that physics lesson!).

Lucibee.

1. To enable coal to burn the element oxygen is required. The main products from coal combustion are CO₂ and H₂0.

2. The carbon dioxide and water from coal combustion need to be broken down by Earth's flora before the oxygen can be released again.

3. If you bury the carbon dioxide "for another million years or so", how can Earth's flora get to work on it?

Even the IPCC recognise that atmospheric oxygen is being 'sequestered' at a greater rate than its sequestration rate due to incorporation within carbon dioxide! The total sequestration rate is still low, but you can't get around this one by 'sweeping it under the carpet'. Hot cobalt rings (think that was the metal) could be a way forward that manufactures 'production gas' (CO) at the same time.

Best regards, suricat.

PS. Your cynicism is also noted. You can burn coal to produce ice in an absorption refrigerator and the water condensate in the fridge absorbs some CO₂, but this is engineering science.

Posted a response to your to your post dated 16-03-08 19:17 suricat, if it doesn't make it to these pages google 'billion trees' and look for the blog about solar power in Spain and think 'irony'

for some reason '25 billion trees' works better

quote:

PS. Your cynicism is also noted. You can burn coal to produce ice in an absorption refrigerator and the water condensate in the fridge absorbs some CO2, but this is engineering science

PPS
I was going to mention this but you beat me to it